I, for one, am exhausted by the political and legal roller coaster that this country is on with no signs of an off ramp. Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe argue the 14th amendment should be upheld and to do so is not anti democratic, but indeed democratic, if I understand what these two legal scholars are saying. Unfortunately, even though Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have prior writings that would indicate they would uphold the 14th amendment in this case, don’t count on it. Remember their disingenuous reverence for precedence expressed in their nomination hearings that was dropped when confirmed? And, of course, Thomas should recuse himself as Ginni’s best friend, but that’s not happening either. So we slog on into 2024 terrified of what’s at the end of the ride.
It's disgusting that portion of the Supremes appears to be without honor or integrity. Thomas is a grifter, Leonard Leo gives Ginni Thomas money using Kellyanne Conway as the conduit. Alito & Clarence enjoy the perks of their respective comrades while serving up generous, tainted applications of the law.
agree about the Senate. It failed on the first impeachment too by too many saying "Oh, they proved their case of what he did, but I just don't think it is an impeachable offense. "
I'm of Team "thinks that the Extremes punted here because they know very well that the DC Circuit is going to get this in front of them right smartly." And that they will deny cert once the DC court has acted --and that's why there were no dissents on this denial. They can get the same result without having to endorse the rare prejudgment motion for cert.
The concept that ANY court could hold that presidents are simply immune no matter what they do is too scary to contemplate. Fingers crossed.
If the courts will simply follow the facts and the law, which it is their duty to do, real clarity will emerge out of all the great obfuscating clouds pumping out from the defendant.
Ah, yes, the "ballot box" argument...but the GA and DC prosecutions turned on tRump's anti-democratic actions surrounding the 2020 elections and the aftermath, and we all just know we are set for a rerun following the November, 2024 elections. tRump will probably begin ginning up his supporters well in advance of the vote, claiming "the polls" show him as the clear winner, and Joe Biden can only be re-elected by "stealing" the election from tRump.
Sure, tRump won't have the government behind him, but lacking a criminal conviction for past actions, he won't be deterred from claiming yet again a loss was due to "massive cheating" and he is rightfully the president-elect. We simply won't be rid of the man and his failure to accept defeat, and I can't imagine to what length tRump and his rabid MGA lot would go should he lose the election by a close vote.
I'm afraid that only depending upon next year's election isn't nearly enough, and without a definitive §3 decision by SCOTUS to bar tRump from the ballot, or having been convicted of multiple counts per the DC indictment before next November, tRump will continue to pose a mortal threat to the democratic order, be assured of that.
As I understand Republicans' plans, if they win, we will have a police state. If they lose, they will not accept the loss and there will be outbreaks of violence. So we are in deep trouble either way.
Yes, definitely, but the concern would be if the revolt is widespread enough, law enforcement may join them as many of them are Republican. It's also not clear what happens if voters elect a Democrat to the presidency with a Republican congress, whether Congress would allow the Democrat to take office.
Law enforcement is deeply hierarchical in nature. Front line officers follow the orders of superior officers and the chiefs report to civilian authority.
Mayors will order police to quell any disturbance and the cops will gladly oblige, billyclub in hand.
Lastly, the odds of a Democratic House are quite good. Let's spend our time making quite sure it is Democratic rather than spinning 1% apocalyptic scenarios in our heads.
I hope so but I hate surprises so I always try to anticipate the worst possible scenario. If someone had told me ten years ago what would transpire between then and now, I wouldn't have believed it, so I'm determined to never be caught off guard again.
It is just. People must accept the consequences for their actions. If not we would have a raging mess. Which is a bit of what we are experiencing now as there has been no accountabilty for the host of lies & actions taken by Trump and his minions.
It is the right thing to do so that accountability & honor may prevail!
Back in 2016, the people had their say and defeated Trump in the popular vote. But the electoral college failed its implicit constitutional duty to keep an authoritarian out of office. Then the Senate failed to remove him. The courts are the last backstop.
A little technical, but I don’t see why filing a cert petition (in Colorado case) would automatically stay the DQ ruling. A stay on motion seems inevitable but Trump should at least have to ask.
No one is immune from criminal prosecution. The SPM invention of immunity originally appertains to damage actions. No one is asking for damages. The idea of damages is compensation. Prior to Brown v Board of Education there was Ex Parte Young i.e., officials acting ultra vires were subject to injunction. Racist pressure over Brown v Board (Ex Parte Young was how it was brought) led by all of the major SPM "private" political organizations is why IMHO Earl Warren &co did this https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/547/. e.g., Judges in England were subject to fines for refusing to hear Habeas Corpus petitions see (italics) Crowley's Case (1818) 2 Swanst 1; 36 ER 514 long before c. 1818. Has the USSCt self abolished all means for addressing Constitutional Questions except their version of Certiorari?
Have we forgotten that many state election laws were unconstitutionally changed? Election results have been contested before. The fraud is not in the results (separate issue). The fraud was brought about through the incorrect election changes. In this sense, the vote was stolen
Is it possible that SCOTUS' action is a positive sign? The D.C. Circuit is very likely to issue a ruling unfavorable to Trump, and SCOTUS knows that. It could have taken the decision away for itself, and it didn't.
As to why the effort to 'keep the courts out of it', maybe it's a political question? It's playing with fire, but if the American people really want to vote for a dictator, it may be that the only thing which will get us past that, which will get the people to see that they very much DON'T want a dictator, is to actually elect a dictator. Dislodging such a regime is a very arduous task, but if we can't convince people otherwise to stop voting for and supporting this kind of thing, the problem keeps coming back. It's quite dire.
On the timing of the impeachment vote, I see someone wanted it on January 7th. I have seen a few who wanted it January 6th. I find this sort of thing a tad absurd. We simply do not do things that quickly.
Say all you want about how life would be in nirvana. Removal of a POTUS permanently is a process that takes time. And, anyway, Republicans controlled the Senate. It is absurd (the stakes are too high to speak in absurdities) to think Mitch McConnell et. al. was going to speed along things.
I also want to remind people that Judge Luttig (who is worthy of a lot of respect) aided and abetted the Republicans by opening up the imho asinine dodge that an impeachment trial after a POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. Various people have shown this is wrongminded. It at the very most conceivable. Given the stakes, it was a thin line to dodge responsibility.
It does also underline the "acquittal" was not based on Trump on being innocent of committing insurrection. Like the first impeachment, many Republicans didn't deny wrongdoing. They found another dodge.
I agree impeachment was the appropriate path here. The second path was Congress enforce 14A, sec. 3 (a bill was proposed and ignored) and pass a resolution at least noting there is a good chance Trump is covered. That is, either say so, or provide a process where he could be brought to task. IOW, clearly negate the "not self-executing" dodge.
Anyway, I think people like Steve Vladeck know the stakes but take a moderate path push comes to shove. So, he is on record against court expansion (Republicans already did a form of it). The Supreme Court can work fast. OTOH, it might not want to. It slow walked the Trump financial cases, for instance, even when the House of Representatives asked them to speed things along.
Trump will get away with it all, take power one way or the other, and we will continue to careen toward civilizational collapse and effective or literal extinction, along with most of the rest of the planet’s biota, via carbon, and eventually, as resource wars proliferate, plutonium.
We deserve it. The kids and other lifeforms don’t but we don’t care about them.
You can scoff all you like, Dear Reader; you know it’s all true.
I, for one, am exhausted by the political and legal roller coaster that this country is on with no signs of an off ramp. Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe argue the 14th amendment should be upheld and to do so is not anti democratic, but indeed democratic, if I understand what these two legal scholars are saying. Unfortunately, even though Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have prior writings that would indicate they would uphold the 14th amendment in this case, don’t count on it. Remember their disingenuous reverence for precedence expressed in their nomination hearings that was dropped when confirmed? And, of course, Thomas should recuse himself as Ginni’s best friend, but that’s not happening either. So we slog on into 2024 terrified of what’s at the end of the ride.
It's disgusting that portion of the Supremes appears to be without honor or integrity. Thomas is a grifter, Leonard Leo gives Ginni Thomas money using Kellyanne Conway as the conduit. Alito & Clarence enjoy the perks of their respective comrades while serving up generous, tainted applications of the law.
Something is definitely rotten in Denmark!
agree about the Senate. It failed on the first impeachment too by too many saying "Oh, they proved their case of what he did, but I just don't think it is an impeachable offense. "
I'm of Team "thinks that the Extremes punted here because they know very well that the DC Circuit is going to get this in front of them right smartly." And that they will deny cert once the DC court has acted --and that's why there were no dissents on this denial. They can get the same result without having to endorse the rare prejudgment motion for cert.
The concept that ANY court could hold that presidents are simply immune no matter what they do is too scary to contemplate. Fingers crossed.
If the courts will simply follow the facts and the law, which it is their duty to do, real clarity will emerge out of all the great obfuscating clouds pumping out from the defendant.
Ah, yes, the "ballot box" argument...but the GA and DC prosecutions turned on tRump's anti-democratic actions surrounding the 2020 elections and the aftermath, and we all just know we are set for a rerun following the November, 2024 elections. tRump will probably begin ginning up his supporters well in advance of the vote, claiming "the polls" show him as the clear winner, and Joe Biden can only be re-elected by "stealing" the election from tRump.
Sure, tRump won't have the government behind him, but lacking a criminal conviction for past actions, he won't be deterred from claiming yet again a loss was due to "massive cheating" and he is rightfully the president-elect. We simply won't be rid of the man and his failure to accept defeat, and I can't imagine to what length tRump and his rabid MGA lot would go should he lose the election by a close vote.
I'm afraid that only depending upon next year's election isn't nearly enough, and without a definitive §3 decision by SCOTUS to bar tRump from the ballot, or having been convicted of multiple counts per the DC indictment before next November, tRump will continue to pose a mortal threat to the democratic order, be assured of that.
As I understand Republicans' plans, if they win, we will have a police state. If they lose, they will not accept the loss and there will be outbreaks of violence. So we are in deep trouble either way.
Far better the trouble of arresting and jailing more MAGA cultists than a fascist state.
Yes, definitely, but the concern would be if the revolt is widespread enough, law enforcement may join them as many of them are Republican. It's also not clear what happens if voters elect a Democrat to the presidency with a Republican congress, whether Congress would allow the Democrat to take office.
You've been watching too many apocalyptic movies.
Law enforcement is deeply hierarchical in nature. Front line officers follow the orders of superior officers and the chiefs report to civilian authority.
Mayors will order police to quell any disturbance and the cops will gladly oblige, billyclub in hand.
Lastly, the odds of a Democratic House are quite good. Let's spend our time making quite sure it is Democratic rather than spinning 1% apocalyptic scenarios in our heads.
I hope so but I hate surprises so I always try to anticipate the worst possible scenario. If someone had told me ten years ago what would transpire between then and now, I wouldn't have believed it, so I'm determined to never be caught off guard again.
It is just. People must accept the consequences for their actions. If not we would have a raging mess. Which is a bit of what we are experiencing now as there has been no accountabilty for the host of lies & actions taken by Trump and his minions.
It is the right thing to do so that accountability & honor may prevail!
I appreciate you laying this all out so clearly.
Back in 2016, the people had their say and defeated Trump in the popular vote. But the electoral college failed its implicit constitutional duty to keep an authoritarian out of office. Then the Senate failed to remove him. The courts are the last backstop.
A little technical, but I don’t see why filing a cert petition (in Colorado case) would automatically stay the DQ ruling. A stay on motion seems inevitable but Trump should at least have to ask.
Thank you, including this tool, in all relevant cases (ie where a judge was appointed by the defendant) please;
https://www.jurist.org/news/2017/03/supreme-court-clarifies-correct-standard-for-recusal-of-a-judge/
No one is immune from criminal prosecution. The SPM invention of immunity originally appertains to damage actions. No one is asking for damages. The idea of damages is compensation. Prior to Brown v Board of Education there was Ex Parte Young i.e., officials acting ultra vires were subject to injunction. Racist pressure over Brown v Board (Ex Parte Young was how it was brought) led by all of the major SPM "private" political organizations is why IMHO Earl Warren &co did this https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/547/. e.g., Judges in England were subject to fines for refusing to hear Habeas Corpus petitions see (italics) Crowley's Case (1818) 2 Swanst 1; 36 ER 514 long before c. 1818. Has the USSCt self abolished all means for addressing Constitutional Questions except their version of Certiorari?
Have we forgotten that many state election laws were unconstitutionally changed? Election results have been contested before. The fraud is not in the results (separate issue). The fraud was brought about through the incorrect election changes. In this sense, the vote was stolen
State laws weren't unconstitutionally changed. That is right wing mythology.
I’m betting this guy accepts independent state legislature theory but not evolutionary theory.
One is in the Constitution, one is not. Your point?
You’re making my point for me
Hogwash.
Is it possible that SCOTUS' action is a positive sign? The D.C. Circuit is very likely to issue a ruling unfavorable to Trump, and SCOTUS knows that. It could have taken the decision away for itself, and it didn't.
As to why the effort to 'keep the courts out of it', maybe it's a political question? It's playing with fire, but if the American people really want to vote for a dictator, it may be that the only thing which will get us past that, which will get the people to see that they very much DON'T want a dictator, is to actually elect a dictator. Dislodging such a regime is a very arduous task, but if we can't convince people otherwise to stop voting for and supporting this kind of thing, the problem keeps coming back. It's quite dire.
On the timing of the impeachment vote, I see someone wanted it on January 7th. I have seen a few who wanted it January 6th. I find this sort of thing a tad absurd. We simply do not do things that quickly.
Say all you want about how life would be in nirvana. Removal of a POTUS permanently is a process that takes time. And, anyway, Republicans controlled the Senate. It is absurd (the stakes are too high to speak in absurdities) to think Mitch McConnell et. al. was going to speed along things.
I also want to remind people that Judge Luttig (who is worthy of a lot of respect) aided and abetted the Republicans by opening up the imho asinine dodge that an impeachment trial after a POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. Various people have shown this is wrongminded. It at the very most conceivable. Given the stakes, it was a thin line to dodge responsibility.
It does also underline the "acquittal" was not based on Trump on being innocent of committing insurrection. Like the first impeachment, many Republicans didn't deny wrongdoing. They found another dodge.
I agree impeachment was the appropriate path here. The second path was Congress enforce 14A, sec. 3 (a bill was proposed and ignored) and pass a resolution at least noting there is a good chance Trump is covered. That is, either say so, or provide a process where he could be brought to task. IOW, clearly negate the "not self-executing" dodge.
Anyway, I think people like Steve Vladeck know the stakes but take a moderate path push comes to shove. So, he is on record against court expansion (Republicans already did a form of it). The Supreme Court can work fast. OTOH, it might not want to. It slow walked the Trump financial cases, for instance, even when the House of Representatives asked them to speed things along.
Yes. Maybe they should have acted sooner, but 7 days is pretty damned fast.
A Christmas miracle on this front would be nice. But even the optimism feels sordid
Thank you, Chris.
The Founders of our democratic republic and
the people of this country
decided not to take one step
back, from the tyranny of King George, the might of the British military and navy he sent to quell we colonials. It
didn't work out for the King.
Our courts don't move as
quickly as we'd like and are
bogged down. We do have
a faster method to hold an
Illegitimate wannabe dictator
accountable and his co-conspiratoors in the House and Senate. It's the
Vote at the Ballot Box!
Use it!
Trump will get away with it all, take power one way or the other, and we will continue to careen toward civilizational collapse and effective or literal extinction, along with most of the rest of the planet’s biota, via carbon, and eventually, as resource wars proliferate, plutonium.
We deserve it. The kids and other lifeforms don’t but we don’t care about them.
You can scoff all you like, Dear Reader; you know it’s all true.