Althouse: "Although if I happen to change my mind, and the New York Times doesn't cover it, I'm going to feel pretty insulted."

September 18, 2023

"Although if I happen to change my mind, and the New York Times doesn't cover it, I'm going to feel pretty insulted."

Says Orin Kerr:

37 comments:

tim maguire said...: Since there is no plausible theory why the 14th Amendment disbars Trump from running for president, the fact that so many people are allowing their TDS to lead them to latch on to any dumb idea and betray any value to prevent the American people from having the option to vote for Trump tells us more about them than it does Trump or the constitution. We need to remember who they are and what they've done.; 9/18/23, 6:13 AM
Kai Akker said...: Yes, why would Kerr care if he isn't covered by a regional and increasingly archaic publication?; 9/18/23, 6:18 AM
Kate said...: Look at those tweets! Kerr is a master of the short form writing that is Twitter. Ah, I miss it.; 9/18/23, 6:19 AM
rhhardin said...: The theory has a structural flaw, namely that the President is chosen by the craziest DA in the nation.; 9/18/23, 7:27 AM
Brian said...: A reading that renders the document a ‘secret code’ loaded with hidden meanings discernible only by a select priesthood of illuminati is generally an unlikely one.”

Why can't they just read the first 5 words of Section 3?

"No person shall be a"

It doesn't say No person shall be on the ballot. It doesn't say 50 different states get to decide if he will be on the ballot. It says he can't serve. We have an existing process for dealing with that situation. It's on January 6th when Congress meets to certify the electors. It's not a ceremonial counting. It's an adjudication of the election.

In order to save Democracy a lot of people are limiting democracy by telling the people they can't vote for someone.

The last time a candidate was left off the ballot was Lincoln and we know how that ended.; 9/18/23, 7:28 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Look at those tweets! Kerr is a master of the short form writing that is Twitter. Ah, I miss it."

I agree that the tweets are excellent, but it would have been better without the "Kidding, people, kidding." A tad needy.; 9/18/23, 7:32 AM
rehajm said...: tim maguire said...
Since there is no plausible theory why the 14th Amendment disbars Trump from running for president, the fact that so many people are allowing their TDS to lead them to latch on to any dumb idea and betray any value to prevent the American people from having the option to vote for Trump tells us more about them than it does Trump or the constitution. We need to remember who they are and what they've done.

This could not be more timely. We've entered an era where an obscure recently proclaimed legal authority or expert can spout off a politically motivated legal hot take without fear of retribution or loss of credibility when it is later dismissed as legal quackery. Sure it's easy to find plenty of lawyer geezers on their way out who are willing to torch any and all their legal credibility for politics because they're almost dead but why do we let them get away with it? Don't lawyers still active the profession see how it discredits them? Their silence discredits them as well...; 9/18/23, 7:37 AM
Chuck said...: The debates within the Federalist Society are interesting, stimulating, demanding, nuanced.

And by that I mean that TrumpWorld has nothing to add, and no place in the conversation.

I remember so well holding my nose and voting for Trump in 2016 and how that was based wholly on (a) my emotional attachment to the SCOTUS seat of the late great Justice Scalia, and (b) my credulous belief that Trump wouldn't be so bad once he was surrounded by the trappings of the Presidency.

There are few things in my life that I regret more than my vote for Trump. And I think that the Federalist Society is now filled with a majority of members and associates who agree on that. It's not unanimous, but it is a tipping point.; 9/18/23, 7:50 AM
Owen said...: “A tad needy.” I read that as a preemptive strike against the howling mob of thin-skinned humorless morons who will rush to defend their very excellent publication, the fons et origo of all truth.; 9/18/23, 8:44 AM
Lem the artificially intelligent said...: The White House sent a letter to all the major news media asking them not to dignify the impeachment inquiry with their coverage.

Get in line Orín Kerr.; 9/18/23, 8:51 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "I read that as a preemptive strike against the howling mob of thin-skinned humorless morons ...."

I did too. I don't think great tweeting would include preemptive strikes against thin-skinned humorless morons.; 9/18/23, 8:58 AM
tim maguire said...: Ann Althouse said...I did too. I don't think great tweeting would include preemptive strikes against thin-skinned humorless morons.

I'm a big fan of playing it straight. Which is why I also hate the "/sarc" tag. Calling it sarcasm ruins it. Better to let some thin-skinned humorless morons get bent out of shape.; 9/18/23, 9:00 AM
Ampersand said...: Kerr is not naive. He must know that the NYT is once again at the forefront of a campaign to mainstream a novel and fallacious argument which will have disastrous implications for the nation. It is likely to create a segment of the population that will once again claim that Trump was cheated of the presidency. Alternatively, it will create a segment of the population that believes that a Trump elected in 2024 is not in fact the legally constituted President. This will be even worse than their intentionally dishonest 1619 project.
You would come up with a campaign such as this if you wanted to destroy the nation. Although there is some good journalism there, please don't give money to the NYT.; 9/18/23, 9:02 AM
rehajm said...: That torch and pitchfork wielding mob of thin-skinned humorless morons is capable of great destruction. Some people even abandon their principles accordingly….; 9/18/23, 9:09 AM
robother said...: Althouse: "I don't think great tweeting would include preemptive strikes against thin-skinned humorless morons."

Cutting to the heart of what makes Trump tweets great. (And exposing the anxiety at the core of every Conservative, Inc. pundit and candidate.); 9/18/23, 9:21 AM
donald said...: I look forward to the coming civil war.; 9/18/23, 10:03 AM
Richard said...: Blogger Brian said...
A reading that renders the document a ‘secret code’ loaded with hidden meanings discernible only by a select priesthood of illuminati is generally an unlikely one.”

It's the Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the law.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’; 9/18/23, 10:57 AM
Edmund said...: If Trump led an insurrection, why haven't the Jan 6 rioters been charged with insurrection? They have, AFAIK, been charged with "Seditious Conspiracy" at most. So DOJ doesn't think they had one occur.; 9/18/23, 10:57 AM
gilbar said...: IF trump can't run for President, because of Jan 6th.. Who CAN run?
Obviously, not Anyone that was there..
Obviously, not Anyone that was NOT in favor of PRISON, for Anyone that was there..
Obviously, not Anyone that was NOT TOTALLY In Favor of the Biden residency..
Obviously, not Anyone that EVER voted Republican..
Obviously, not Anyone that was NOT a registered Democrat
Obviously, not Anyone that was NOT an INNER Party Member
REMEMBER! Jan 6th was the Most Worst Thing, that Ever Happened.. EVER!!
From Now On.. Only Approved Candidates are allowed to run

WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY!!! BIG BROTHER LOVES YOU and! BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING; 9/18/23, 11:22 AM
Rabel said...: The unhinged attacks on Trump from a "thought leader" associated with the Federalist Society that were embedded in Calabresi's article qualified it for publication in the Times, Orin.; 9/18/23, 11:22 AM
Yancey Ward said...: The blue controlled states will try to bar Trump from the ballot- they will even do so at the legislative level with bills passed and signed by the governors. I am not sure what SCOTUS will do when faced with this issue, but I do know what the Republican response should be- tit for tat. If California removes Trump from the ballot, then Texas needs to remove Biden's replacement etc. If any federal court OKs the Democrats' actions, then the Republican legislatures in the various states need to step up and do the exact same thing to the Democrats wherever they control the legislature alone.

However, Republicans won't do this. Principles and all, you know.....; 9/18/23, 11:37 AM
Narayanan said...: asking professora for help >> I am trying to figure out fons et origo etymology of fons et origo; 9/18/23, 11:50 AM
Critter said...: Wait. I thought novel legal theories about presidential elections were akin to a plot to overthrow the government. Did I miss something? Why aren’t people like Kerr being arrested and thrown in jail?; 9/18/23, 11:58 AM
Big Mike said...: I'm a big fan of playing it straight. Which is why I also hate the "/sarc" tag. Calling it sarcasm ruins it. Better to let some thin-skinned humorless morons get bent out of shape.

@tim maquire, and I’m a big fan of using humor and snark to puncture the self-inflated egos of those who think they establish their moral and intellectual superiority by dutifully reciting DNC talking points. Every once in a while I look at what I’ve typed and realize that I’ve been unusually subtle and some of the saner members of the commentariat might not get the humor, so consequently “/sarc” seems like the safest addition.; 9/18/23, 12:12 PM
Aggie said...: "There are few things in my life that I regret more than my vote for Trump.

We know, Chuck. We know. Entertain the idea that perhaps it hasn't made you a better person.; 9/18/23, 12:20 PM
Elliott A. said...: Since Trump has not been charge with insurrection or rebellion, and especially at this time and until the Supreme Court hears any and all appeals of potential conviction in this matter, he is innocent and the argument is based on a fantasy; 9/18/23, 12:30 PM
Drago said...: LLR-democratical Chuck: "There are few things in my life that I regret more than my vote for Trump."

LOL

Yeah, that never happened.

At all.

And its far too late to even consider trying to resurrect that transparent lie in order to reset the clock to 2015 "principled conservative" mode after 8 straight years of your non-stop flaming far left lunacy.

There has not been a single far left policy you havent pushed nor a far left democratical you havent defended.

But it will be fun watching you pretend.; 9/18/23, 2:35 PM
Free Manure While You Wait! said...: Elliot A. at 12:30 is correct.

For me the flaw in their theory is that Trump has yet to stand trial, let alone be convicted. If a candidate can be kept off the ballot just because someone somewhere accuses them of something, that's the start of a trip down a very rocky road.; 9/18/23, 2:43 PM
Drago said...: Yancey Ward: "The blue controlled states will try to bar Trump from the ballot- they will even do so at the legislative level with bills passed and signed by the governors. I am not sure what SCOTUS will do when faced with this issue, but I do know what the Republican response should be- tit for tat."

You're kidding, right?

There are any number of GOPe-ers that would happily shrug, go along with removing Trump from the ballot and then harrumph harrumph harrumph if anyone suggested "tit for tat" because that would not be an appropriate, respectful, Federalist Society-like, Romney-surrender-like, "dignified" response and just wouldn't be "cricket" old boy.; 9/18/23, 2:49 PM
Drago said...: Ampersand: "Alternatively, it will create a segment of the population that believes that a Trump elected in 2024 is not in fact the legally constituted President."

This perfectly describes LLR-democratical Chuck's post 2016 election meltdown and immediate adoption and parroting of every far left conspiracy talking point and spittle flecked racist-rage posting, particularly against Ben Carson.

And did you see Sen Mark Warner pitching legislation to create a 4th branch of govt carved out of the Executive branch to empower the national security state to operate completely independently of the Executive?

The fascists, whom our Althouse LLR-democraticals support, arent even bothering to hide it any longer since the jig is well and truly up and they are going for broke at breakneck speed to Cloward-Piven us to death and then rebuild on top of the rubble.; 9/18/23, 2:58 PM
Gospace said...: There is, AFAIK, nothing in any state, and certainly not in the Constitution, that requires any names or any party to appear on the ballot.

Paper Ballot-
Box 1. Print the first and last name of the person who you are voting for President in Box 1
Box 2. Print the first and last name of the person you are voting for vice-President in Box 2
Box 3 Senate
Box 4 Congress
Etc.

Make it more fun- for POTUS and VPOTUS hand the voter the list of electors running- with no party affiliation listed. Have them write in the electors. Since, by the Constitution, that’s who they’re actually voting for.

A list- 2 from column A- the statewide electors and either 1 from Column B to represent the district, or X equal to the number of congressional districts.

Every election it seems some local election has no candidates and some poor unlucky sod gets elected to some office he wasn’t running for; 9/18/23, 4:40 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Gospace @4:40 p.m.

Interesting idea. I never once thought of that. Of course, it runs into problems with spelling and such, but an election that is completely write-in is an interesting thought.

I think a much better idea, though, is to go back to having the state legislatures select the electoral slate for their state- perfectly legal with regards to the Constitution and makes the federal government more republican (small r) than what we have. Additionally, the 17th Amendment was a mistake, but that is all uncontained toothpaste today.; 9/18/23, 6:21 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Drago,

I don't disagree- only conjecturing what the reply ought to be, not what it will be.; 9/18/23, 6:23 PM
Gospace said...: Of course the SPR caverns weren’t full under Trup. Or before or after. Before Trump DemoncRAT energy policies raised oil prices enough so that Congress decided we couldn’t afford to keep pumping oil in. Then when prices hit a nadir under Trump Congress refused Trump’s entreaties to fill it. Trump was not allowed any victories of any kind even if it hurt the USA to refuse him one. And filling the SPR with cheap oil would have been a victory. One, for filling it, two for providing more jobs in the oil fields. Couldn’t have that now, could we?; 9/18/23, 6:47 PM
Drago said...: Yancey Ward: "Drago,

I don't disagree- only conjecturing what the reply ought to be, not what it will be."

Understood.; 9/18/23, 7:03 PM
gilbar said...: some serious questions:
If the Powers That BE, can decide WHO gets to be on the ballot.. What recourse do us voters have?
I'm Assuming; protesting those decisions would be considered SEDITION, or seditious conspiracy or something?
Since ANY peaceful protests (that is: NON SANCTIONED peaceful protests) will result in 10+ years in prison;

What EXACTLY is the recourse? It SEEMS like* the Only recourse would be Active Rebellion

SEEM like* not that I'm SAYING; that there will be, or should be, or could be an Active Rebellion against the Federal Goverment.. I'm just wondering what other recourse there would be?; 9/18/23, 7:04 PM
damikesc said...: I must wonder if the "NeverTrump" delegation realizes how easily "NeverYourCandidate" will come up. Do you HONESTLY think you have a chance at winning here?

The people you NEED to vote for you have been castigated by you for decades. So, let's say Christie wins the nomination.

Good luck even hitting 40% of the vote.; 9/19/23, 7:57 AM