• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Realistically they’re going to look at precedent, how it was used in the past. The cases where it’s been used in the past fall into two groups - public officials of the Confederacy and people convicted in criminal court of an appropriate charge (which includes one case of someone being convicted of a Jan 6 related charge and before that the last application was a case in 1919 of someone convicted under the Espionage Act).

    I fully expect them to say that barring holding a public position in a group whose purpose violates 14A that they would require a criminal conviction. Because that’s the only thing that fits precedent.

    The alternative that people seem to be hoping for is that a candidate should be able to be barred from the ballot if a state judge feels it’s likely enough they violated 14A, where “likely enough” isn’t clearly defined (and doesn’t require any particular due process) but is definitely enough to bar Trump. I just don’t think that’s going to happen.