“Removing a candidate from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not something my office takes lightly,” California’s Democratic secretary of state previously said.

  • PowerCrazy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    It was responding to your original assertion.

    The courts are intended to be neutral arbiters of law itself

    Which in Trumps case has nothing to do with the original intent of the law (insurrection clause, since no insurrection has taken place.)

    As for my original assertion. The General Public is absolutely the folks the justice system should be accountable to, after-all government is supposed to be FOR the people. And if The People want to vote for someone who wants to overthrow the government, the courts have no business saying they can’t.

    So if you think the court shouldn’t care about the general public, then the insurrection clause doesn’t apply. If you think the court should care about the general public, then they have to let the voters decide.
    In either case Trump belongs on the ballot.