"... if the Supreme Court said we're removing the front-running Republican candidate from the ballot and essentially saying to the American people, you won't have the opportunity to vote for him. And I think it would be very, very disruptive in this country. I think it will create a huge reaction and that worries me. It worries me partly because of Donald Trump. There's so much cynicism about our institutions already. And the strength of our democracy are these institutions. You can argue that's why you have to go the way the Colorado court suggests. But I think in the minds of many voters, this would be a subversion. And it would draw very strong reaction."
Said David Axelrod, on CNN last night, before today's oral argument.
Very strong reaction... but what, exactly? Another/"another" insurrection?
Posts
50 comments:
In other words, a good chunk of the country won’t stop the Left from devouring itself.
I think this is partly how ancient Rome disintegrated. We have to have an insurrection to stop those other bastards from having an insurrection.
"Very strong reaction... but what, exactly? Another/"another" insurrection?"
Much better never to find out what the answer is to that question.
It was a riot.
Calling Jan 6th "an insurrection" is leftwing media/Liz Cheney, Pelosi Adam Kinzinger Bullshit.
The billions in property damage done by leftwing rioters after George Floyd died? Memory hole.
Axelrod is walking the line.
I suppose this shows some insight on Axelrod’s part but, seriously, who cannot possibly see this from Day One? It’s like when Bill Maher says something totally obvious but it casts a mildly harsh light on Dems and Republicans celebrate him as if he were a guru.
Axelrod’s another lying POS. All narrative and propoganda all the time.
If he’s saying this, it’s because he knows SCOTUS will rule against this BS and he’s trying to soften the blow.
What he should be saying is “this stupid lawfare shit needs to stop and the dems should be absolutely embarrassed by these tactics and by this administration.”
Axelrod is a subversion czar what caused unrest. He can suck it….
"I think it would be very, very disruptive in this country."
Impossible. How disruptive could it be if the people don't have any F-16s?
I mean we the people have more guns than the entire world combined with large groups of active, reserve, national guard and ex-military in the millions who are 90% conservative with huge quantities of automatic weapons, night vision, homemade demo and the ability to find out where peoples' families currently reside, but there's really nothing to fear. It's not like highly-skilled former and current professionals could in anyway organize to attack strategic nuclear weapon depot sites in Albuquerque or hijack OST shipments to get access to all kinds of DOE goodies, they've already planned for that after all.
Axelrod is stirring the dirty dishwater of insurrection. It's like CNN giving a microphone to Ray Epps for David-effing sakes! Someone call the FBI.
The right already feels like it has been marginalized, feels that the Dems use shenanigans to create unfair elections, in addition to using novel legal approaches to remove a candidate. If only right really DID stop being polite about it. Imagine BLM X 100. But, I think instead we will go out with a whimper again because WE are the ones who respect the institutions.
Shorter Axelrod:
"If we could get away with it, we would do it."
Can the Supreme Court commit insurrection? Does the government belong to the People or to the officeholders? Given the opening phrase of the Constitution, We the People, it seems the answer is yes. For example, suppose the Supremes were to decide unanimously that the Second Amendment is obsolete and invalid. (Yes, that would amount to finding the Constitution unconstitutional, but bear with me.) What is the remedy for that? Impeachment? What high crime or misdemeanor should be named in the articles of impeachment? When a lower court judge goes haywire, the remedy is a reversal by a higher court, but what happens when the highest court fucks up? Do we hold them infallible, like the pope? What if Congress refuses to impeach the Court? How do the People protect their liberty? Thomas Jefferson was clear on that contingency.
We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Stephens Smith, 1787
Pretty grim, this endorsement of bloody insurrection. But what's the alternative?
"We" already think the Democrats are cheating bastards. "We" do not understand why vote counting was stopped at roughly the same time in four swing states in 2020, only for bales of Biden ballots to appear. And "we" certainly do not view Joe Biden as compos mentis. And "we" do not understand why the collective political establishment keeps the borders open. Donald Trump, at least, appears to understand these concerns. What will "we" do? Can't say. But keep pushing and find out. FAFO as we say in this century.
goose meet gander:
but I'm trying to imagine what it would be like..."
"... if the Supreme Court said we're removing the front-running Democrat candidate from the ballot and essentially saying to the American people, you won't have the opportunity to vote for him
Wait until a DC jury convicts Trump. MAGA patriots will attack the jail, free Trump and burn it to the ground. Our Bastille moment.
Mark Steyn just lost to Michael Mann on his defamation claim. To be clear, Mann lied about being winning the Nobel prize. In NE, that alone would lead to a defendant's verdict. But this DC jury found that Steyn published statements with actual malice, that is, Steyn knew the statements were false or made them with reckless disregard for the truth. There can't be any evidence that the plaintiff met his burden of proof on that element of the case.
Verdict was $1 in actual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The other guy got hit for $1,000 in punitive damages.
It is clear that no conservative can receive a fair jury trial in DC. If Trump goes to trial in DC, he will be convicted.
The Rule of Law is dead in America. Or maybe hanging on by a thread.
I'm very bitter over this.
For those who don't know, Steyn had 3 heart attacks, defended himself and is now in a wheelchair. The stress of this trial certainly didn't help him.
All resistance to Progressive rule is an "insurrection." I'm pretty sure that's in the Constitution somewhere, or at least in Mao's Little Red Book (which is an important guide for those seeking buried emanations and penumbrae therein).
There is a distinct feeling that we are getting closer to real violent reaction. Since 2020 and the massive riots, arson that erupted and no consequences for those that did those actions and the imprisonment of j6 protestors that did not get violent. There is tremendous anger about the lawfare against President Trump. His poll numbers reflect that.
The saying is when the ballot box does not work that the next step is the ammo box. I believe Axelrod is worry about that coming true.
Disqualifying Trump is better than a fraudulent vote count to beat him. It's in plain sight.
You're not here as an apologist for Donald Trump..the mantra must be recited or the crowd will stone you...
"Very strong reaction... but what, exactly? Another/"another" insurrection?"
Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
If you don't find the daily antics of the present administration a little frightening, then you're not paying attention.
Courts would be wise to avoid playing footsie with Democrat lawfare. The country is dispirited already. I don't know what the physical reaction would be. If the population of a country gets dispirited enough the country loses its soul.
What, exactly? It's a general statement. Prolly less than BLM riots but bigger than the tea party movement.
Personally, I don’t give a rip what Axelrod has to say about anything.
Seems only possible with a rich, white, Republican male.
So not that it’s right, but it avoids disruption?
It’s all realpolitik on the left these days.
Remember the French Yellow Vest movement?
The really dumb part about what Colorado did is that Colorado is a winner take all state for Presidential elections, and there was almost no chance that Trump could win the state.
So what they did probably would have made no difference in the Presidential results in Colorado, but it would actually boost Trump in other states.
So, far from hurting Trump, they were actually helping Trump.
Axelrod has quite the gift for getting it and not getting it, all at the same time.
Seriously? They found for Mann? He literally had no case. Defamation requires damages and Mann literally could not show he had taken any damages, not to mention he literally lied in a document presented to the court.
I agree with Begley. DC courts are roughly on the same level as Soviet kangaroo courts. It is not possible to get a fair trial there. Trump will be convicted. They wouldn't even need to present any evidence.
Democratic leadership was right not to support this ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court and instead let the legal process play out.
"If the population of a country gets dispirited enough the country loses its soul."
Check the southern border. A new one is being imported.
"Seriously? They found for Mann? He literally had no case. Defamation requires damages and Mann literally could not show he had taken any damages, not to mention he literally lied in a document presented to the court."
The bizzaro world definition of jury nullification, it would appear.
Blogger Static Ping said...
"Seriously? They found for Mann? He literally had no case. Defamation requires damages and Mann literally could not show he had taken any damages, not to mention he literally lied in a document presented to the court."
It would be true justice if the court would find Mann guilty of perjury for claiming 9 MM in damages when he later acknowledged he thought it was only 100,000. Fine him 1MM.
Very strong reaction... but what, exactly? Another/"another" insurrection?
No, this would be a real insurrection. With thousands to millions of dead people
loudogblog said...
So what they did probably would have made no difference in the Presidential results in Colorado, but it would actually boost Trump in other states.
So, far from hurting Trump, they were actually helping Trump.
Well of COURSE they were!
They did the exact same thing in 2016, giving Trump massive free publicity carrying his rallies live and uncut during the primaries.
They wanted Trump as their opponent, and they got him.
Now they're trying to figure out how to get rid of the "diminished mental capacity" Joe Biden without replacing him with the diminished mental capacity Kamela Harris. The circular firing squad from that one is going to be massively entertaining
Dave Begley @ 3:59: What you said. These morons are putting at mortal risk everything —everything— that has been painstakingly built and cared for over generations.
I need to find a way to help Steyn. What a disgrace.
Does DC have any standards concerning the amount of punitive damages that can be supported by nominal actual damages?
I think it will create a huge reaction and that worries me.
It scares the crap out of me. A real insurrection would be thoroughly bloody and likely to include politicians, probably from both parties, and federal bureaucrats dangling from trees and street lamps. Will Axelrad be among them? Frankly I don’t care. This situation is unbelievably frightening.
The Colorado gambit is particularly off point. The 14th makes no mention of ballot eligibility. A proven insurrectionist seems free to run. But they can’t serve unless Congress through a 2/3s vote by each house, removes the disability to serve.
I am puzzled as why the Court even took up this matter.
The Colorado gambit is particularly off point. The 14th makes no mention of ballot eligibility. A proven insurrectionist seems free to run. But they can’t serve unless Congress through a 2/3s vote by each house, removes the disability to serve.
I am puzzled as why the Court even took up this matter.
This is all a sidewhow. The VOTERES can overulle any amendment ... if the VOTERS think Trump can be President, he can be President, that's it. The Constituion doesnt overrule the people who it is meant to govern. We decide, not a document
There are two factual questions at the core of Trump vs Anderson: Was January 6 an insurrection and did Trump “engage” in it?
Fortunately, the Supreme Court need not look far for answers to these questions. They can simply look across the street at the Capitol, where majorities of both chambers of Congress already found that January 6 was an insurrection and that Trump not only engaged in it but “incited” it.
The congressional votes regarding Trump should satisfy those who say we should “let the voters decide” rather than applying the Constitution and removing Trump from the ballot; the voters already decided. Our elected representatives convened, heard from both sides, and voted that January 6 was an insurrection and that Donald Trump not only engaged in it but incited it. This was the conclusion of 232 of 435 representatives and 57 of 100 senators in Trump's second impeachment.
Those majorities already represent the will of the American people. True, it was not enough for impeachment, which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but it is more than enough for disqualification, where no supermajority is stipulated and thus a simple majority should suffice.
Well if Trump wins, expect all the Progressive American cities to get burned down by angry lefties......They destroyed as much as they can already...nothing will stop them from total annihilation. They now know the arm of justice swings only one way. (as do the rest of America, and it ISN"T good for REAL AMERICANS who love their country.)
“The really dumb part about what Colorado did is that Colorado is a winner take all state for Presidential elections, and there was almost no chance that Trump could win the state.
So what they did probably would have made no difference in the Presidential results in Colorado, but it would actually boost Trump in other states.”
Which lends further credence to my hypothesis that Progressives can’t see past the end of their nose.
gadfly said...
There are two factual questions at the core of Trump vs Anderson: Was January 6 an insurrection and did Trump “engage” in it?
And the answers are "no", and "no".
Anyone who is NOT a moron knows that American insurrections involve lots of people showing up with firearms and shooting other people.
Which didn't happen, this time.
But do keep pushing
Judicial review of presidential candidates is not in the constitution of the United States.
Careful, Craig. You're going to make Howard mad and then he'll try and make fun of you.
Post a Comment