Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cases are decided on the briefs. Oral argument is for show.So Trump filed his response and now thegroup of People who won the C SC case have filed their own response. It's like 2 competing views of Justice, with the CO citizens (Anderson respondents) represented by the former Solicitor General of CO submitting to SCOTUS their request for granting Certiorari. It seems to be a well reasoned argument which they argued successfully in front of The CO SC... Explained in terms (this) layman can understand here...
Meanwhile Alina Habba went on Fox and basically argued that Trump's justices on the Court would step up and do the "right thing". Even the rather outspoken GOP strategist on this CNN panel found those comments "at best concerning"
Will be interesting to see which way the oral arguments go...
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.slate.com
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.Oral arguments set for Feb 8 could very well mean that Trump's appeal of the "immunity smackdown" from DC COA will be at the Court as well. Which means oral arguments on both questions could be combined and make Trump's positions look even more ridiculous...
Btw the people who won in CO SC just yesterday submitted their own request for SCOTUS to take up the case and render a decision. They probably would have argued the opposite and urged SCOTUS to refuse to hear Trump's case, if they felt Trump's appeal was the slam dunk your twitter geek seems to feel it is...
People don't usually urge SCOTUS to get involved in a case if they think SCOTUS will rule against them...
We'll see what happens, should be interesting...
Lmao. Allowing voters to decide who their President will be could be bad for democracy. 😂
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.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?
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...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?
An earn out. That's the way we used to structure things.I did. But I am continuing to work on 20/30/40 or so of my largest clients for a couple years to help transition and this year I will help ease the minds of the other 2,900 or so. If they all leave I won’t get paid. Would have been easier and more profitable for me to sell to one of two large firms that wanted to buy for years. I sold for less to reward my young partner for years of loyalty and hopefully the clients get better service than they would in a large firm.
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...
Brad meet cosmic.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?
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].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...
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.
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
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?
Brad meet cosmic.
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
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
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.i think it's a sensor thing f'd up by the cold. but i don't know. so this happened last winter. there's this fantastic gas station down the street from me that has one of those old school air pumps for tires. no coins. no reader weird thing on it. you just stick the end right on the tire and it inflates. bam. so when this was happening last winter i just kept stopping there. almost daily and filling them. so i was going down the highway and heard an explosion. a tire blew and literally blew out a fender, all the coverings, gas tank, everything. the dealer said it the tires were inflated well over 100
Meh….about 10% And not sure how strong of supporters they were.Yes. Many of trump’s strongest supporters were Bernie followers
John Dutton could use that kid.
I do the same thingMy 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.I do the same thing
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.
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.Meh….about 10% And not sure how strong of supporters they were.
Run them at 35psi even if it says 32psi. They last longer that way, and it compensates for the cold.
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.I think both Haley and Vivek would say yes to a VP request. Maybe Ron as well.
Haley or Vivek would both be formidable tickets for different reasons.
Vivek would be an effective, policy- wonk VP that would relish in getting in the weeds to take the hatchet to the administrative state that is desperately needed.
Haley appeals to Reagan- Bush era morons and over-educated, suburban women so she might help electorally.
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.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.
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...
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...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.
Where would you deport him to? Just curious.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...
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...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.
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?
allowing voters to choose an insurrectionist for president is definitely bad for democracy.Lmao. Allowing voters to decide who their President will be could be bad for democracy. 😂