Qasim Rashid, Esq.Republicans: The Senate cannot convict and ban Trump because that's for the courts to decide!
Colorado Supreme Court: Okay, done.
Republicans: wait not like that
Tanya Kasim VOTED@QasimRashid Spot on! 😂 😂 😂
zilla@QasimRashid Republicans are hypocrites.
Nicole ParsonsNone of these 147 congressional coup-plotters in the GOP should ever hold office ever again.
https://www.salon.com/2023/04/28/special-counsel-calls-for-tapes-that-implicate-ted-cruz-in-attempts-to-delay-bidens-certification/
RiaResists
enmodo ⚛️ 🧬 🇺🇦 🍉@QasimRashid "we can't let a partisan State Court ban Trump from office, let's let the Supreme Court decide..."
Baahahahahaha!
You can't make this shit up.
Comrade elronxenu@QasimRashid Republicans: Let's force the courts to not hold Trump to account in any manner.
Jacob | Five Eye Tea@QasimRashid I'm not going to get political but the idea of a single state court being capable of banning a candidate from running sets a very, very bad precedent for EVERYONE. A candidate should only be banned either by the SCOTUS or by a 75% majority of state supreme courts. It shouldn't be permissible for one state to determine who can and cannot run.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen@ChallengeApathy @QasimRashid Then you will want to change the Constitution to remove the Electoral College and take the responsibility of running elections away from the states. As it is now, elections are PER STATE.
@toriver @QasimRashid Indeed, but the courts are there to determine the legality of legislation, not to determine what candidates can run. They're unelected. It's not their role to decide politics, it's their role to determine legality.
@ChallengeApathy @QasimRashid As they have done. Election qualifications are part of the laws. Being «unelected» is not a disqualification for doing their job. Is your doctor «elected»? No. Being «elected» to a position is a rarity, most people are hired. That does not make them worthless. Unless you want a separate political class that runs unsupervised by others.
@toriver @QasimRashid The doctor analogy is a bit flawed. You get to choose what doctor you go to (within reason). It's not legality the Colorado Supreme Court determined, it's politics. This whole thing really does boil down to the ruling class acting as if voters can't make decisions for themselves. I, for one, am fully capable of doing my research and making up my own mind without the help of mass media, big tech algorithmic manipulation and, yes, without the help of an unelected court stepping out of its bounds to play party politics.
Jake Hildreth (acorn) 
@ChallengeApathy @toriver @QasimRashid The Colorado state Supreme Court is appointed but each member has to win retention votes to remain on the court. 6 of 7 current judges have won retention elections. So, while not elected in the traditional sense, they are supported by the voting public.
@horse @toriver @QasimRashid I appreciate the explanation but this is still an issue. With a representative or senator, you're able to impact the way they vote in congressional hearings where there's proper debate.
@ChallengeApathy @toriver @QasimRashid I would fully agree with you if Supreme Court justices lived in isolation chambers completely separate from public opinion or <gestures wildly at the world>.
If elections keep reps and senators (at least somewhat) beholden to the public, why don't elections do the same for justices?
@horse @toriver @QasimRashid Fair perspective, neighbor (PA native here). I just don't think anything as important as dictating the future of our federal government should be left up to oligarchs, regardless of what sort of oligarchs those are. Something that big should be, at the very least, heavily and transparently impacted by the public at large. These people are supposed to represent all of us, not just a select few and that's why this precedent concerns me.
It's really not about politics for me in this specific case, just about the precedent it sets. We're in more dire straights than we've been in since the Civil War and this partisan goofiness isn't helping. We have differences but both sides demonize each other instead of recognizing that the system WANTS us to do that: a house divided cannot stand.
Baron Vonskinnback@ChallengeApathy @toriver @QasimRashid Trump has fallen foul of an actual law that ensures that political candidates who have previously tried to overthrow the government & commit treason are not allowed to run for office. In the same way that other laws prevent paedophiles from becoming teachers, unless you are saying parents should be allowed to overrule that law because they like the teacher & are willing to risk it?
@ChallengeApathy @QasimRashid Okay, let’s use a policeman instead. Will you ignore instructions from "unelected" police officers? Enforcing the law - which restricts who can run - is the court’s job. What next, someone tries to run who is under 35 and not a citizen, and the court cannot stop them despite the law because that would be «political»?
Stop worshipping the elected over the professionally qualified, getting elected just means you lied the best.
@toriver @QasimRashid Police officers, too, are employed by the government put in place by the people. A supreme court justice is appointed for life by one person, at least at the federal level. While that's important for the sake of determining the legality of legislation, it's not right that they can determine whether a candidate runs for a public office, which is a legal right of every US citizen provided they haven't been tried AND convicted (that's the important part) of crimes that would disqualify them.
As I said prior, this isn't about politics to me. Not in this particular case, at least. To me, this represents a massive overreach and ego trip from a flyover state's supreme court looking for their fifteen minutes of fame for being "the court that took down Trump". It's disingenuous, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars and it's setting a dangerous precedent. You'd 110% be in agreement with me if a candidate you like were in this same position.
I'm not worshiping anyone. I'm not even really in favor of Trump this time around (more of a Ramaswamy guy) but even so, if it happens to one candidate, it can happen to ANY candidate, regardless of what side they're on. The idea that one state can determine the fate of the rest of the country is completely and totally contradictory to the entire CONCEPT of our united federation of sovereign states.
@ChallengeApathy @QasimRashid No, it is their job to make rulings regarding the laws - including the laws that regulate elections, and I am going to mute you as a Trump cultist.
A Slightly Orange Cat@ChallengeApathy @QasimRashid It probably won't be a single state court for long. This ruling will surely embolden other states to proceed with their disqualification plans and soon we'll have multiple such rulings.
@mbrailer @QasimRashid Which would set an even MORE dangerous precedent. Imagine the courts start deciding candidates until we have states where entire political parties are effectively banned because of the courts' candidates.
That'd be the end of the United States, period. Those of us on the Fediverse realize the dangers of fracturing and defederation, those same dangers apply (to an even more serious degree) to the United States federal government.
@ChallengeApathy @QasimRashid The US Constitution permits this, and the bar for disqualification is appropriately very high.
Yes, I can see a future in which Republicans attempt to bar a Dem candidate on spurious 14th Amendment charges, much like the current House leadership is pursuing impeachment against Biden.
But unlike in the House, these efforts will have to pass through a court and then an appellate court, where the facts will be weighed by impartial judges, not partisan actors.
@mbrailer @QasimRashid Rules for thee, not for me.
Sounds like a blueprint for such an amazing utopia!