;)
The Conversation -- December 20, 2023
Adam Liptak of New York Times: "... Donald J. Trump urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to put off a decision on a crucial question in his federal prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election: whether he has 'absolute immunity' for actions he took as president. The question, Mr. Trump's brief said, should be 'resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner -- not at breakneck speed.' He urged the justices not to 'rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon.' The request appeared to be part of Mr. Trump's general strategy of trying to delay the trial in the case, which is scheduled to start on March 4."
"Disqualification for Thee But Not for Me." Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: "Trump on Tuesday night derided the [Colorado supreme court] ruling as 'eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.' But not only did Trump try to overturn the will of voters after the 2020 election, he has on myriad occasions pushed the idea that candidates should be disqualified irrespective of the voters'' will.... He built a base in the early 2010s with the ugly and false 'birther' campaign, whose entire premise was that Barack Obama wasn't eligible to be president.... During the 2016 GOP primary campaign, he repeatedly pushed the idea that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) might -- and even should -- be disqualified, both because he was born in Canada and because he purportedly cheated in the Iowa caucuses, which Cruz won. And Trump explicitly called for two others to be prohibited from running, including Hillary Clinton -- a lot[.]"
~~~~~~~~~~
It's a Trumpity-Thumpity Doo-Dah Day!
** Maggie Astor of the New York Times: "... Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, accepting the argument that the 14th Amendment disqualifies him in an explosive decision that could upend the 2024 election. In a lengthy ruling ordering the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump from the state's Republican primary ballot, the justices reversed a Denver district judge's finding last month that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment -- which disqualifies people who have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it from holding office -- did not apply to the presidency. They affirmed the district judge's other key conclusions: that Mr. Trump's actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated.... Mr. Trump will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, his campaign said in a statement. Tuesday's ruling applies only to Colorado, but if the Supreme Court were to affirm it, he could be disqualified more broadly." The link to the ruling is a link to a Colorado state court file, not to a NYT file. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Politico's story is here. CNN has a liveblog that goes into some detail: "The court, in its ruling, found there was 'substantial evidence' that Trump laid the groundwork to claim the 2020 election was rigged ... even before the election and worked to pressure Republican officials in various states to overturn the results. The court also found that Trump's messages in the lead-up to the January 6 rally at the Ellipse in Washington, DC, 'were a call to his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call.' The former president, the court found, also put a 'significant target on Vice President (Mike) Pence's back' when he tweeted on January 6 that Pence needed to send electoral votes back to the states. On January 6, the court notes, Trump also called for the crowd at the Ellipse to march to the Capitol, and the crowd 'unsurprisingly ... reacted to President Trump's words with calls for violence.'" Thanks to RAS for the link. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: Andrew Weissmann, speaking on MSNBC noted that, although the Colorado court split 4-3, the minority did not object to the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection but to procedural issues. And a couple of commentators on MSNBC noted the irony of a Court's finding that Trump was barred by the Constitution from running for public office when Trump was the most prominent promoter of the racist birther lie against President Barack Obama to keep Obama from qualifying under the Constitution for re-election in 2012. ~~~
~~~ Andrew Prokop of Vox looks at several aspects of the insurrectionist ban: Practically speaking, "... the Supreme Court is the ultimate destination for all of this wrangling, and it has a six-justice conservative majority, three of whom were appointed by Trump. Even before getting into the legal specifics, that's enough reason to be deeply skeptical that the Court would ban Trump from running again.... Given the lack of precedent, the much 'healthier path,' [political scientist Steven] Levitsky said, would have been if the Republican Party had managed to self-police by convicting Trump during his second impeachment trial and blocked him from running again. They didn't -- and that's why we're in this mess, debating whether democracy can even survive another Trump presidency." This is an update of an October post. (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ Marie: And are we not certain that the Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas will recuse himself from the case because of the conflict of interest created by his wife Ginni, a slobbering Trumpy insurrectionist?
Charlie Nash of Mediaite: "... Donald Trump accused President Joe Biden of not being religious enough during a campaign rally in Iowa on Tuesday.... 'When Joe Biden lit the national Christmas tree earlier this month, he completely failed to even mention the birth of Jesus Christ, which is hard to do if you celebrated Christmas, right? He didn't mention Jesus Christ in his remarks, not for three years he hasn't mentioned that and barely mentioned God[,' Trump said while] ... flanked by two Christmas trees decorated with Trump 2024 baubles.... 'And when I lit the Christmas tree each year, it was my honor to publicly celebrate the true source of Christmas joy, which is Jesus Christ.'" MB: Joe Biden attends mass every week, maybe more often, for all I know. And Trump clearly doesn't understand that Christmas trees, including the National Christmas Tree, are often representative of the secular celebration of Christmas like, you know, Cyber Monday. Or putting your own fat face on "Christmas" ornaments.
Hotsy-Totsy, Trump's a Friggin' Nazi. Michael Gold of New York Times: "... Donald J. Trump on Tuesday doubled down on his widely condemned comment [link fixed] that undocumented immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country,' rebuffing criticism that the language echoed Adolf Hitler by insisting that he had never read the Nazi dictator's autobiographical manifesto.... He said on Tuesday night in a speech in Iowa that undocumented immigrants from Africa, Asia and South America were 'destroying the blood of our country,' before alluding to his previous comments.... 'They don't like it when I said that. And I never read "Mein Kampf." They said, "Oh, Hitler said that."' He added that Hitler said it 'in a much different way,' without making his meaning clear." ~~~
~~~ Marie: I'd guess the "much different way" was the original German. Let's be clear, though. Nobody ever accused Trump of reading a book (though Ivana Trump said he kept a copy of transcripts of some of Hitler's speeches at his bedside table). What he has done is absorb the sick mindset of the Nazi dictator, and perhaps learned the vile language to go with it on his social media feed. But just as he thought "fake news" was an original thought (Hillary Clinton had called some Trump campaign bulletin "fake news," & Trump, the great projectionist, adopted it) and "Abe Lincoln was a Republican" an original discovery of a little-known fact, Trump now thinks that the racist, xenophobic catchphrases he has been spewing are his original ideas.
Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday slapped down former President Trump's statement that immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country' by pointing out Trump appointed his wife, Elaine Chao, who is Taiwanese American, to serve as secretary of Transportation in 2016.... But Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R), one of Trump's staunchest Senate allies, defended the former president's language. Tuberville said he was 'mad' that Trump 'wasn't tougher than that.'" (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ AND. Al Weaver of the Hill:"Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) issued a passionate defense of former President Trump's recent remarks claiming that migrants attempting to enter the U.S. are 'poisoning the blood of our country,' insisting that he was referring to fentanyl overdoses. When asked about the comments on Capitol Hill, Vance slammed the notion that Trump was borrowing rhetoric by Adolf Hitler and maintained that he was talking about the drug epidemic." MB: What a sick-o-fant. (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ Chris Cameron of the New York Times: “But Senator Susan Collins of Maine told a reporter for The Independent that the former president's remarks were 'deplorable.... That was horrible that those comments are just -- they have no place, particularly from a former president,' Ms. Collins said. Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, denounced Mr. Trump's language as 'unacceptable.... But this administration's policies are feeding right into it.'"
Godwin's Law, Amended. Calder McHugh in Politico Magazine:"Any time people start fighting on the internet, someone will inevitably reach for the Hitler comparison. It's a virtually unbreakable rule known as 'Godwin's law,' named after Mike Godwin, an early internet enthusiast who coined it back in 1990. It's also understood that often the party mentioning Hitler or the Nazis is losing the argument, though that's not part of the law itself. Godwin's law was invoked this weekend when President Joe Biden's campaign said ... Donald Trump had 'parroted Adolf Hitler' when he accused undocumented immigrants of 'poisoning the blood of our country.' But according to Godwin himself, that doesn't mean Biden is losing the argument. 'Trump's opening himself up to the Hitler comparison,' Godwin said in an interview. And in his view, Trump is actively seeking to evoke the parallel.... 'You could say the "vermin" remark or the "poisoning the blood" remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence,' Godwin said. 'But both of them pretty much make it clear that there's something thematic going on, and I can't believe it's accidental.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
Digby, in Salon: "Just because Trump's first term didn't result in the full flowering of Nazi America doesn't mean that the signs weren't there. He has been saying things for years that point inexorably to his underlying fascist worldview. And even more disturbing, the response he gets from his tens of millions of followers clearly shows that they share it." Thanks to Akhilleus for the link. (Also linked yesterday.)
Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: "In 2017, U.S. Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. was one of three finalists for the first Supreme Court vacancy Donald Trump got to fill. On Monday, Pryor delivered a stinging rebuke of Trump's former chief of staff [Mark Meadows] in [the Georgia election interference] case. He might also have undermined Trump's claims to presidential immunity in Trump's federal Jan. 6 case. The ruling came as both the Trump immunity claim and another crucial Jan. 6-related issue could be headed to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court where Trump nominees fill three of nine slots. And it served as a timely reminder of how even many Republican- and Trump-nominated judges have taken a dim view of Trump and his allies' efforts to overturn the 2020 election.... Pryor [-- writing for a unanimous three-judge panel --] wrote that Meadows's effort [to get his case moved from state to federal court] failed not just because former officials can't get cases removed to federal court, but also because Meadows's political actions wouldn't have qualified his case for removal anyway." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Aaron, aren't you forgetting Clarence & his law clerk Ginni? Surely they'll sit up nights writing an opinion granting Trump immunity from prosecution under the divine-right-of-kings doctrine. If they need help, they might call om Insufferable Sam & they can all get together and workshop the opinion at a fabulous resort, all expenses paid by Harlan Crow.
Kyle Cheney of Politico: "Months before special counsel Jack Smith took over the case, federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C. were considering obstruction charges in connection with Donald Trump's bid to subvert the 2020 election. A newly unsealed court filing related to the Trump grand jury investigation shows that prosecutors were eyeing the charge -- which had already been deployed against dozens of Jan. 6 riot defendants -- at least by September 2022 and perhaps as early as the spring. It's not clear whether the prosecutors at the time were considering bringing the charge against Trump himself or only against people in his orbit.... The unsealed document underscores the Justice Department's long and laborious pursuit of evidence to support the obstruction allegations now lodged against Trump -- even as the statute itself could be upended by the Supreme Court. The filing relates to search warrants obtained by prosecutors in June and July 2022 to scour the personal email accounts of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, his deputy Kenneth Klukowski and the Chapman University account of attorney John Eastman." (Also linked yesterday.)
Kate Shaw of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court is considering whether to take up the question of presidential immunity -- that is, the idea that a president, by virtue of the unique nature of the office, is entitled to exceedingly broad protections from legal consequences for statements made and actions taken while in office. If the court takes up that question in a case regarding Donald Trump, it will have profound consequences for both the 2024 election and the bigger question of presidential power.... [Past decisions] identified reasons for limiting the availability of certain kinds of legal process in the case of sitting presidents and, in some cases, ex-presidents. But none came close to announcing the sort of absolute freedom from judicially enforced accountability that Mr. Trump now seeks.... For a Supreme Court that holds itself out as hewing closely to text, history and tradition, immunity should present an easy case, and Mr. Trump should lose."
Annals of "Journalism," Ha Ha Ha. Eric Kleefeld of Media Matters: "Fox News' purported 'straight news anchor' Bret Baier pushed an unbelievable false equivalency on Monday, during an interview with former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY). Parroting a message courtesy of Fox's corporate cousins at The Wall Street Journal editorial page, Baier suggested that President Joe Biden's policies are equally or perhaps even more authoritarian than ... Donald Trump's failed coup attempt and open plotting for revenge."
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post: "A federal judge on Tuesday granted the Justice Department access to nearly 1,700 records recovered from the cellphone of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) in a long-running legal battle in the criminal investigation of ... Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of D.C. gave investigators access to 1,659 records and withheld 396 others after a federal appeals court directed him to individually review 2,055 communications from Perry's phone to decide which were protected by the Constitution's 'speech or debate' clause, which grants members of Congress immunity from criminal investigation when acting in their official capacities.... Tuesday's order will determine which messages investigators with special counsel Jack Smith can actually use as potential evidence in any case, pending an expected renewed appeal by Perry, part of legal fight that has tied up the records for more than a year."
Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: Over the course of three years, "federal prosecutors were scrutinizing whether [Rudy Giuliani] pursued dubious business dealings in Ukraine to shore up his dwindling fortune, according to court records unsealed late Tuesday.... The investigation, which did not result in charges for Mr. Giuliani, centered on whether he illegally lobbied the Trump administration in 2019 on behalf of Ukrainian officials.... The prosecutors had assembled enough evidence to persuade a judge in April 2021 to authorize the seizure of Mr. Giuliani's phones and computers, an extraordinary step to take against any lawyer, let alone one who had represented a sitting president.... But when they failed to find a smoking gun in Mr. Giuliani's electronic records, the prosecutors notified the judge overseeing the matter that they had ended the long-running investigation.... For the first time, the records explicitly linked Mr. Giuliani's recent financial troubles to his dealings in Ukraine, suggesting that he did not just want Ukrainian officials' help in attacking [Joe] Biden but also their money." The story goes on to explain how Rudy attempted to profit from his Ukrainian adventures.
Michael Kunzelman of the AP: "A former leader of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group was sentenced on Tuesday to more than three years behind bars for joining a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol nearly three years ago. Charles Donohoe was the second Proud Boy to plead guilty to conspiring with other group members to obstruct the Jan. 6, 2021, joint session of Congress for certifying President Joe Biden's electoral victory. His sentence could be a bellwether for other Proud Boys conspirators who agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors. Donohoe, 35, of Kernersville, North Carolina, apologized to his family, the law-enforcement officers who guarded the Capitol on Jan. 6, and 'America as a whole' for his actions on Jan. 6."
Connor O'Brien & Joseph Gould of Politico: "The Senate confirmed nearly a dozen nominees for top military posts on Tuesday night, marking the end of Sen. Tommy Tuberville's remaining holds over senior promotions. With senators rushing to wrap up before the holiday, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer secured a deal to confirm all 11 nominees for four-star positions by voice vote.... Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters after leaving the Senate floor, 'It's good news. We're happy about it.'... The Alabama Republican dropped his hold for most [of the 400+] promotions this month under pressure from his own party, paving the way for hundreds of confirmations. But he continued to stall four-star officers, making their confirmation one of the main pieces of unfinished business." (Also linked yesterday.)
Oh, here's something you could not have foreseen: ~~~
~~~ Liz Goodwin of the Washington Post: "Senators working to reach a deal on toughening up U.S. border policy in exchange for sending more aid to Ukraine are continuing to hold hours-long meetings every day in the Capitol as they make slow progress on the proposal with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But dozens of their Republican colleagues did not return to Washington this week to await the deal, as congressional leaders conceded there would be nothing to vote on before the holidays."
Annie Karni of the New York Times: "In 2023, the Republican-led House has passed only 27 bills that became law, despite holding a total of 724 votes. That is more voting and less lawmaking than at any other time in the last decade, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and a far less productive record than that of last year, when Democrats had unified control of Congress. The House held 549 votes in 2022, according to the House clerk, and passed 248 bills that were signed into law.... The list of this year's accomplishments is less ambitious and more bare minimum, such as legislation to suspend the debt ceiling and set federal spending limits that helped pull the nation back from the brink of economic catastrophe.... This year was grossly unproductive even by the lower standards of what's possible in divided government and after taking into account the reality that not all bills are created equal.... And some of the votes happened because House members defied the speaker and forced them against his wishes, like a resolution to impeach Mr. Biden over his border policies and a move to censure Representative Adam B. Schiff of California and fine him $16 million." ~~~
~~~ Annie Karni of the New York Times: "Heres a look at what Congress actually got done in 2023, in the order in which the laws were enacted."
Gracious and wise, civil and principled, Sandra Day O'Connor, daughter of the American West, was pioneer in her own right, breaking down the barriers in legal and political worlds and in the nation's consciousness.... She knew no person is an island. In the fabric of our nation, we are all inextricably linked, and for the America to thrive, America must see themselves not as enemies but as partners in the great work of deciding our collective destiny. -- President Joe Biden, at the funeral of Sandra Day O'Connor, Tuesday ~~~
The day that I was nominated to succeed Justice O'Connor, reporters had asked her what she thought of the nomination. She had nice things to say but ended by noting that the only problem was I didn't wear a skirt. My initial reaction was, of course, everything's negotiable. -- Chief Justice John Roberts, at O'Connor's funeral
~~~ Abbie VanSickle of the New York Times: "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was remembered on Tuesday for her trailblazing role on the Supreme Court, trading the sweeping skies of the Arizona desert as a cattle rancher's daughter for the marble halls of the court to become the first female justice and one of the most powerful women in the country.... Although Justice O'Connor did not serve as chief justice, she held such power during a crucial period on the court that it was often referred to as the O'Connor court." The AP's story is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: It dawned on me as I was watching parts of O'Connor's funeral that she would not have been our first female justice had she married someone else. While they were in law school, she dated William Rehnquist, and he asked her to marry him. She turned him down. Richard Nixon appointed Rehnquist to the Supreme Court in 1971. It seems unlikely Ronald Reagan, who nominated O'Connor to the Court in 1981 (and later nominated Rehnquist to be chief justice) would have gone for a husband-and-wife Supreme team, or that the Senate would have confirmed Sandra Day while her husband was on the job.
A Rare Story with a Happy Outcome. Amy Harmon, et al., of the New York Times: "As a Jesuit priest for more than two decades, the Rev. James Martin has bestowed thousands of blessings -- on rosary beads, on babies, on homes, boats, and meals, on statues of saints, on the sick, on brides and on grooms. Never before, though, was he permitted to bless a same-sex couple -- not until Monday, when the pope said he would allow such blessings, an announcement that reverberated through the church. On Tuesday morning, Damian Steidl Jack, 44, and his husband, Jason Steidl Jack, 38, stood before Father Martin in a living room on Manhattan's West Side.... Father Martin is arguably the highest-profile advocate for L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics in America.... Father Martin had waited years for the privilege of saying such a prayer, however simple, out in the open."
~~~~~~~~~~
Maya Goldman of Axios: "Sixty percent of kids who have lost Medicaid coverage this year came from just nine states, all of which are Republican-led, according to new data from the Biden administration.... And the 10 states refusing the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults have disenrolled more kids than all of the expansion states combined, the administration also reported.... Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra sent letters to Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota and Texas on Monday urging them to better protect kids from losing Medicaid."
Florida. Amanda Marcotte of Salon: "... this time last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis and the rest of Florida's Republican Party were being heralded as the post-Donald Trump future for the GOP.... For months, there were glowing reports that DeSantis's 'miracle' win in Florida would render Trump a 'non person.' Polls showed DeSantis leading Trump in the GOP primary, often by robust margins. Then DeSantis officially announced his presidential run, while Trump got arrested and charged with 91 felonies in four separate jurisdictions. Since then, there's been a stampede of GOP support back to the glowering orange criminal who first captured their hearts with his blunt racism.... On Sunday, the Florida GOP did everything in their power to push their party chair, Christian Ziegler, out the door [because of a sexual scandal].... [DeSantis & Ziegler] pushed the party into embrace an anti-education, pro-censorship campaign.... The Florida GOP promise was a path to authoritarianism that would somehow not offend the majority of non-authoritarian Americans. But it was an empty promise, and the party's current shambles shows it."
New York. Grace Ashford & Luis Ferré-Sadurní of the New York Times: "New York will undertake an ambitious effort to address the state's history of slavery and racism, establishing the United States' third statewide task force to examine whether reparations can be made to confront the legacy of racial injustice. Gov. Kathy Hochul on Tuesday signed a bill that empowers a commission to study not only the history of slavery, which was outlawed in New York in 1827, but also its subsequent effects on housing discrimination, biased policing, income inequality and mass incarceration of African Americans. New York joins California and Illinois at the forefront of reparations efforts...." ~~~
~~~ Marie: IMO, reparations make sense only if you include all oppressed people, not just people descended from African slaves. So that would be all descendants of women, for starters. So, hey, if you're not of woman born, you're out. But you will have to pay reparations to the rest of us.
Virginia. Olivia Diaz, et al., of the Washington Post: "A day after halting work to remove the Confederate memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, a federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday said he would allow the removal to proceed. On Tuesday evening, Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against a request from a group called Defend Arlington that the memorial remain undisturbed. In an opinion denying a preliminary injunction, Alston wrote ... that the group that ... Defend Arlington had not shown it was in the public interest to leave the memorial in place, nor had it shown that adjacent graves were being disturbed by the activity."
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine
The Washington Post's live update of developments Wednesday in the Israel/Hamas war are here. CNN's live updates for Wednesday are here. The New York Times' live updates are here.
Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post: "The U.N. Security Council failed again Tuesday to come up with a resolution calling for a stop to fighting in Gaza -- at least for long enough to allow more humanitarian aid into the enclave -- that would not be vetoed by the United States.... Negotiators were unable to agree on language, and a late-afternoon vote was canceled. The 15-member council is scheduled to reconvene Wednesday morning."
Here's a link to this video -- Chris Hayes' take on Israel's war on Gaza --. You can watch on YouTube.
Share Article
Reader Comments (11)
Got cancer? Here’s an aspirin.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the Supreme Court hops to in the case of Orange Hitler’s disqualification decision in Colorado. Jack Smith asked for a quick decision on Fatty’s claim of unconditional and eternal kingly immunity from any kind of prosecution. Word is they’ll get on that right away. Maybe by June. See, a Trump conviction wouldn’t help that fat fuck, and at least one Justice is all Trump all the way, so this decision will likely come about very quickly.
Keeping that fascist prick off the ballot in Colorado wouldn’t make any difference in the general (or the primary), at least in that state. Biden took there easily in 2020. And if the Supremes rule that the 14th amendment’s disqualification clause has merit, only states under Democratic state control would make the challenge. No red state would take that step. Still, it would be huge. Which is why it won’t happen.
But I’m curious to see how the strict constructionist, originalist, textualists on the court hippity hop around the clear intent of the language in this case. But, as John Roberts sez (see yellow highlighted text block, above), “everything is negotiable”, including, and sometimes especially, the Constitution. Oh, not when it comes to guns, or abortion. Only when it comes to stuff they don’t like.
On the other hand, Fatty’s inveterate criminality and baked in evil keep the justices mighty busy. Doesn’t he realize they have parties to attend, rewarding speaking engagements to schedule, and all expenses paid for travel to luxury locations on right-wing billionaires’ dimes to fly off to? What the hell! They don’t want to spend all their time cleaning up after this crooked piece of shit.
Still, he’s a Nazi, they like Nazi, he’s authoritarian, they’re authoritarian…
And one more thing. I’ve had it with pearl clutchers who whine that such a move is unprecedented. Waaahhh! No shit. How about considering the fact that we had a president who is a convicted rapist, avowed fascist, and documented insurrectionist who channels Hitler in his stump speeches. How’s that for unprecedented? We need unprecedented solutions for unprecedented problems. It would be like treating cancer with aspirin. Cuz that’d work.
Ex-Republicans plagiarize the liberal blogsphere
"...How very strange it has been to watch people who spent their professional careers mocking, slandering or ignoring Liberals who "have been correct about the nature and the degree of the threat" now building themselves an entire media industry on the foundation of our critiques and our vocabulary while continuing to "unyieldingly, unrelentingly, without exception" pretend that we do not exist. ..."
MKaneJeeves,
Quite.
The Colorado case made me think of Biden's attempt at student debt relief. The law was crystal clear that he could waive or modify loans during an emergency and yet six justices ignored the law because they personally didn't like the results of Biden's actions. The 14th Amendment is equally clear, but the Republicans on the court have already shown the laws of this nation are only what they say they are.
On a side note, if Trump is deemed ineligible would he have to return all or part of the money he idiots have given him to run for president and pay his legal bills? Seeing him scramble to pull the money together to give back would be fun to watch. Though I won't hold my breath.
Vanity Fair
"Overturning Roe Has Been a Horror Show
Medical nightmares are happening before our eyes, and even as Americans in red and blue states express support for abortion rights, the GOP seems determined to crack down further.
For millions of women, it’s more dangerous to be pregnant in post-Roe America, and there have been countless stories of doctors refusing to treat women who are miscarrying in Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Texas"
Not enough people in jail in red states apparently. In Oklahoma
"The legal challenge involves the case of Brittany Gunsolus, 27, who used marijuana edibles and topical creams during her pregnancy with a recommendation from her doctor, according to the filing. Gunsolus gave birth to a healthy baby in Lawton in October 2020 who tested positive for marijuana. Child welfare workers closed an investigation after finding Gunsolus’ home was safe and loving. But the Comanche County District Attorney still charged Gunsolus with felony child neglect in May 2021.
At a court hearing in Comanche County in August, a prosecutor argued Gunsolus broke the law because her unborn child did not have its own, separate state license to use medical marijuana."
In the next few weeks, we'll see and hear many arguments claiming that Colorado's Court judgment is wrong. A prime argument will be that DiJiT was not "convicted" of insurrection, in fact the senate declined to hold him to account after impeachment #2.
But ... the 14th does not require, or even mention, conviction or any court process. At the time of writing, a person's actions spoke for themselves to the question. Whether or not you could find a grey uniform and a "CSA" belt buckle, if you led a charge or ordered one against a federal force, you were insurrecting. Lawyers can parse, but when I heard DiJiT on the tv tell his mob to march to the capitol to help them see the light, I knew I was witnessing an attempt at obstructing a congressional process and suborning insurrection. All the prior skulduggery that preceded that day may also be illegal, but was just prepping the battlefield for that afternoon.
Treason only becomes "not treason" if the traitors win.
Thom Hartmann
"The founding premise of the modern conservative movement tracks back a generation before Stormer’s book [None Dare Call It Treason] to a Republican thought leader named Russell Kirk. He laid it out in his 1951 book The Conservative Mind that I detail in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy.
Kirk argued that the middle-class was becoming a threat to America; without clearly defined classes and power structures — essentially without the morbidly rich in complete control of everything — society would devolve into chaos.
Kirk and his followers essentially predicted in 1951 that if today’s “hairdressers and working tallow-chandlers” — college students, women, working-class people, and people of color — ever got even close to social and political power at the same level as wealthy white men, there would essentially be a communist revolution in the US, handing us over to Stalin and his Politburo.
We are literally facing the authoritarian future that John Stormer was warning us against back in 1964. Only instead of “communists” in the State Department, it’s a billionaire coming into the presidency with the avowed goal of ending union rights and locking up or using the Army with live ammunition against those who protest his policies.
And it all tracks back to wealthy conservatives funding a project in the 1960s to scare Americans about socialism and communism so they could stop the union-fueled growth of wages that were cutting into their profits."
The other major objection to the Colorado decision I've heard is the definition and application of "officer." The Right maintains that the offices of president and vice-president are not included in that legal category set forth in the 14th Amendment.
We'll see if and when the SCOTUS rules on the matter, but it seems to me that making those offices an exception would further insulate presidents from the law's application, similar to the immunity claims the Right claims for sitting and past presidents.
If the SCOTUS does come down on that side of the issue, maybe they could title their decision "The Divine Right of Kings."
@Ken Winkes: Yes, that was the conclusion that the trial court came to in the Colorado case, but the 4 supremes overruled her. Some right-wing, never-Trumper said yesterday that the Constitution refers to the president as an officer more the two dozen times. Here's how Trump's precious Article II BEGINS: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years." And just a word search makes clear that the term "Office of the President" occurs numerous times in the Constitution, and the term "office" when referring to the President's job, many more times -- including in his oath of, uh, office. Who's the person who holds "office"? Why, it's an "officer"!
However, here's the crux of the 14th Amendment, and therein lies a question:
"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."
It is curious that this section specifies certain other officeholders but does not make mention of the POTUS & VPOTUS. I mean, why mention the electors but not the very guys they were electing?* And it isn't as if the Amendment's authors couldn't imagine a potential presidential or veep candidate engaging in insurrection inasmuch as dozens (or hundreds) of formerly-high-ranking officials throughout the South recently had done just that.
So maybe that Colorado judge had a point. In any event, when the defense goes before the Supremes, it had better be ready to answer my question with some document(s) -- letters, notes, interviews, whatever -- illuminating the thinking of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, something that demonstrates they meant, "and the President, too." Just because it doesn't make sense to you and me that they would exclude the most important U.S. "officers," maybe it made sense to the drafters.
Something else I noticed while perusing the Constitution, which I so often do (ha ha), is Article I, Sec. 3: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." That is, the Constitution is very specific that a House-impeached & Senate-convicted person (and the previous graf makes clear that includes the POTUS), may be tried & convicted of a crime after having been impeached & convicted by the Congress. Nothing in there about his first being convicted of a crime, then barred from office, which many Trump apologists are insisting is required. Just the reverse of what they're insisting is what the Constitution prescribes.
* Update: Mark Graber, a U. Md. law professor, writes, the offices covered "included the presidency, a point many participants in framing, ratifying and implementation debates over constitutional disqualification made explicitly, as documented in the records of debate in the 39th Congress, which wrote and passed the amendment. Senators, representatives and presidential electors are spelled out because some doubt existed when the amendment was debated in 1866 as to whether they were officers of the United States." I sure hope he's right; I'm not going to study the debates of the 39th Congress to find out.
Update: The Colorado supremes' ruling (Sections E-1 & E-2 of the ruling) does address the question of why the POTUS & VPOTUS are considered "officers," especially because a draft version of the 14th Amendment did specify them as officers under Section 3. The essential argument is that those jobs subject to the insurrection ban were sometimes not considered officers; i.e., senators & reps were considered "members" of Congress, not officers, and electors are not described as "officers" in the Constitution. They also cite one instance in which a senator wondered "in colloquy" why the section contained no direct reference to the POTUS & veep, and the drafters assured him POTUS & VPOTUS were officers, which satisfied the senator.
What about the "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" part of the 14th Amendment? Trump has helped raise money for the insurrectionists, including being part of a January 6th choir release, and he has floated pardoning insurrectionists if reelected along with calling them political prisoners. Though I wonder if the ones who blamed Trump for their action in court could find their pardons lost in the mail.
@RAS: I've wondered about that part, too. I do think that if Trump has taken an affirmative action to financially support the J-6ers (foolishly assuming some J-6ers have actually received checks from Trump) does put him on the hook for "aid & comfort." But his rhetorical support, maybe not, because Trump takes back or accidentally forgets what he says when it's convenient, as you point out re: "pardons lost in the mail." Promises of future support may not constitute "aid & comfort."
I mean, if I say you're a hero and I'm sending you a check for $10,000 for your heroism, then I never send the check, have I really given you "aid & comfort"? Or have I just made you the goat?