"There are significant chunks of the American populace that will find it very hard to respect a supreme court decision that keeps Trump off the ballot, and there are significant chunks of the American populace that will find it very hard to respect a supreme court decision that keeps Trump on the ballot."That's a quote from lawprof Steve Vladeck that appears in this Guardian article, "'Did you just hear John Roberts scream?': US supreme court to have outsized influence in 2024 election Court temporarily waved off request from special counsel prosecuting Trump, but it’ll likely soon have to wade into fray."
It's Christmas, so I'm not delving into the status of the Supreme Court's mystique in the chunky Mind of America.
After that last post, you may be anticipating that I'll veer off into a discussion of the word "chunk." But I did that, so extensively, in 2020 — replete with a survey of old posts of mine, historical quotes from the OED, an embedded video of the vintage Arnold Stang commercial for Chunky (the candy), and a photograph of a record I inherited from my father that had "a chunk taken out of it, and so I can't listen to Count Basie's 'One O'Clock Jump' or Dinah Shore singing 'Buttons and Bows.'"
Well, that big dumb blondeWith her wheel in the gorge
And Turtle, that friend of theirs
With his checks all forged
And his cheeks in a chunk
With his cheese in the cash
They’re all gonna be there
At that million dollar bash
पोस्ट्स
९७ टिप्पण्या:
Americans have an innate sense of fairness and fair play. Keeping T off the ballot is fingernails on the chalkboard.
…but it is absolutely true. Evidence propaganda distributed by mainstream media works very well half the time. I suspect the government psy-ops guys are quite pleased with themselves this Christmas…
Want a clue as to why our beloved America is toast? Every political news article that contains a judicial ruling lists which political party appointed the judge on the case. Facts? Don't need 'em.
It's a problem of vindictive prosecution being resolved with the wrong question.
Cliche just heard in robot reading of and Edward Said book on Palestine and the Jews
"breaking boundaries is a two inch sword"
It applies perfectly to keeping Trump off the ballot.
Here's a chunk of controversy involving our country's greatest athlete and a town in NE Pennsylvania.
Habeus corpus? C'est ici.
Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania
How does Vladek know who is thinking what in America?
I reject framing it in an egalitarian way- the lawfare should be rejected and that’s it. No ‘both sides’. The lawfare side needs to debate policy and let the electors decide or the US will continue the decline into a third world power.
…but I guess that’s what the left wants, innit?
Blow chunks. It’s in the Urban Dictionary. Apt for what Vladeck is doing here.
The "pressure" isn't on Roberts, it's on Kagan. Roberts needs at least seven votes to protect SCOTUS from Democrat plans to further destroy the sovereignty of the Courts.
I'd like to think it could be a unanimous decision, but Sotomayor and Brown seem least interested in protecting the Constitution.
Upvote : Humperdink @ 7:22
Regular reminder that it was Donald Trump who led campaigns against Barack Obama’s and later Ted Cruz’s eligibility for service as president based on the Constitution. So he claimed.
Merry Christmas, Ann Althouse.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
A significant chunk of the American populace want the country to get back to normal. With regard to the Supreme Court, is normal letting the country vote on Trump for president or is normal not interfering and let the Colorado court decision stand?
That's what makes the Colorado Supreme Court's decision so dangerous. They walked us up to the edge of cliff and ordered us to jump.
Trump never prosecuted anyone wrt their eligibility. His arguments were political speech.
Natives of JT call themselves Chunkers.
Short of Congress passing and Biden signing a bill explicitly making the decision on whether or not Trump is eligible, SCOTUS will have to act- Roberts cannot duck this question. Additionally, Congress could, if the case against Trump is so overwhelming, impeach Trump again and bar him from the ballot with 67 votes in the Senate. Why do you suppose the Democrats and the LLRs don't do that?
The Supreme Court lost the non-partisan label almost the moment it first heard a case. Some justices are able to keep their biases from affecting their decisions by hewing closely to the text of the Constitution and the known sensibilities of the men that drafted and signed it, but those kinds of justices are few and far between. Most decisions this particular court issues should be 9-0. This one should be 9-0, but likely won't be. Maybe they will surprise me.
Vladeck is a hillary apologist of long sranding
There is a sensible prediction that I am seeing among the anti-Trump Republican lawyers whom I choose to follow. When the SCOTUS denial of the Special Prosecutor's cert request was handed down last week, and some were calling it a serious defeat for Jack Smith, I felt reassured by this speculation/prediction; that the DC Circuit would act expeditiously and deny Trump's request for immunity. With a substantive opinion that reiterated Judge Chutkan. And that any en banc request would also be dealt with swiftly. And then, when Trump requested cert with SCOTUS, the Court would simply deny cert. Game over. Well before June. Perhaps before April, or even March. No majority/dissenting opinions needed. What's MAGA gonna do then? Protest on the street outside Kavanaugh's house?
Blogger Chuck said...
Regular reminder that it was Donald Trump who led campaigns against Barack Obama’s and later Ted Cruz’s eligibility for service as president based on the Constitution. So he claimed.
I guess I missed those Trump lawsuits? Trump rhetorically questioned their eligibility under the specific criteria for eligibility to be president recited in the Constitution.
Trump didn't assert their disqualification according to a ridiculous reading of the 14th Amendment.
Chuck at 8:15 AM
it was Donald Trump who led campaigns against Barack Obama’s and later Ted Cruz’s eligibility
Perhaps Trump made some remarks about their eligibility, but it's a bit much to say that he "led campaigns" about it.
In contrast, I do think it's fair to say that a "campaign" is being conducted against Trump's eligibility.
"I'd like to think it could be a unanimous decision, but Sotomayor and Brown seem least interested in protecting the Constitution."
Which, oddly enough, is the sole reaason for being a Supreme Court justice.
What to do with a baby... a "burden" named Trump.
Merry Christ-mas, my fellow Americans, and Romans, too.
In joyful spirit of the day I’ll simply say I disagree with the opinion that the featured article expressed, based on two words he used that I interpret differently. First I believe even when us conservatives disagree with a decision, that is we abide by it and if necessary work to have it overturned. Even Trump accepted rulings against his XOs unlike Biden who has literally continued “forgiving student debt” even though the high court ruled he could not.
Second I dispute the author’s use of the word significant. Even though there might be some people across the political spectrum who “won’t accept” an adverse ruling I don’t believe that the number is significant. Democrats often crow about defying the Supreme Court but few actually do so.
Now let’s address the resident clown Chuckles, who is begging for relevance and reminders of his own. Chuckles assured us that SCOTUS would back Smith’s fast-track move, although he called his shot earlier than his heroes at the Bulwark who had such outstanding timing that they published a chest-thumping “it will be unanimous” almost heroic paen to Smith a mere two hours before the court unanimously rejected the move. Well, egg meet faces! Even I, an English major and marketing guy with zero legal training, could see the obvious defects in Smith’s and our self-described LLR-lawyer GOPe expert from the Detroit suburbs.
My final Christmas reminder to our resident Liz Cheney fan is to be careful what you wish for because should the jihads you support against Trump somehow prevail as in the temporary Pyrrhic victory in CO, those lawfare tools will be ever so much easier to apply to Biden and McConnell and the other DC swamp creatures beak-deep in corruption. After all if Trump can be excluded from office based on insurrection even though he was never charged with nor convicted of that crime just think what we could do with bribery statutes that have a long history of being enforced, once the silly requirement for actual conviction is no longer needed. And the Presidential Records Act my goodness what we could do to Joe and Hunter!
Peace on Earth and good will to All!
'In anticipation of the justices allowing Trump to run for President, we'll deny their office upper case letters.'
If only we had a significant Chuck around here!
From my understanding, SCOTUS are more Originalist leaning and it appears the Colorado SC main arguments reference the Section 3 of 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
This logic that the SCOTUS overrules Colorado then has to be because the majority of the Justices are first and foremost Republicans, and not the legal Goliaths there to protect the Republic. If this actually the case then we all might as well pack up and go home. Their ruling will be monumental and will impact their legacy forever.
It's certain that Thomas and Alito are Trump partisans, (Thomas's own wife, Ginni Thomas, lobbied energetically in favor of the insurrection behind the scenes, trying to help Trump overthrow the elections. Clarence Thomas should recuse himself for that reason, but nobody who's watched him will expect him to behave with such decency and ethics.)
However, note what happened when Trump and his team lodged over 60 court cases alleging "election fraud" that he never provided any evidence of (all but one of which were thrown out for lack of either evidence or standing—and the sole exception, the one he won, only changed a few dozen votes, not even enough to change that one local election result). One of those cases came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court threw it out.
To my admitted astonishment, all three of the Trump-appointed justices threw that case out of court for lack of standing. So I can't claim to know how they'll rule in this case upcoming, but in that one, they didn't pervert justice just to serve Trump as a cult master. The SCOTUS must ignore the political hand-wringing around Trump.
"The 'pressure' isn't on Roberts, it's on Kagan."
Sometimes she actually does vote on principle. As to the AA justice and Wide Latina, we already know that story.
Not from their point of view
I was astonished to note that I clicked over and didn't hate that Dylan song. In fact, I kind of liked it.
Merry Christmas!
"The prospect is especially fraught for the chief justice, John Roberts, who is known to be sensitive about public opinion and keen to keep the court above the political ruckus." John Roberts is sensitive about protecting John Roberts and the Bush family.
Yes, it's Christmas, but that doesn't erase the fact that Roberts is a corrupt coward. Fighting with Justice Thomas and pressuring other justices to pass on Texas vs PA in 2020 is how we got here. Obviously, the man can't own his mistake.
Whatever he is, he is a failure. Remember Roberts protecting the identity of "the whistleblower" during the first Trump Senate impeachment trial? We all know that was a set up to protect Biden and US Corruption in Ukraine.
Whether or not Trump should be on the ballot is not political. It is structural and really about liberal judicial overreach. It's about using the courts to strip the voting rights from a majority of the country. The 2020 election fraud did just that. We have a Supreme Court to deal with such things. The recent overreach on legislative maps by the WI Supreme Court is the same thing.
If Roberts is afraid, then he should step down as Chief Justice.
It is so shocking that the american people would not cheer on the use of federal courts/fbi/cia to install one political party over another. I just do not understand it.
If he is thrown off the ballot or incarcerated on this crap ( to be honest this place should already be up in arms on the j6 inquisition and the corrupt lawfare against trump for 7 years now ).
I expect it will be a great big whimper as we slide into tyranny.
FIRST PARAGRAPH
"The US supreme court, stacked with rightwing justices appointed by Donald Trump and facing a crisis of public confidence in its impartiality, has been thrust into the thick of the 2024 presidential election through a number of highly charged and critical cases."
Golly gee, I wonder how much intelligent bullshit will follow this little setup. None I expect.
"Perhaps Trump made some remarks about their eligibility, but it's a bit much to say that he "led campaigns" about it."
So much of what Trump blustered about the dems are actually doing.
When does Hillary get out?
"significant chunks" as in the puke coming out of MSNBC?
Welp. Chunks of lifelong Detroit Lions fans are smiling this Christmas.
That's all I have on the topic of chunks.
"…but I guess that’s what the left wants, innit?"
The left wants to win elections. By any means necessary.
"There are significant chunks of the American populace that will find it very hard to respect a supreme court decision that keeps Trump off the ballot ... "
There are "significant chunks of the American populace" that will find it very hard to respect just about any supreme court decision. Sometimes the same significant chunk and sometimes a different significant chunk -- there are so many.
The LA Times believes SCOTUS may side with keeping him off. "Trump’s opponents have succeeded in getting to the U.S. Supreme Court with their argument the 14th Amendment disqualifies him from the ballot. But they face hurdles."
It turned into a parody publication about five years ago.
Buttons and bows.
Son of Paleface is a rare example of a sequel actually being better than the first film.
Theres also chunk unger
“However, note what happened when Trump and his team lodged over 60 court cases alleging "election fraud" that he never provided any evidence of (all but one of which were thrown out for lack of either evidence or standing—and the sole exception, the one he won, only changed a few dozen votes, not even enough to change that one local election result). One of those cases came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court threw it out.”
Complete BS. Very rarely were full evidentiary hearings allowed. Most often, they were dismissed on standing, mootness, addressability, riming, etc grounds.
Sometimes I think that Cuck and Rich are only here to make us firmer in our support for Trump, given that they never actually respond when their weak arguments are demolished. You would think that they would have the arguments gamed out until they were comfortable that they had a winning strategy, but what it looks like is that they hadn't even thought of the most obvious objections.
Sometimes I think that Cuck and Rich are only here to make us firmer in our support for Trump, given that they never actually respond when their weak arguments are demolished. You would think that they would have the arguments gamed out until they were comfortable that they had a winning strategy, but what it looks like is that they hadn't even thought of the most obvious objections.
That was a practically worthless statement boardering on fear mongering. How much is significant? How many are many?
Typical leftist false equivalence. One side wants their candidate to win honestly. The other side wants to prevent that candidate from winning through use of a LawFare fabricated legal theory, that they know won’t survive appeal. They know that their candidate is seriously underwater in the polls, can’t campaign, and would decidedly lose a fair election, and will do whatever it takes to cheat their way to victory again. So, no, they aren’t equivalent. One side I wants a fair election, while the other side is willing to lie, cheat, steal, etc to win, at any cost.
"The prospect is especially fraught for the chief justice, John Roberts, who is known to be sensitive about public opinion and keen to keep the court above the political ruckus."
Roberts has tried to straddle the fence on major decisions in order to have the court above the fray.
The result has, instead, made the court more susceptible to charges of being politicized and to demonstrate his lack of a foundation that he would defend.
A strong chief justice (lack of caps intentional) would for example, stop the practice of a low level judge putting forth an injunction covering the entire country.
"From my understanding ..."
That's Rich!
Well, that big dumb blonde
With her wheel in the gorge
And Turtle, that friend of theirs
With his checks all forged
And his cheeks in a chunk
With his cheese in the cash
They’re all gonna be there
At that million dollar bash
Now that is Nobel Prize worthy literature if an inner city kid from Baltimore ever read one.
The article and many of these comments assume that the Colorado decision will be upheld by the Appellate Court. Isn’t it more likely that the Appellate Court will overrule the Colorado court? Then, when Smith appeals the the Supreme Court, SCOTUS can just say, “We would rather not” and Problem Solved.
So much of what Trump blustered about the dems are actually doing.
I didn't watch his rallies but it is my impression that Trump fans were more into "Lock her up." He has been careless about his rhetoric a few times and the left picks it up and gets hysterical. Trump was under siege his entire presidency. First the Russia Hoax, which did real damage to this country. Then the Covid and the hysterical reaction to it. The Democrats are following a plan to take control of the government and never give it up. I could tolerate this if only their policies were not batshit crazy.
Chuck and Rich. Hoping for a Christmas miracle. Hoping to become relavent.
Why, in the face of all your past lies and deseminations, do you persist?
"This logic that the SCOTUS overrules Colorado then has to be because the majority of the Justices are first and foremost Republicans, and not the legal Goliaths there to protect the Republic. If this actually the case then we all might as well pack up and go home. Their ruling will be monumental and will impact their legacy forever."
And the Colorado court' logic is different from the Supreme Court how, exactly? The Colorado court is using exactly the same logic that SCOTUS could use in overturning the decision- that they, SCOTUS, don't believe Trump's actions fall under the definitions required to bar him from the ballot. You can present all the evidence that you want but, at the end of the day, the judgment is always going to be subjective in nature- you say it was insurrection and I and half the country says it wasn't. This is why the power does not rest with any court- the power to bar Trump from holding the office of the Presidency, should he win next year, lies solely with Congress and no other body in United States. That decision must belong solely to a body that is answerable to the voters of the United States. That you think otherwise just demonstrates how dangerously stupid people like you are.
Deleted and reposted due to typo:
@Chuck. Recall during the 2016 election campaign Trump supporters were chanting "lock her up" regarding Hildebeast. When Trump became president did he go after her with the full force of the US justice department? Nope, he let it (her) ride. Ironically his political opposition is/was not as gracious.
Now you come along blathering about Trump going after his political enemies when he had no power to do so. What tripe.
Merry Christmas to all the Althouse degenerate commenters, and we generally normal ones also.
Rich: SCOTUS can avoid novel interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by reinforcing controlling First Amendment law. Trump did not incite imminent lawless acts on January 6 by saying that the crowd should go to the Capitol for a peaceful and patriotic demonstration, even though he stated that they would eventually have to fight like Hell to keep their country. Likewise, the people who participated in the riot were not enemies of the United States, and Trump’s constitutionally protected speech was protected even if it gave them aid and comfort.
There are arguments for and against fast tracking this, but there is no way a former president is immune from prosecution. No man is above the law is as basic to the US Constitution as the separation of powers or the Bill of Rights.
The appeals court should rule on this quickly and the Supreme Court need not grant any appeal, therein settling the question.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Notice the language: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States…
So, we have members of Congress, Electors, and those who hold an office under the US or a state covered by this. Members of Congress and Electors are called out separately, but somehow the President and VP are included as holding an office under te US, and they are not? It doesn’t work that way. Rules of statutory interpretation say that if specific people or entities are called out, as well as a group, the specific entities or people are not included in the group. Why would the President be holding an office under the US, and not Members of Congress? Ditto for his Electors. Of course, that’s nonsensical.
Then there is their oath of office: the President’s oath is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The original oath for everyone else was included the words, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." (This was broadened during the Civil War). The President doesn’t swear to “support” the Constitution, but rather to “preserve, protect and defend” it. And it turns out that some of his unique power comes from that distinction. Proper statutory interpretation requires that when specific words are utilized, the are assumed to be used intentionally.
Then there is the difference between their duties and power. The President is the Executive. Not just part of the Executive Branch, but the holder of the Executive power of the US govt. Everyone working in that branch utilizes and enjoys power delegated from him. How does a President engage in Insurrection against himself? He can’t, and to the extent that Congress believes that he did, their sole remedy under the Constitution is Impeachment and Removal. He was acquitted by the Senate. Under the Supremacy Clause, the 4 CO Justices and one CO judge can’t override that.
Hey, easy question; Why would anyone in the world think Obama was born in Kenya and thus ineligible to be POTUS? Could it be because he claimed he was born in Kenya for many?
Oh, wa, that changed. A book cover blurb on a book Obama wrote claimed that, and he never noticed it or approved the blurb. Silly of him wasn’t it? Well, who wrote it and where did he, she, or it get that silly idea that he was born in Kenya? Well, no one actually knows that, it was just some anonymous junior publicist, and layers of fact checkers failed to notice it. Until years later when Obama decided to run for president.
Doesn’t help his case that all his student records are as hidden from sight and scrutiny as the Epstein client list. Did he claim status as a foreign student- which would indicate he’s a serial liar? That’s apparently not a disqualifier for DemoncRATs running for office. I’m curious about something else I’ve read, that his SSN was issued in CT. And belonged to someone else. With 999,999,999 SSNs available, the SSA hasn’t needed to reuse any yet.
To state the obvious: the 14th Amendment was drafted and adopted in the wake of the Civil War: a conflict that saw the highest number of American soldier deaths of any war, 2% of the 1860 population. That was what they meant by "insurrection". General Lee and other officers of the Confederacy lead men into those deadly battles over the course of 4 years. Jefferson Davis and his government exercised power over the affected states, taxed and borrowed to finance the insurrection. That's what they meant by "engaged," not just some vague statements in late 1860 that may or may not have inspired others to act.
To pretend that a one day protest at the Capitol that involved minor damage to some barriers, that prevented no Congressional action that day, in which no protester bore arms, is an "insurrection" equivalent to Civil War under the 14th Amendment is outrageous. To rule that Trump's words on January 6 are legally identical to Jefferson Davis or General Lee's actions in conducting a 4 year war is equally outrageous.
Open Wide for Chunky®
Lucienn: The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it ‘stolen’ and ‘rigged’; that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud or by intended intimidation of state election officials, to pressure or persuade state legislatures and /or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results, to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors, to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states, and finally, to pressure the Vice President to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes. . . The bottom line is that Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid and comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The proposition that "There are significant chunks of the American populace" that will object to a Supreme Court decision that keeps Trump off the ballot, and similar "chunks of the American populace" that will object to a decision that keeps Trump on the ballot is unsupported and almost certainly WRONG. We have no tradition in this country, or even precedent, for the Supreme Court -- or ANY court -- barring a Presidential candidate from the ballot because of the candidate's supposed misbehavior. Every sane person who bothers to even think about the issue assumes that -- of course -- the Court will find that Trump can be on the ballot. I read now and again fevered claims that Trump is a threat to democracy, but nothing he has done is a greater threat to democracy than would be the Supreme Court claiming the power to decide that Trump can't run for President.
The proposition that "There are significant chunks of the American populace" that will object to a Supreme Court decision that keeps Trump off the ballot, and similar "chunks of the American populace" that will object to a decision that keeps Trump on the ballot is unsupported and almost certainly WRONG. We have no tradition in this country, or even precedent, for the Supreme Court -- or ANY court -- barring a Presidential candidate from the ballot because of the candidate's supposed misbehavior. Every sane person who bothers to even think about the issue assumes that -- of course -- the Court will find that Trump can be on the ballot. I read now and again fevered claims that Trump is a threat to democracy, but nothing he has done is a greater threat to democracy than would be the Supreme Court claiming the power to decide that Trump can't run for President.
Chuck ‘returns’. That’s Rich…
I don't (want to) believe this:
Why not? It's obviously true.
"There are significant chunks of the American populace that will find it very hard to respect a supreme court decision that keeps Trump off the ballot
Because it's not possibly to make a legitimate decision that does so.
When Americans throw an insurrection we bring guns, and shoot lots of people. Since neither of those things happened on Jan 6, it clearly wasn't an insurrection, and only a delusional lunatic could claim otherwise
there are significant chunks of the American populace that will find it very hard to respect a supreme court decision that keeps Trump on the ballot."
Why yes, the same people who insisted "trimesters" were written in the US Consititon are also going to claim "get Trump" is written there, too.
So what? They are evil, corrupt, lying sacks of shit. You can not be a decent human being, let alone a decent judge, and pander to them
tim in vermont: "Sometimes I think that Cuck and Rich are only here to make us firmer in our support for Trump, given that they never actually respond when their weak arguments are demolished. You would think that they would have the arguments gamed out until they were comfortable that they had a winning strategy, but what it looks like is that they hadn't even thought of the most obvious objections."
Remember, the ONLY reasons our LLR-democratical Brigade of C****, Rich and lonejustice are here is to:
- Deflect any and all criticism away from democraticals and democratical policy failures
- Lie about and smear republicans and conservatives
- Attempt to drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers
The first point is manifestly true simply by observation.
The second and third points were explicitly and proudly articulated by our very disturbed, woman threatening, conservative child-obsessing LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck.
Once these facts are internalized, every blog post ever made by Chuck, Rich and lonejustice makes perfect sense.
This issue is so simple that I am gobsmacked at the ignorance of (in no particular order) the four mooks in Colorado, Chuck, Rich, the entire US news media and everyone else commenting here.
Apparently none of the above has actually read the 14th Amendment in its entirety. It has five paragraphs, not three. All the debate over the language of Paragraph Three is interesting, but it’s Paragraph Five, one sentence long, which says Congress shall pass a law setting out the procedures for instituting the penalty of P3.
So the question to be asked is “Did Congress pass such a statute?” The answer is…Yes. Two times, in fact. The first was in 1870, soon after the Amendment w as ratified, and it set forth two procedural pathways for prosecution: one civil and one criminal.
But Congress revisited the law in 1948 and set up just a criminal path. To get someone thrown off a ballot or prevented from serving, a USAttorney (nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate—in other words NOT Jumpin Jack Smith) must bring a charge before a US District Court. Then, as per usual, there must be a trial. Presumption of innocence, right to be represented by an attorney and present a full throated defense, before judge or jury. The government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt (and the statute defines precisely was an “insurrection” is). If and only if the defendant is convicted can any of the remedies in Paragraph Three be instituted.
I am amazed that a bunch of judges on a “Supreme” court can so blithely ignore what the law actually says. I am less surprised at the ignorance of Chuck, Rich and all the so-called legal experts and pundits, all of who are consumed by the hatred of Trump.
Given all this, the vote to overturn Colorado must be 9-0. If it’s anything else, our system of law is finished.
Wince said...
"I guess I missed those Trump lawsuits? "
Trump didn't bring any lawsuits because he was too dumb to find the courthouse.
"Build the wall!!!" yelled Trump at his rallies with thousands of his supporters cheering.
"Lock her up!!!" yelled Trump about Hillary at his rallies with thousands of his supporters cheering.
None of this ever happened after he got elected.
Such a blowhard. Nothing will ever change if he gets elected again. Count on it.
"Significant" is vague and not quantifiable. I doubt the numbers are equal. One chunk is noisier than the other, but not necessarily larger.
we won't belabor all the tripwires the dems set up in the doj in the bureau and the company, to prevent any actual accountability, this is apparently true in the seth rich matter, among other
lonejustice wrote: Such a blowhard. Nothing will ever change if he gets elected again. Count on it.
Under Biden things got worse: accelerated immigration with no let-up in sight; under Biden we got flagrant violation of foreign meddling in American politics and a stupid war in the Ukraine likely rooted in Biden’s personal corruption.
Fuck you, lone justice.
I used to love the back and forth of the comments here. I'm not sure what has changed. Familiarity with the commentators, yes, of course that is a part of it. Age and general misanthropy also play a part. It does feel like the discussion has become either more disingenuous or stupider as time has gone on. I'm fucking weary of all this shit.
The only people left worth reading are rhhardin and Temujin (ah no, you lads are great, but there are others)
rhhardin's exactitude to inexactitude trip through the thesaurus was a fucking golden post! It's like Syndney Greenstreet said "there's not enough kindness in the world"
An act of compassion is a gift to the recipient, but also to the person giving the gift. Be well, and give with a generous heart this season. When the times are dark, that is when it is when we see how bright everyone really is, and who brings a bit of light into this world. 'Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night'....
To those criticizing "Rich":
Don't give him too much credit. He is clearly dumber than Inga and vicki from Pasadena. He only repeats the Democrat talking point that are used for imbeciles.
I doubt the subjective opinions of chunks of the electorate, on either side of the issue of Trump's eligibility, will have as much effect on the presidential election as the manner of mail in vote harvesting in key states, or the counting of those votes. But then again, that presumes Trump is on the ballot, so I reveal my own bias. Also, I bewail the lack of any challenger able to exceed Trump's appeal to the anti-Dem voter chunk. Having a candidate able to overcome his appeal through competence and policy would be a winning candidacy.
jameswhy said...
"So the question to be asked is “Did Congress pass such a statute?” The answer is…Yes. Two times, in fact. The first was in 1870, soon after the Amendment w as ratified, and it set forth two procedural pathways for prosecution: one civil and one criminal.
But Congress revisited the law in 1948 and set up just a criminal path"
i'm always really suspect when one of the Know Nothings refers to a law (or anything else) and doesn't specifically quote it- or here even cite it.
Without delving into the uncomfortable issues raised by the piece, let's consider the careerism on display.
Yes it does seem amazing Jameswhy, but one should never underestimate the ability of Chuckandrich to twist themselves into pretzel-like shapes to feign ignorance of the very plain meaning of laws in order to defend each and every democrat scheme to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights and the normal privileges that extend to the Chief Executive during and after holding office, all the while holding themselves out as experts on the law who for some strange reason can not ever provide specific examples of the exact illegal acts Trump supposedly committed. It is an amazing ability to bafflegab and weave webs of suggestion that always fail to actually bear the weight of any substance one could consider an “argument.”
Chunk you, Farley.
JAORE said...
"Now that is Nobel Prize worthy literature if an inner city kid from Baltimore ever read one."
But you're missing the beat!!!
I've often seen Mutaman and lonejustice post on this blog within minutes of each other. ???
“I reject framing it in an egalitarian way- the lawfare should be rejected and that’s it. No ‘both sides’. The lawfare side needs to debate policy and let the electors decide or the US will continue the decline into a third world power.”
Note the LawFare in what I pointed out above. If you asked either question in Law School, with no political entanglements, there would be little debate that the proper answer to a question on statutory construction was that the President is not covered as a officer of the US. Ditto the question about Supporting the Constitution. The CO majority glossed over that, by essentially saying that the oaths were essentially the same. Nope. Functionally very different. Turns out that 3 of 4 Justices in the majority were Ivy League LS grads, while the 3 in dissent, calling the majority’s LawFare inspired interpretations idiotic, were Denver University LS grads. Typical LawFare all the way down. Almost plausible interpretation of statutes (fools the libs here, and the CO Supreme Ct majority) until carefully parsed, at which time, they fall apart. And, indeed, my memory is that at least some of the original 14th Amdt misinterpretations came from there, the LawFare Blog.
LLR-democratical lonejustice @6:26PM.
I sort of feel bad for LLR-democratical lonejustice. He doesn't really have anything to say and when he does he exposes himself as the runt of the runtiest LLR-democratical litter ever along with Rich and Chuck.
Still, I guess Rich and Chuck expect the pathetic lonejustice to "contribute" something, anything(!), to the LLR-democratical effort....
...and so here we are.
And its only going to get more pathetic as we move into 2024.
Team Dem is desperate. The completely and utterly corrupt current lawfare effort isnt quite working out thus far.
And how could it after dozens if not hundreds of previously corrupt plans, some successful and some less so, have been thoroughly exposed before the entire world?
The key was timing. The dems, and Team DeSantis for that matter, were counting on the speed and improper coordination of all the dem legal shenanigans to have removed Trump from the battle long ago.
But life contains innumerable variables and known snd unknown unknowns, if I may paraphrase Rumsfeld. And so a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum...and that "funny thing" was things didnt quite work out for our self-styled "elites" and "pullers of strings".
Thus, we must now prepare ourselves for what these desperate, incompetent, vicious little New Soviet Democraticals and their GOPe allies will pull out of their hats in 2024.
Already there are rumblings of Black Swan massive National Security "events", possibly necessitating marshall law, nationwide 2020-like riots with the New Soviet Democraticals Antifa/BLM/Islamic Supremacist brown shirt shock troops with FBI/DOJ/NSA/Others coordination...and on top of it all another "Virus Crisis" along with implementation of full digitalization of our lives with govt controlled Social Credit Scoring.
Well. Thats quite alot of stuff to think about...particularly since each of those items has already been thru full trial runs across the country.
Get ready for lying and gaslighting from Chuck, Rich, lonejustice to reach levels never before seen as they attempt to play their part in the coming conflagration.
What Gospace said @ 4:05 PM
And DEFINITELY what chickelit said @ 7:08 PM!! I concur!!!
"Get ready for lying and gaslighting from Chuck, Rich, lonejustice to reach levels never before seen as they attempt to play their part in the coming conflagration."
But who are they preaching to? Not one person here takes them seriously. Why do they persist? Do they think that the mere act of posting somehow lessens Althouses impact and the impact of her blog? To my way of thinking it only points out their empty arguments. And the empty thinking that supplies them.
I'm reminded of the Super Bowl between the Rams and Patriots in 2002. The Rams had beaten the Patriots during the season, and were the favorites in the rematch. Belichick went all out to do what needed to be done for his team to win (Spygate, anyone?). One of his strategies was to have the defensive backs continually commit acts that would usually be called PI, defensive holding, etc., essentially gambling that the referees wouldn't be willing to continually flag the Patriots due to concerns about being charged with the refs determining the outcome of the game. Belichick was right, and Pats won.
See also Harry Reid on Mitt Romney.
chicklit said...
"Under Biden things got worse: accelerated immigration with no let-up in sight; under Biden we got flagrant violation of foreign meddling in American politics and a stupid war in the Ukraine likely rooted in Biden’s personal corruption. "
All true.
The notion that 'only Trump can save us.' - the man who promised to go after Hillary, then didn't.
A lot of hope involved.
gospace - I am satisfied Obama was born in Hawaii.
His Kenyan father lived there as a student... where he knocked up a woman named Stanley...
Obama was born in Hawaii.
"In 1960, Obama(senior) met Stanley Ann Dunham in a basic Russian language course at the University of Hawaii and they started dating.[35] After becoming pregnant, Dunham dropped out of the University of Hawaii after the fall 1960 semester, while Obama continued his education.[37] Obama married Dunham in Wailuku on the Hawaiian island of Maui on 2 February 1961, despite parental opposition from both families.[38][39][37][40] He eventually told Dunham about his previous marriage in Kenya, but said he was divorced—which she found out years later was not true.[35]"
Michael K at 12:54: "The Democrats are following a plan to take control of the government and never give it up. I could tolerate this if only their policies were not batshit crazy."
No, letting anyone take control of the government and never give it up is bad no matter what their policies are. It is the difference between citizen and subject.
Obama created his own mess about his place of birth by lying in telling readers of his book that he was born in Kenya. It is also quite likely that he lied to the universities about where he was born to get financial benefits for being born in a poor country rather than Hawaii. This theory explains a lot about what happened with the birth certificate.
"Thus, we must now prepare ourselves for what these desperate, incompetent, vicious little New Soviet Democraticals and their GOPe allies will pull out of their hats in 2024."
Those aren't hats.
Rusty: "But who are they preaching to? Not one person here takes them seriously. Why do they persist? Do they think that the mere act of posting somehow lessens Althouses impact and the impact of her blog? To my way of thinking it only points out their empty arguments. And the empty thinking that supplies them."
Little lefty brains always have grandiose visions of themselves.
Mason G for the win!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा