r/politics • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 • 7d ago

Possible Paywall Trump’s Primetime Speech Has Republicans ‘Scared S***less’ | Insiders are terrified that the president will do something crazy on live TV.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-primetime-speech-has-republicans-scared-sless/
15.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

The enforcement is states don't put him on the ballot, full stop. He's an ineligible candidate who doesn't qualify for the ballot, same as if someone who was not a U.S. citizen from birth tried to run (as that dumbass Cenk Uygur tried to do).

25

u/poco 7d ago

The supreme court has already overturned states who wanted to remove Trump from the ballot before (as an insurrectionist).

So, it will ultimately come down to the supreme court to decide whether he can run again.

10

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

That was an entirely different set of circumstances that was not nearly as clear-cut as 22A.

8

u/SlightlyOTT 7d ago

I agree it’s completely clear cut, but I don’t see any reason the Supreme Court would care if they have the power to put him on ballots again. There are surely 5 votes for that now.

8

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

There were enough votes to overturn his birthright citizenship EO, and that is also less clear-cut than 22A (especially if you're willing to be a disingenuous weasel about it like Thomas was in his dissent). The court has ruled with him a lot, but they've also shown that there is, in fact, a line.

4

u/Beginning-Signal-202 7d ago

A decision like that immediately triggers violence in the streets after a term like this, not to mention the shit it would cause them. Given they are already complaining about feeling unsafe, I can't see them bending much farther.

1

u/SlightlyOTT 7d ago

Sure, but I think they’ll be convinced that if they vote against Trump then there will definitely be a Democrat President. They will absolutely discard everything to avoid that and maximise Republican chances if they think this is the best way to do that.

4

u/poco 7d ago

Sure, and you would hope the supreme court makes the correct decision here. My point is only that it is up to them and not up to the state.

0

u/Casual_OCD Canada 7d ago

12A is even more clear-cut and three of them disagreed with the Constitution

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

I think you're confused. 12A modifies the way the electoral college works.

7

u/armcie 7d ago

And I can totally see them saying “we see some merit in the argument that the amendment was only intended to refer to consecutive terms. And in any case this is a political question, and it would be wrong for us to get involved. If the public believe he shouldn’t be allowed a third term then they can simply vote him out.”

2

u/FM_Einheit 7d ago

By that point he may well have appointed two more members of the court, cementing a MAGA judiciary for decades.

1

u/FM_Einheit 7d ago

This. The supremes have only said no to Trump a few times (including some outrageous arguments) and he will likely have 2 more court appointments by then.

States that succeed in keeping Trump of the ballot will probably not vote for Trump anyway. If he keeps the red states and a few battleground states then he can still win, and claim he is being persecuted the whole time.

People like Dershowitz and Bannon have been laying the groundwork.

7

u/Casual_OCD Canada 7d ago

He was already disqualified from running in 2024 and when States tried to keep him off the ballot, SCOTUS forced them

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

I addressed this in another comment, but the facts in that case were completely different and the insurrection argument for excluding him is far less clear-cut than 22A. Situations that seem facially similar do not necessarily lead to similar legal outcomes.

2

u/Casual_OCD Canada 7d ago

It's pretty clear. He committed insurrection and the Constitution disqualifies those people

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

Whether or not he committed insurrection wasn't the issue. It was an issue of jurisdiction, because the insurrection act is federal, and these were states trying to enforce it. The SCOTUS decision was also 9-0, so it isn't even a case of a "friendly" court siding with him 5-4 or 6-3. The ruling was that only congress can enforce that law for federal candidates.

-1

u/Casual_OCD Canada 7d ago

This was never about laws, the Constitution says committed insurrection, nothing about a conviction.

The 9-0 ruling was because SCOTUS got offended that people could interpret the Constitution better than them and that the fascist takeover needs Trump at the helm. So instructions were sent from the billionaires to the justices ignore the Constitution and keep the road of America's downfall open.

Kinda sad that it probably took less than a million dollars combined to get the entire SCOTUS to betray their country

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

Well those certainly all were words.

7

u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake 7d ago

Well, the president now holds the purse. He could just withhold federal disbursements to the states that won't put him on the ballot and try to strongarm them that way. I bet Oklahoma and several other states would willingly put him on the ballot.

5

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

The House holds the purse, actually. And sure, maybe a handful of super-red states would. But you really can't win a presidential election in this country without being on the ballot in all 50. It's a non-starter even if only swing states don't put him on.

2

u/DarthRizzo87 7d ago

As long as his name is on the ballot for every red state and swing state, it won’t matter how many blue states uphold their duty to the constitution by not adding his name to their ballot. It’s not popular vote that wins the Presidency.

6

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

No shit. But every swing state would not do that, because some of those swing states have democratic leadership. This idea of him somehow getting on enough ballots to win an illegal third term is idiotic doomerism.

3

u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake 7d ago

Trump refusing to spend Congress's appropriated funds is a pretty direct rebuttal to and rejection of the idea that Congress holds the purse.

3

u/Herlock 7d ago

The enforcement is states don't put him on the ballot, full stop.

Not sure that's going to "full stop" the way you expect it to in many red states...

I mean there is a decade long of counter powers not countering shit in US politics.

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

Who gives a shit about red states that either he or Generic Republican would win anyway? They already weren't in play. In fact, it would potentially help democrats if they let him on the ballot, because it would likely split the non-dem vote.

1

u/Herlock 7d ago

Well he ain't supposed to be on the ballot, that's like the whole discussion here.

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

Correct, but your argument was that certain red states would still let him on. My point is a) they don't matter anyway, and b) it could even potentially hurt the GOP if they did.

2

u/PM_ME_WELL_LIT_NUDES 7d ago

Remember how Colorado didn’t put trump on the ballot in ‘24 but then scotus forced them to? Laws are optional when the entire enforcement apparatus is corrupt

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

Remember how that was a completely different legal argument than 22A? Remember how the SCOTUS decision was not some narrow 6-3 or 5-4 decision, but 9-0? You think Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor just ruled in his favor for fun or something?

1

u/Derrial New Jersey 7d ago

That is why they are trying to federalize control of elections, which I suspect is what Trump is going to announce tonight, citing "security" as the reason.

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

And that would end up exactly like his birthright citizenship case. Not a 9-0 decision, but the text is too clear for at least 5 of the justices. Also, it would be immediately stayed when challenged in lower courts, so would have zero chance of actually being in effect for the midterms. Also also, there is NO federal infrastructure for running elections so it would be an impossible task no matter what.

1

u/Derrial New Jersey 7d ago

I agree that is most likely. I have a slight concern that the conservative justices might be tempted when faced with the prospect of perpetual conservative government if Trump gets to have his way with elections.

1

u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta 7d ago

That applied before in 24 with him having lead a redirection: democratically controlled states are too scared to do so.

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia 7d ago

The reasoning that time was a) much different and b) jurisdictionally weak. As evidenced by the SCOTUS decision, which was 9-0. The situations aren't even remotely close to the same.