Trump disqualified from CO ballot
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
A lefty take of course, but I think it lays out the stakes well.
slate.com
Just to review then: Regardless of the outcome, the court’s decision to accept this case will be bad for democracy, bad for public acceptance of the institution, and bad for voters. Had the court not accepted the case, it would also have been bad for democracy, bad for public acceptance of the institution, and bad for voters. Perhaps the bitter truth is that American democracy is too creaky and wobbly to competently handle the quandary of an insurrectionist running to reclaim the office he previously attempted to steal.
The Supreme Court Will Decide if Trump Can Run for President. It’s Not Ready for the Fallout.
This may be the first major test this year of whether the court, and indeed the country, can weather 2024 with its institutions intact.
Cases are decided on the briefs. Oral argument is for show.
Lmao. Allowing voters to decide who their President will be could be bad for democracy. 😂A lefty take of course, but I think it lays out the stakes well.
Just to review then: Regardless of the outcome, the court’s decision to accept this case will be bad for democracy, bad for public acceptance of the institution, and bad for voters. Had the court not accepted the case, it would also have been bad for democracy, bad for public acceptance of the institution, and bad for voters. Perhaps the bitter truth is that American democracy is too creaky and wobbly to competently handle the quandary of an insurrectionist running to reclaim the office he previously attempted to steal.
The Supreme Court Will Decide if Trump Can Run for President. It’s Not Ready for the Fallout.
This may be the first major test this year of whether the court, and indeed the country, can weather 2024 with its institutions intact.
You’re terrible at interpreting legal issues and motivations of lawyers. No doubt you’re getting this from whatever biased sites and sources you are reading.
When the SCt reverses the Colorado SCt, will you question the expertise of your sources or continue to roll with them?
Jena Griswold
@JenaGriswold
Colorado’s 2024 Presidential primary ballot is certified. The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result.
5:14 PM · Jan 5, 2024
·
1.2M
Views
2.6K
763
3.1K
65
I’m no lawyer (yet 😉) but it seems like reversing CO will be a unanimous decision. The citizen me hopes so. The absolute worst case would be to allow it to stand. It would lead to states removing Presidential candidates of both parties in the future. They’d find a way to remove Biden in some states this cycle. Red states would have the choice of voting for a Republican and no Democrats, and Blue states would serve up the Democrat as the only choice.
Thanks for that... I don't think I ever said that it would or would not be reversed, and I don't think anyone of the "experts" I posted said it would be either. I think that the experts,who I guess don't match your level of expertise have outlined reasons why they feel it could go either way and not be a slamdunk the way the experts on here are prediciting...
So I'll post Constitutional law Professor Jamie Raskin's analysis here, keeping in mind he was in the building during Jan 6 and also a member of the Jan 6 Committee. Both of those factors may make him aware of facts you don't have at your fingertips based on testimony, statements, documentation that he is privy to... He seems to allude to some of that here, in his dismissal of the claim that Jan 6 was just a "riot gone bad"...
I don't know your credentials and maybe you're more versed in the Constitution than he is. But there's a reason the Comer people do not want to take him on directly in public settings. They don't have anyone on their side of the aisle who can compete with him on Constitutional issues, esp when a possible contender like Dershowitz is fending off his own Epstein-related problems...Maybe you should apply for the job...
Now if you disasgree with Raskin here, that's fine and I'd be interested in reading your point by point rebuttal of what he maintains. Like I said you may be more of an expert than he is,and you may be in your own right a Constitutional law expert scholar and Professor who teaches. Maybe you're someone who has disdain for so called "experts" in the field, I don't know.
But here is an ample opportunity for you to debate him (one sidedly) and refute what he says by providing your counter argument.You describe him as "biased", but it might be helpful if you explain why he's wrong, instead of just expressing disagreement? What's your counter-argument, other than just attacking my lousy interpretive skills and sources...
His bio reads to me like someone who is pretty well versed in the subject matter, but maybe that's just my bias. It could be your's is superior, I don't know you from Adam. But I'd say his sounds pretty impressive...
"He graduated from Georgetown Day School in 1979 at age 16, and magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard College in 1983 with a Bachelor of Arts in government with concentration in political theory. In 1987, he received a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.[13]
Career as law professor[edit]
For more than 25 years, Raskin was a constitutional law professor at American University Washington College of Law,[14] where he taught future fellow impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett.[15] He co-founded and directed the LL.M. program on law and government and co-founded the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project.[5][6] From 1989 to 1990, Raskin served as general counsel for Jesse Jackson's National Rainbow Coalition.[16] In 1996, he represented Ross Perot regarding Perot's exclusion from the 1996 United States presidential debates. Raskin wrote a Washington Post op-ed that strongly condemned the Federal Election Commission and the Commission on Presidential Debates for their decisions."[17]Apologies for using wiki, but those claims are all cited with footnotes so I assume they're true...
Raskin's claim is "to know the law is to know Trump is disqualified", and you obviously disagree. He lays out his case in terms which I think I understand, and I think it would be interesting to see your item by item refutation, which for all I know could blow him out of the water. I'm really curious to see you debate him, or at lkeast refute his positions, though he won't have an oppty at rebuttal. Hopefully you can illustrate your position in terms I can understand, which like I said I feel he does an excellent job of. That's likely a result of his co-founding of the Constitutional Literacy Project, which I would imagine has a goal of making Constitutional issues relatable to non-scholars,like me...
Can a source be "biased" and still on point?I think this is avery sound analysis, steeped in some meaningful historical analysis. Since you disagree, I'm interested in your response...
“designed political coup”
Hard to think otherwise when you consider scope of effort and timing
Brad meet cosmic.
Last edited:
Cool bio. How many federal appeals has Raskin argued? How many times has he had money riding on the line, or his job, and had to predict what a panel, or court would do, at either the state or federal level? How many times has he practiced in the Supreme Court, in any capacity? Has he ever orally argued an appeal? Won one? [By the way, I respect Raskin for his work on gay rights in Maryland].
I can't respond to every point he or you argues. This post is already too long. If you want to ask me a specific question, fire away. But let me try to address some things. He's speaking there as a politician, not a neutral professor, analyzing the law. A telling fact in his presentation: he says it's clear and unambiguous trump "engaged" in "insurrection" but doesn't give you a definition of the words he's discussing or a source. That's a clear tell to any lawyer. Should be to you, as a layman, too.
More importantly, though, he's glossing over a lot of the important issues, like: what does the phrase officer of the United States mean in the text of the 14th? What does the phrase officer under the United States mean? He offers a plain textual analysis, while not even touching on or mentioning the counter originalism argument we've discussed here and I've posted law review articles on. Go read them. If he's a constitutional law expert, and doesn't address originalist arguments, he's either incompetent or he's intentionally hiding the ball from you to make his argument look stronger than it is.
He also doesn't touch on the structuralism argument: who decides whether a person has committed the offense and who has the power to enforce this provision of the Amendment? The notion that each and every voting jurisdiction is going to do that, with no standardized definition of the underlying terms, in trials across the nation, for a national federal office is ludicrous to me. Imagine a candidate litigating in all these jurisdictions concurrently, and then travelling all across the country to testify in 50 or more (do local election officials get to make the call, too? If so, it could be hundreds or thousands of jurisdictions) trials, in the time period between filing the papers to be a candidate and the primary elections (mere months? a year?). Do they get to do discovery? In 50+ jurisdictions?
More tells that he's a politician here, not speaking about the law, but with ulterior motives: he goes on to say there is a basic question here: does the Court believe in Constitutionalism? What now? I'd love to see him argue that to the Court. Woowee, that would be fantastic. "Excuse me, counselor, are we saying if we don't rule your way we don't "believe in the Constitution?" That's what's called over-the-top rhetoric of the red herring variety to feed to his base--i.e. you. You believe everything he says because you want to believe him.
But maybe, just maybe, someone like Raskin isn't saying these things on these shows in order to give his audience the real truth about constitutional analysis. (And that's clearly not what that interviewer wanted. What an awful excuse for anyone who might want to be called a journalist that man is). Maybe, just maybe, he's playing a longer game here, along with all the other pols and partisans who want to delegitimize the court (he does so here, implying if the Court rules against his position, they aren't applying the law or are friends to Trump--and in so doing, he sounds a lot like Trump in not agreeing to accept the results of the process) to build up public support for packing the court so that they can get the constitutional rulings they want in the future, that they think will make the country better. Once again, as I've complained about ad nauseum, he's putting ends over means here. And it's working: people like you now think less of the fed court system because of people like this, and I think that is a travesty.
Finally, let me say, as in all things legal, I could be wrong. On most cases, if it reaches the SCt, it is rarely a dead lock cinch (unlike the Bears/Packers game tomorrow). And if the Court goes the other way, it won't be illegitimate. They'll just disagree with me about what legal principles are most at stake or which they each value more (actually, what it means is that I did a bad job predicting their views on this, not my own). That's the nature of that court. But I'm comfortable enough in my prediction that I made on this board when I first heard of the Co decision and had not read it, that I will stand by my offer of a bet.
Care to take me up on it?
Following up on who has the power to decide and enforce Section 3, and who needs to determine a person engaged in insurrection (covered in less detail earlier in this thread but you don't appear to have read it):
14AmS5 states: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So Congress has the power. And Congress did something: they passed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2383 Rebellion or insurrection, which states:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
It is a federal crime, then, to commit insurrection and the Act directly references the 14th Am. Sec. 3's incapability of holding any office under the United States. (Note, the use of the word "under" provides more justification for the notion that officers "of" the US and those "under" the US are different terms, contra Raskin).
So, my argument would be that since Congress acted, and the US Const. is the supreme law of the land, states cannot find a candidate to have engaged in insurrection on their own. Instead, a federal conviction has to be secured. This procedure cures the practical defects I noted before--the candidate defends himself one time, under one standard, not 50+, he does so in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred, and he does so in a federal criminal proceeding under language drafted by Congress, with all the due process protections that proceeding offers.
But Biden's DOJ hasn't even charged Trump with the crime of insurrection. Why not? It doesn't matter for the legal analysis above, but it does in light of the hyperbole being slung around by Raskin, et al. DOJ is prosecuting Trump in two different jurisdictions, they've had years to investigate and consider the charge, and they were asked to bring the charge by the House. Yet they declined. If it's so unambiguously clear as Raskin (and Luttig on the other side of the aisle) claim, just how incompetent is the Biden DOJ? The answer, of course, is that they aren't incompetent and it is not as clear as Raskin, Luttig, or you think:
www.semafor.com
14AmS5 states: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So Congress has the power. And Congress did something: they passed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2383 Rebellion or insurrection, which states:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
It is a federal crime, then, to commit insurrection and the Act directly references the 14th Am. Sec. 3's incapability of holding any office under the United States. (Note, the use of the word "under" provides more justification for the notion that officers "of" the US and those "under" the US are different terms, contra Raskin).
So, my argument would be that since Congress acted, and the US Const. is the supreme law of the land, states cannot find a candidate to have engaged in insurrection on their own. Instead, a federal conviction has to be secured. This procedure cures the practical defects I noted before--the candidate defends himself one time, under one standard, not 50+, he does so in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred, and he does so in a federal criminal proceeding under language drafted by Congress, with all the due process protections that proceeding offers.
But Biden's DOJ hasn't even charged Trump with the crime of insurrection. Why not? It doesn't matter for the legal analysis above, but it does in light of the hyperbole being slung around by Raskin, et al. DOJ is prosecuting Trump in two different jurisdictions, they've had years to investigate and consider the charge, and they were asked to bring the charge by the House. Yet they declined. If it's so unambiguously clear as Raskin (and Luttig on the other side of the aisle) claim, just how incompetent is the Biden DOJ? The answer, of course, is that they aren't incompetent and it is not as clear as Raskin, Luttig, or you think:
Why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting an insurrection | Semafor
We've curated insights from experts on why an insurrection charge was absent from the third indictment against Trump.
www.semafor.com
I did not cite Jamie Raskin for his court room experience, but rather for his knowledge of the Constitution. Unlike dbm with his constant linking to twitter "experts" Raskin has 25 yrs of experience as a Constitutional law professor, and is the founder of a non-profit which (presumably) seeks to break down the law for people who only have a layman's approach to rely on.I don't think his rendering of the 14th is particularly partisan, since there are sevral Pubs who agree with his interpretation,and some of them have an extensive amount of trial/advocacy experience AND have also studied the Constitution extensively...
The plaintiffs in the CO case consist of 6 (primarily Pub) voters.They have not shied away from allowing SCOTUS to resolve the matter, and in fact filed their own 33 page brief urging SCOTUS to take up the case on an "expedited timetable".
“Although the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was correct and implicates no split of authority, this Court should nevertheless grant certiorari,” the brief said. “This case is of utmost national importance. And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further.”
They are repressented by the same counsel who argued their case successfully before the CO SC. Eric Olson is the former Solicitor General of CO.Obviously he's a competent litigator, since he won the case before the CO SC. I know DOJ cases are presented to SCOTUS by the Solicitor General of the US, so I assume that Olson in his capacity as CO Solicitor Genera would have represented CO in any appelate actions.
You mentioned Luttig,and I don't think this brand new video has been posted here.
I'd say this is pretty measured, since he obviously does not know how SCOTUS will rule...
Now it's fine to disagree with Luttig's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but I was struck by his statement that he'd been studying it for 3 yrs.Naturally that makes sense,since we're a few days removed from the 3rd anniversary of Jan 6. But remember that Luttig was the person Pence consulted regarding the unlawful exercise of power that Trump was trying to convince Pence to participate in? So it could be that Luttig started to feel uncomfortable with Trump regarding the Constitution prior to Jan 6.
I would say that Luttig disagrees with your definition of office,with regards to POTUS.I have also seen it pointed out that there is no requirement that someone be found guilty of insurrection or even found to have engaged in insurrection in the staute. The staute just reads "engaged in insurrection" and the anaalysis I've seen put forward is that the Radical Republicans wanted it left vague.
They did not want a series of trials held to punish people for insurrection, but rather a safeguard against "popular" fromer rebels being able to secure enough votes to become POTUS or VP. They actually initially argued for disenfranchisement of all former Rebels, but that got modified when it reached the Senate.
But what I see pointed out repeatedly is that this is not a "punishment", it's just an additional elgibility requirement established in order to qualify to be elected POTUS or VP. There is no criminal charge where someone's freedom is at stake, so there isn't a requirement for "due process" In fact the Radical Pubs who drafted the legislation intentionally left it vague with no requirement that someone be convicted or found to have engaged in insurrection. The amendment simply says "engaged"...
Initially they wanted to strip all former Rebels of suffrage permanently, but that got wattered down when it reached the Senate. They didn't want an endless parade of trials, they just wanted to prevent someone like Jeff Davis from being able to marshall enough support among voters in the old Confederacy to become a threat to be elected POTUS or VP.
Here is an interesting paper just published which looks at both sides of the issue regarding "office", and the claims the Trump brief made... While Trump makes the "office" argument this analysis centers on the paper Blackman/Tillman that Trump's lawyers relied on. I guess we won't get to witness Habba arguing Trump's appeal before SCOTUS (unless he's stupider than I think). But it would no doubt be entertaining...
I'm not a Constitutional scholar,and I don't claim to be one. But for the most part I am linking/citing people who are experts not random twitter tweets. I am educated enough to know that applying the law incorrectly which SCOTUS could rule in CO, is a metter of interpretation, not grounds to arrest judges you disagree with.
Some of these folks are just plain stupid...
Apologies for repeating myself a time or two. My pc screwed up when I went to post, and I had to try and piece two seperate post fragments together.
The plaintiffs in the CO case consist of 6 (primarily Pub) voters.They have not shied away from allowing SCOTUS to resolve the matter, and in fact filed their own 33 page brief urging SCOTUS to take up the case on an "expedited timetable".
“Although the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was correct and implicates no split of authority, this Court should nevertheless grant certiorari,” the brief said. “This case is of utmost national importance. And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further.”
They are repressented by the same counsel who argued their case successfully before the CO SC. Eric Olson is the former Solicitor General of CO.Obviously he's a competent litigator, since he won the case before the CO SC. I know DOJ cases are presented to SCOTUS by the Solicitor General of the US, so I assume that Olson in his capacity as CO Solicitor Genera would have represented CO in any appelate actions.
You mentioned Luttig,and I don't think this brand new video has been posted here.
I'd say this is pretty measured, since he obviously does not know how SCOTUS will rule...
Now it's fine to disagree with Luttig's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but I was struck by his statement that he'd been studying it for 3 yrs.Naturally that makes sense,since we're a few days removed from the 3rd anniversary of Jan 6. But remember that Luttig was the person Pence consulted regarding the unlawful exercise of power that Trump was trying to convince Pence to participate in? So it could be that Luttig started to feel uncomfortable with Trump regarding the Constitution prior to Jan 6.
I would say that Luttig disagrees with your definition of office,with regards to POTUS.I have also seen it pointed out that there is no requirement that someone be found guilty of insurrection or even found to have engaged in insurrection in the staute. The staute just reads "engaged in insurrection" and the anaalysis I've seen put forward is that the Radical Republicans wanted it left vague.
They did not want a series of trials held to punish people for insurrection, but rather a safeguard against "popular" fromer rebels being able to secure enough votes to become POTUS or VP. They actually initially argued for disenfranchisement of all former Rebels, but that got modified when it reached the Senate.
But what I see pointed out repeatedly is that this is not a "punishment", it's just an additional elgibility requirement established in order to qualify to be elected POTUS or VP. There is no criminal charge where someone's freedom is at stake, so there isn't a requirement for "due process" In fact the Radical Pubs who drafted the legislation intentionally left it vague with no requirement that someone be convicted or found to have engaged in insurrection. The amendment simply says "engaged"...
Initially they wanted to strip all former Rebels of suffrage permanently, but that got wattered down when it reached the Senate. They didn't want an endless parade of trials, they just wanted to prevent someone like Jeff Davis from being able to marshall enough support among voters in the old Confederacy to become a threat to be elected POTUS or VP.
Here is an interesting paper just published which looks at both sides of the issue regarding "office", and the claims the Trump brief made... While Trump makes the "office" argument this analysis centers on the paper Blackman/Tillman that Trump's lawyers relied on. I guess we won't get to witness Habba arguing Trump's appeal before SCOTUS (unless he's stupider than I think). But it would no doubt be entertaining...
Evidence that the President is an "Officer of the United States" for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
In 1868, three years after the conclusion of the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the 14th Amendment was ratified and became part of the Unit
papers.ssrn.com
I'm not a Constitutional scholar,and I don't claim to be one. But for the most part I am linking/citing people who are experts not random twitter tweets. I am educated enough to know that applying the law incorrectly which SCOTUS could rule in CO, is a metter of interpretation, not grounds to arrest judges you disagree with.
Some of these folks are just plain stupid...
Apologies for repeating myself a time or two. My pc screwed up when I went to post, and I had to try and piece two seperate post fragments together.
Last edited:
To liberals, 'Democracy' is always totally cool. The most highest, most awesome! Because it means whatever their side votes for. To liberals, 'republic' and 'constitution' and 'laws' are bad, anathema.
So keeping Trump off the ballot, 'good for democracy', letting the legal system interpret and decide, 'will destroy democracy'.
Of course it might! Because to liberals and liberal media, democracy means the liberal flavor of the month.
So keeping Trump off the ballot, 'good for democracy', letting the legal system interpret and decide, 'will destroy democracy'.
Of course it might! Because to liberals and liberal media, democracy means the liberal flavor of the month.
A few general points:I did not cite Jamie Raskin for his court room experience, but rather for his knowledge of the Constitution. Unlike dbm with his constant linking to twitter "experts" Raskin has 25 yrs of experience as a Constitutional law professor, and is the founder of a non-profit which (presumably) seeks to break down the law for people who only have a layman's approach to rely on.I don't think his rendering of the 14th is particularly partisan, since there are sevral Pubs who agree with his interpretation,and some of them have an extensive amount of trial/advocacy experience AND have also studied the Constitution extensively...
The plaintiffs in the CO case consist of 6 (primarily Pub) voters.They have not shied away from allowing SCOTUS to resolve the matter, and in fact filed their own 33 page brief urging SCOTUS to take up the case on an "expedited timetable".
“Although the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was correct and implicates no split of authority, this Court should nevertheless grant certiorari,” the brief said. “This case is of utmost national importance. And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further.”
They are repressented by the same counsel who argued their case successfully before the CO SC. Eric Olson is the former Solicitor General of CO.Obviously he's a competent litigator, since he won the case before the CO SC. I know DOJ cases are presented to SCOTUS by the Solicitor General of the US, so I assume that Olson in his capacity as CO Solicitor Genera would have represented CO in any appelate actions.
You mentioned Luttig,and I don't think this brand new video has been posted here.
I'd say this is pretty measured, since he obviously does not know how SCOTUS will rule...
Now it's fine to disagree with Luttig's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but I was struck by his statement that he'd been studying it for 3 yrs.Naturally that makes sense,since we're a few days removed from the 3rd anniversary of Jan 6. But remember that Luttig was the person Pence consulted regarding the unlawful exercise of power that Trump was trying to convince Pence to participate in? So it could be that Luttig started to feel uncomfortable with Trump regarding the Constitution prior to Jan 6.
I would say that Luttig disagrees with your definition of office,with regards to POTUS.I have also seen it pointed out that there is no requirement that someone be found guilty of insurrection or even found to have engaged in insurrection in the staute. The staute just reads "engaged in insurrection" and the anaalysis I've seen put forward is that the Radical Republicans wanted it left vague.
They did not want a series of trials held to punish people for insurrection, but rather a safeguard against "popular" fromer rebels being able to secure enough votes to become POTUS or VP. They actually initially argued for disenfranchisement of all former Rebels, but that got modified when it reached the Senate.
But what I see pointed out repeatedly is that this is not a "punishment", it's just an additional elgibility requirement established in order to qualify to be elected POTUS or VP. There is no criminal charge where someone's freedom is at stake, so there isn't a requirement for "due process" In fact the Radical Pubs who drafted the legislation intentionally left it vague with no requirement that someone be convicted or found to have engaged in insurrection. The amendment simply says "engaged"...
Initially they wanted to strip all former Rebels of suffrage permanently, but that got wattered down when it reached the Senate. They didn't want an endless parade of trials, they just wanted to prevent someone like Jeff Davis from being able to marshall enough support among voters in the old Confederacy to become a threat to be elected POTUS or VP.
Here is an interesting paper just published which looks at both sides of the issue regarding "office", and the claims the Trump brief made... While Trump makes the "office" argument this analysis centers on the paper Blackman/Tillman that Trump's lawyers relied on. I guess we won't get to witness Habba arguing Trump's appeal before SCOTUS (unless he's stupider than I think). But it would no doubt be entertaining...
Evidence that the President is an "Officer of the United States" for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
In 1868, three years after the conclusion of the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the 14th Amendment was ratified and became part of the Unitpapers.ssrn.com
I'm not a Constitutional scholar,and I don't claim to be one. But for the most part I am linking/citing people who are experts not random twitter tweets. I am educated enough to know that applying the law incorrectly which SCOTUS could rule in CO, is a metter of interpretation, not grounds to arrest judges you disagree with.
Some of these folks are just plain stupid...
Apologies for repeating myself a time or two. My pc screwed up when I went to post, and I had to try and piece two seperate post fragments together.
I am a legal realist to a large degree. Look that term up. If you are one, having experience with trying to figure out what justices will do is important in commenting on what the law “is.”
Of course Raskin is speaking as a partisan. He’s an elected member of Congress that took part in the J6 report and a fervent Dem. To suggest otherwise is kinda silly. (Doesn’t mean he can’t be right). Re the Republicans suing here, that’s strategy, I think: Trump losing helps the Repubs more than the Dems. Biden will lose to any other Republican, I think, like Haley. Trumps base will be furious if Trump is removed and will come out in full force to vote against Biden if this happens.
Re the rebels and vagueness, if you were to strip them of their ability to hold office, of course you would have to have some sort of trial. What if the person said “ I wasn’t a member of the Confederacy or I’m not the same John Doe who was?” How are you going to solve that? Via a trial. And a vague law has to be clarified through litigation, of course. That’s a fundamental requirement of all law in our system.
Finally, Section 5 of the 14th isn’t vague at all. Congress SHALL . . .
Thanks for toning down your rhetoric a bit in this post. I find that helpful.
jdb how long do you think it'd take coh to draw his gun? i bet he carries a gun like dirty harry. but this migrant would have him tied up in a knot with grocery store ties before coh could get his hand into his back holster
"I am a lender, we do loans like these to guys like Trump, have done loans to Kuschner, and we don't give a shit about what they state as their opinion of value on statements of other REO."
15 paragraphs later, and including and a link to opinion piece by a Leftist PAC site...
"Yes you do". 😄
He does strike me as a “magnum” guy. Not sure it works anymore though
My tire warning comes on as soon as it gets cold. I ignore it. And ended up with a blown out tire last week. Guess it really was low this time.
Get the PSI up to a pound or two over the recommended level every winter.
Run them at 35psi even if it says 32psi. They last longer that way, and it compensates for the cold.
I’m not worried about how strongly anyone supports Trump. They still only get 1 vote…unless they live in The Villages, or vote on behalf of their dead father, or murder their wife and vote on her behalf. Yeah, other than that, they only get 1 vote.
Unfortunately, The Flying V’s campaign has come to a close. I wonder what his role will be going forward in the campaign and potentially administration. Press Secretary would be great but McEnany was such a beast in that role it would seem a shame to not let her resume the role if she wants it.
He was always a candidate who wanted to succeed to Trump's fanbase in case Trump's legal troubles derailed him, but DeSantis got there first. That was V's whole strategy.
Last edited:
So are you advocating for all DUI offenders to be deported,or just the migrants? I mean you can point to this migrant as causing a fatal accident that killed 2, but are you claiming that somehow migrants are responsible for the majority of DUI arrests/convictions/ bail outs and homicides? Because if so there's a bridge in AZ I need to talk to you about...
Every DUI fatality is horrible, but I'm guessing the amount committed by illegal immigrants is pretty miniscule. My brother who I'm convinced was an undiagnosed victim of bi polar disorder had 4 DUIs and at least 2 public intox arrests over the course of about 20 yrs. Fortunately he never hurt anyone (except himself) and the funniest example was when he got arrested for public intox for falling asleep at the Chinese Buffet in Elletsville.
I mean a guy in his 50s arrested for public intox in essentially a college town where drinking is basically the major pastime. Before that he got arrested for being drunk on thie sidewalk outside Kilroy's and in a crowd of drunken students the 50 yr old non-student managed to attract enough attention to get arrested...How dumb does someone have to be to have that happen repeatedly? Yet he was in his 40s before he was arrested the first time, and it just seemed to come on him all at once.
I'd have been in favor of deporting him, because obviously nothing else worked. I just think based on my own personal experience trying to conflate DUIs as an "illegal immigrant problem" is a tad misplaced...
It's amusing to read the comments from a pro-Trump youtube video, and notice how many of the respondents when discussing V describe him as a "Soros operative"...And the idea of Haley as Trump's VP? Forgetaboutit...
Well I'd agree with your characterization of Kylie as a "beast", but I doubt it's for the same reason you're likely alluding to. I will say for a self described "Christian"< she sure gave Trump a run for his money when it came to telling outright lies...
allowing voters to choose an insurrectionist for president is definitely bad for democracy.
