In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”

The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.

Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”

  • BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m not so sure. SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low (18%). Even if Trump was re-elected I don’t think there is more he can offer them. They already have the job. They need confidence back or the states are going to start ignoring them.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the “plebes” think of them for that to make any difference.

      • Krauerking
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        You know for all our checks and balances the Supreme Court is surprisingly left out of them. Congress can supposedly tell them they can’t hear a case but that’s it. But it’s fine cause the courts will never be able to change laws or enforce anything right? Right?

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          9 months ago

          The court was supposed to be the main arbitrator of the checks and balances, because it was initially believed that they weren’t corruptible. That’s obviously not the case, and we’re all screwed because of it

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the “plebes” think of them for that to make any difference.

        Does the SC have any recourse if confidence from the public gets so low that states start ignoring them?

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          9 months ago

          Not really, and it’s happened before. Heck one of the worst presidents we ever had famously stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let’s see him try to enforce it.”

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low

      Maybe, but the more important questions are “do they care”, and also “does it improve their behavior”?

    • paddirn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hey, they’ve got Ethics guidelines now, so they’ve solved whatever trust issues the public may have had, so they don’t need to hear any of this malarkey anymore. It’s full steam ahead for the Christo-nationalist fascist takeover.

    • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not only has he nothing more to offer them, but he has promised to be a dictator from day one, if reelected. A dictator threatens the power of judges in all courts. That’s not something they should take lightly.