I'm so pissed at the court I don't know whether to spit or shine my shoes.
I'm furious.
Their decision on the 14th section 3, “the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.”. Telling us it's unenforceable unless congress passes a law is an affront to all thoughtful people.
Once again they have proven their fealty to trump.
I'm disgusted.
Do they think I'm so stupid as to not see the subterfuge?
I don't believe the members of the court are afraid of trump, I think they're high on their own supply. They truly believe they're above the law themselves.
They should be ashamed.
Now, more than ever, we need restraints on the court. They have run rampant over women's rights, indeed all of our rights. They refuse to hold themselves accountable ethically.
This is something out of a sci-fi dystopian future movie. Are we completely shakled by the court from this point forward? They have shown their stripes. They are partisan hacks, only there to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from the laws of this great nation.
I believe their actions are treasonous.
They have set the stage for the 2024 election and have given trump a green light.
I expect they will issue a weak tea opinion about trump's immunity that leaves us all speechless. Setting the stage for unrest. God help us.
We need to vote in such overwhelming numbers that there can be no doubt about the outcome.
Yes.Of course you are correct.We absolutely do need to vote in mammoth numbers because we know that Trump will never abide by the voters tally if he loses.We are once again going down the Groundhog Day scenario of witch hunt and voter fraud.I know there is no way around this now but it still sickens me that we have this unsavory thing before us.The SCOTUS is a right wing operative just as surely as is the Putin wing of our Peoples House.Such a shame for We The People but we will carry on and prevail we must.
Some time ago, after reading such books as These Truths, Democracy in Chains, Strange Justice I began keeping a list of Enemies of Democracy. Featured members of the list include Samuel Alito, Robert Bork, Aileen Cannon, Ginny and Clarence Thomas, TFG, and the not-soon-enough-to-be retired Mitch McConnell. This list is ever growing. It is so tragic that so many people in high places are actively trying to tear down the democratic precesses that made this country great.
Bob, I think that we all share your frustration, but permitting Red states to remove Democratic candidates' names from ballots on fake charges would have created chaos and if the Supreme Court had ruled in Colorado's favor, that is what would have happened right away, just like the trumped-up impeachment charges against Pres. Biden.
Yes, the real critical decision will be how long they delay the absurd, limitless, immunity claim. Are they trying to thread a needle so Biden can't claim it, but Trump would have a chance to claim it again as long as he is in office?
Having been a toddler with occupation forces during the Nuremberg Trials, I've had a bit more interest in the rise of Hitler and the Germans who thought he couldn't actually be that bad (before he got to about 30%, enough to grab the rest of the power eventually).
I've been sickened in the last few days to find out a few old friends who at some time supported Trump, unintentionally let him get enough power to do so much damage during his term in office. I look at them as sort of technocrats like I thought Herbert Hoover was, who assumed most powerful people were what I liked to call egalitarian capitalists (to me Ben Franklin, Herbert Hoover, Robert Galvin (Motorola), and the TVA administrators, who had higher ethical standards and to varying degrees, imagined most other industry leaders and financiers did, too. I was particularly shattered to find Herbert Hoover may have visited Hitler and been too impressed by Hitlers early boosting the German economy.
I have a lot more questions about the reports of the Hoover, Hitler meeting and how he might have compared FDR's actions to Hitler's during the Great Depression. One of my mother's comments always haunts me, she said Hitler was more popular in Germany than Roosevelt was in America.
People seem to want strong leaders, but what a horrendous difference in the longer term, and the sacrificial victims in the process.
Trump has made it clear he’s not adverse to sacrificial victims; one has only to note what T’s pal, Putin did to Alexi Navalny.
It’s as if we now have TWO Presidents, one on the Oval Office, legally elected by the majority of voters, but with his hands tied by a Congress in stalemate, and one ILLEGALLY sitting in a pseudo Oval Office in Miralago, most likely speaking daily with global autocrats, oligarchs, CEO’s, billionaire backers, Congressional leaders and minions, GOP Governors, and SCOTUS and their minions, while corrupting “Free Speech” on his social media, without any policing.
FYI…Charles Koch’s Libre Initative Action, an affiliate of his political network, is moving across the nation registering Latinos as Republicans. They are now endorsing Republicans candidates in key congressional races.
Bob, but I believe that an individual state needs to be able to decide whether someone can run for a statewide office such as US senator or US representative, just not a nationwide office.
I mean the representative or senator that goes to Washington DC to represent the voters in their state. While I see the problem of having one or three states removing the candidates for President/VP. However, they should be able to remove candidates that a jury has found guilty of insurrection since it would not influence voting in another state.
This court could decide that Trump has presidential immunity. But that would completely undermine its authority. If they said Trump has immunity then all presidents going forward would have immunity. Their logic and interpretation of the law would be a contorted mess. They would be saying that laws are unenforceable. By that logic, we wouldn't have to abide by that ruling either.
I agree with you on the reasoning that charges need to be verified by a trusted venue such as a soberly managed courtroom. While I hate the idea that Trump is still a viable candidate, dividual states shouldn't individually disqualify a federal candidate.
It's really disgusting that the DoJ took so long to indict Trump. It's also unfortunate because a conviction would have added nationally - recognized proof that he's not qualified for office. That would have preempted the SCOTUS majority that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
I'd like to point out that the impeachment attempt against Biden has fallen apart, because there is NO EVIDENCE. I would agree that if there was no evidence that Trump acted as an insurrectionist, he should not be removed from any ballot. There is plenty of evidence.
So this is pointing in two directions.
First, it is making clear that the SC does not trust the states. This is reasonable, given that the states have been tacitly permitted by the SC to gerrymander themselves into fifty banana republics. That's on the SC.
Second, it is saying that charges of insurrection have no way of being established, and is completely invalidating the insurrection clause. That's also on the SC.
Themon, that the Republicans have no verifiable proof of anything doesn't stop them from claiming that there is and taking action on it, removing the candidate from the ballot. It's the Civil War all over again. I think that the three Liberal justices voted as they did for the point that I made - the Red states would find a way to keep a Democratic candidate off the ballot. Bedlam would ensue.
What the Supreme Court did, in part, was to "legislate from the bench." That there are tens of millions who will vote for TFFG is a huge blotch on America. Republican Conservatives support Nikki Haley; the racists and Christian Nationalists support the TFFG.
I love it when people point out that it was the republicans who were against slavery and wanted citizenship for blacks. Back then (Lincoln's time), that was true BUT what happened is that the southern "Democrats" turned republicans wanted slavery and seized power. Now they managed to make segregation legal. South=red=republican. They are not so nice to blacks. I realize this is even less than a monarch guide about political parties and blacks.
Well, if the Congress would stop playing with themselves, maybe construing a definition of insurrection and what would be considered participating or being an accessory would be a good project.
Yeah, we’re kind of seeing this very mess play out with women’s rights to all kinds of healthcare issues that only women have in common with each other, in red-controlled states until it’s all nationalized, that is. SCROTUS can’t seem to make up its compromised mind on states rights or implementing a strong federal response concerning how a(biblical)society can treat women and girls in the future.
France just enshrined abortion rights in their constitution. There is picture of the Statue of Liberty with the words "mon corp mon choix" projected on it. How appropriate.
We need to do more. Just voting and complaining won’t protect us from this court taking more of our rights and freedoms away. Birth control, gay rights, unions, minorities, are in danger. We also will be subjected to more Christian interpretations of the law. We need to find ways to hold demonstrations to show that this court is destroying democracy and not protecting it. Thomas and others are obviously corrupt. They have lost the trust needed for us to respect their decisions. We need to force resignations now!!
2020 was actually a close election. Biden's victory wasn't indisputable. 44,000 votes in 3 swing states, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin would have tied the electoral college.
We need to abolish the electoral college, as it gives red states an advantage. The popular vote wasn't that close.
Bob, as a pragmatic first step to reducing the effects of the electoral college, we can have the electoral votes apportioned by votes per state, instead of the current winner-take-all. This wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment, just a law. For example, a theoretical state would have 20 votes. If person A got 60% of the vote in the general election, they would get 12 electoral votes instead of all 20. It would encourage candidates that are centrists.
Sounds like a very reasonable first step, but since the “legislative” government isn’t doing much law making, and the SCOTUS is trying to, how do we get such a law at the federal level, AND make one not subject to SCOTUS’ rethinking?
Win both the Senate and the House and then propose it. 2nd step is to make voting on Federal positions (House, Senate and President) ranked choice (with open primaries).
At least one state (Nebraska?) does this today. (I should have read a few more comments before replying, it turns out Maine and Nebraska both split the number of electors. Thanks Joy.)
The electoral college, an institution of lower learning from which no one has ever graduated (sort of like the "Hotel California", where you can check in but can never leave), has long been the rotting appendix without our body politic. The longer it remains, the more toxic our politics become.
At the very, very least, as a Constitutional amendment to abolish it is most unlikely, more States should sign on to the Popular Vote Compact wherein the electors would be proportionally distributed, as opposed to winner-take-all.
Currently, only Maine and Nebraska have such a system.
Maybe the nuns who taught me were missing something, but the Jesus of Nazareth I was taught about never brandished AR-15s, nor sought to demean those who were different than the majority of us. I seem to remember a Jesus who healed the sick, hung out with the outcast and downtrodden, constantly told a story about a foreigner who was closer to God than his nativist counterparts, counted a woman with a certain reputation as his best and ultimately most courageous friend, and mentioned something about judging not, lest ye be judged.
I love your recollection of the Jesus we were taught about. To veer for a moment from the current discussion, I just wanted to check if the "woman with the certain reputation" you referred to was Mary Magdalene. If so, I've been fascinated, and somewhat appalled to read that the prostitute aspect of her story was added after the original gospel writings.
For example, I found an article by James Carroll in Smithsonian, 2006, "Who was Mary Magdalene?," which ended, " But what most drove the anti-sexual sexualizing of Mary Magdalene was the male need to dominate women. In the Catholic Church, as elsewhere, that need is still being met." Challenging, eh?
All y'all "real" Christians need to buck up. If these people tell me that their almighty god is telling them how they should tell me to live my life, and they are basing their rules on the Bible, then I am going to call them Christian until my last breath.
You sound just like the people who say "not all cops are bad".
Use these phrases when discussing and writing about deluded, amoral, hypocritical people who call themselves Christian. They are Not. They are the antithesis of Christian
Nope. When they beat me with a Christian version of the Bible, I am calling them a Christian.
Yeah, I get that they are so far from the word of Christ that it's a chasm. But, there are so many flavors of Christianity that they get to be one too.
I agree with the need for demonstrations against the extreme court. I think this should be happening every day outside the building in DC and hopefully spread to other cities.
I am furious too, as any progressive would be who is paying attention. We have here the leg of the tree-legged stool of the federal government that is the most immune from oversite, acting with impunity. It appears to me that public opinion hasn't a shred of influence. The 5-member majority is in effect flipping a big fat middle finger at Americans. McConnell was pretty savvy packing the courts - we now have the tail wagging the dog - the minority ruling the majority. God do I hate that man - what he did to this country we may never heal from. I put him in the same category as Trump WRT harm done. What can we do? I think the framers of the constitution somehow forgot that the Supreme Court can be corrupted too. Their impunity comes from the Constitution. So I feel helpless.
I have made this point before - it is the American people who have allowed this nightmare to happen. A way-too-large portion of the electorate supports this sh_t. The perpetrators keep getting re-elected. The polls continue to be so scary. This is not the country I thought it was when I was growing up.
I fear Jay is right to a significant degree, Bob. As horrifically effective as Machiavellian Mitch has been, he couldn't get there without constantly being re-elected by people who buy what he's selling. The irresponsibility and/or public laziness of way too many people is deeply disturbing. The rise of the Murdochian Ministry of Mendacity, the late and filled with hate Rush Limbaugh, etc., couldn't have occurred without some level of unconscious sympathy on the part of way too many.
Yes, we outnumber them, and we can tax the hell out of them, if we had the guts to do it - we certainly have the right, until the Cowardly Nine rule against even that. The blame for our nightmares always falls on the rich and powerful. But the people indirectly bring on their own failure through disinterest and stupidity. And that plays into the hands of the fascists. The centerpiece of all human disasters was the Great Depression and WW 2. And it took an FDR to wake up the masses, and he did it masterfully. It is a terrible state of affairs. It suggests that things will get a lot worse, because the next FDR hasn't appeared yet. The fascists own, or will own, all three branches of the government. It will get worse.
I do have a thought James, getting the 'buy in' is the trick though. I think if just the folks of good will got together and picked one, just one of the biggest most blatant Gov't influencers - I'd personally pick "Cootch'ie Industries" - *(misspelled intentionally to evade word search algorithms, but you know who I mean). Put some politically friendly business geeks to the task of finding every single tentacle of them that makes a nickel. Once discovered, mount an "all out" , no - buy, bouy-cott till they are in bankruptcy. If my city buys from them - demonstrate, raise hell in every public meeting - Unrelenting, suffocating $ pressure. That would definitely raise blood pressure - and that's putting it mildly. Our 'trolls' will likely see this, and that's just fine, I don't like being targeted, but I have certain skills to amuse them.
James, not just any progressive. Any thinking voter paying attention. I'm nowhere near a progressive, but I'm furious, too. Livid. Pissed off. Angry. Focused. Motivated.
It, the current events leading into and following the overt insurrection and the overt Republican efforts to overturn the U.S. government; it has all boiled down to this. The U.S. voters are all that stands between the future of our country and the end of it. Wonderful. If all Republicans at every level are voted out, that would begin to give us some hope for the future. Who will enforce the outcome if Republicans AGAIN claim elections are no good unless Republicans win? What does our crumbling Constitution have to say? I haven't heard.
I think the Supreme Court watch the video that Fox News put out about the insurrection, not showing any of the damage or the violet violation, or the thread of death to Nancy Pelosi and pence because I know somebody who said oh, it wasn’t an insurrection that they didn’t really do any damage they were just on tour The majority on the Supreme Court are spineless and definitely not for democracy. Only three on the Supreme Court are worth truly being on the Supreme Court the rest will fry in hell. If there was a hell I, TOO, AM DISGUSTED AND ANGRY
I also thought the Constitution was self enforcing so why they decided to punt a question that didn't need to be answered to a Congress that they know is highly partisan and also seems to not be able to function is beyond me. That's before I even get to the fact that Thomas didn't recuse himself. It's embarrassing at this point. Like I knew they weren't going to allow him to get kicked off the ballot, but at the same time, they always provide an off ramp and double standard to those who actually engaged in reckless, insurrection behavior in government. It is galling.
Not a lawyer here so explain it to me like I'm 5: didn't Congress already pass a law in the form of the 14th Amendment? Or do they have to pass a law that specifically says the events on a given date (say, "January 6", for example) was an insurrection?
This ruling gives cover to the insurrectionists in congress, Cruz, Hawley, Brooks, Biggs, Greene, Perry, Loudermilk et al. This seems to me to be in direct contradiction of the reason it was enacted.
Krista, I hadn't seen your post when I made mine. Agreed.
Per my Google search, the House of Representatives submitted the 14th Amendment. SCROTUS (or ECOTUS, as another Reader said, the E being for "extreme") is, in essence, "try again, Congress, while we have our Klown Kar Kawkus in control.
I couldn’t agree with you more my friend. The law of the land that provides no oversight for the third branch our government makes no sense. My wife and I happened to watch the Jan 6th insurrection as it unfolded in real time. I was stunned to see that when the mob got to the Capital building the only visible security provided were a few wooden blockades and the same number of security guards that happened to be on duty at the time. I kept yelling at the tv “where’s the National Guard”. Then later I discovered that the man who planned the whole thing was sitting in the White House seemingly enjoying what was happening and instead of taking action to prevent the crowd from stopping the procedure to complete the electoral process he called for the hanging of his vice president and did nothing. In fact after watching for several hours he made a tv appearance stating that he loved them all and that they should all go home. Then a few months later Congress impeached him twice and then the Republicans acquitted him of both charges. So much for our two party system and government of, for and by the people. I believe Pres Biden to be a man for this time and place and that the Democrats in Congress should go on the offensive as he has. A large part of the reason our country has come to precarious situation in the history of Democracy is because the Democrats have not been adequately representing the needs and wishes of the vast majority of voters who happen to be Democrats. I never here about any of them challenging any of the stupidness that is going on in either the Congress or Senate. In fact I asked both a Ct congressman and Senator if they had had a conconversation with one of their republican cohorts and asking them if they could explain how they and their president were going to Make America Great Again and what they said indicated to me that they had not. Keep the faith, vote and defend what’s right
Yea, stretching this out so Biden will be out of reach of immunity and just in time for when Trump would take office. What I am trying to figure out is their plan to steal the election this time. Surely Pubbies are not actually relying on an honest election for the win.
I feel the same way, but I apportion the blame a little differently.
The US has always been broken by its slave/freedom schizophrenia. The slave states, mostly in the southeastern part of the country, were never in step with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Never. As a result, Congress has never worked properly. Our nation has had not one mind, but two, and our Cain and Abel had their hands around each others' throats from birth.
As a result, our laws have never been about a common vision, but about subterfuge and undermining and petty advantage. We have incomprehensibly shitty laws, glued together from the wreckage of sabotage. The two parties have changed names, but it's always been about hierarchy versus democracy. Cain and Abel.
The "liberal" court that brought us RoeVWade and Womens' Rights, was technically out-of-line with respect to its role. It was "legislating from the bench," and they did this because Congress was broken and never did its job.
The Roberts court seems, in a singularly tone-deaf and prissy way, trying to unilaterally restore its own role as a court, not legislators, and it is leaving us lowly citizens high and dry in the face of the slavers under a madman like Donald Trump. Because Congress is still broken.
I'm sure it was up to the Congress to flesh out the 14th amendment. The amendment itself says so. But Congress, short-sighted and struggling over the issue of what form slavery would take after the Industrial Revolution in the factories, never bothered. So there are no laws to determine what "insurrection" even means. It's fucking obvious what insurrection means, and it is fucking obvious that Donald Trump committed it, but THERE ARE NO LAWS for the courts to cite. And the Roberts court is prepared to let the nation fail, rather than step one toe-nail's length beyond their "proper jurisdiction."
I understand the 14th amendment as meaning that ANY official, who, having pledged to support the constitution, and engages in insurrection, would be automatically barred from running for any public office. It clearly means Trump, who the lower court ruled HAD been involved in insurrection, cannot take office. Such a person should therefore not be allowed to even run for office, because this would cause unnecessary confusion.
It is the individual states that administer the elections, even federal ones, and it should be their prerogative to decide on such a case. Hearings are appropriate, but a state supreme court ruling is not necessary.
The red states cannot disqualify a Joe Biden, because they would have no basis to say he was an an insurrectionist.
It appears that without a very specific, legal DEFINITION of "insurrection," the current Supreme Court will not enforce the 14th amendment insurrection clause at all. I suspect that if someone were to put up a 10-year-old for the office of President, the Supreme Court might require a specific LEGAL definition of age, and frankly, it might not exist with the specificity they demand. There was certainly a lot of furor about Obama's birth certificate and his standing as a "natural-born US citizen."
It's not just that President Biden must be re-elected. We must retain the majority in the Senate and take back the House. Only then can actions like expanding the number of Supreme Court justices be accomplished.
There is a doctrine in the law that says that a court can ignore certain rulings that would otherwise be binding precedent. A court is not bound by "dictum."
From the law.cornell.edu website: dictum. Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase " obiter dictum ." As a legal term, a dictum is any statement or opinion made by a judge that is not required as part of the legal reasoning to make a judgment in a case. Although dictum may be mentioned in legal arguments, it does not have the legal precedent 's binding power.
The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions.
"The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions."
In Bush v Gore, the decision said flat out that it was not intended to set precedent. When of course setting precedent is exactly what Supreme Court decisions do. In this case, the Federalist Supremes flustered Trump's lawyer by arguing points for him which were not in the argument he presented. Partisanship and arrogance are the hallmark of the Roberts Court. This could have prevented in 2016. But those who refused to vote for Clinton cemented in conservative domination of the Supreme Court for decades.
The health, retirement and mortality of the current Justices, who the president is when one or more of them is to be replaced and the makeup of Senate's judiciary committee will be factors in terms of the judicial philosophy of the Chief Justice and the majority on the Supreme Court in the future.
Voting is crucial if you want to live in a democracy or prefer an autocracy, which I call an atrocity. The president appoints judges who are confirmed or not by the senate.
Yes. And we are all more fragile and temporary than most want to admit. Statistically, the odds are real that Trump, Biden, Alito - or me won't be functional
That damage that I believe you are referring to began about 45 year's ago. The Biden administration and many elected representatives reversed a bit of it, and almost everything in terms of democracy in the US depends on the presidential and national elections to take place soon.
This very thing kept me awake in the wee hours. No matter what your particular niche within the Party, or not a member, whether Women's Rights, LGBTQ Rights, Voting Rights, etc. (since Dems are noted for their inclusion of disparate interest groups, who often tussle to be The Main Event). To those voters I say this: If we don't stand together now, NOBODY'S rights are safe.
This is a battle for survival. This Supreme Court decision made that painfully clear. To those voices who have been insisting Trump MUST be beaten at the ballot box are right. We can scream and rend our garments later - now is the time to VOTE "like our lives depend on it, because they do."
I wish I could put more "likes" or exclamation points to this! Hope all those who voted "uncommitted" come back to vote for Biden in the general election, and that NO Dems or "progressives" take important votes away from Biden by voting for a third party or other candidate!
As an American Jew and Zionist I support the Uncommitted primary movement. As long as it is only for the primary and these voters support Biden in the general election. Two problems - 1. voter inertia and 2. reflexively ideological and emotional antisemitism skewing legitimate criticism of the criminal Netanyahu regime's policy, and dismissing Biden administration diplomatic efforts.
Those following Stein, Kennedy, West et al are just MAGAs in sheep's clothing
Bingo. We are an open book. Show outrage on any issue. The Russians don’t need spies to find out what the issue is, our media, polling, social marketing channels inform them of what the new divisive issue is. Does anyone think Wisconsin and Michigan primary voters obstaning to vote for Biden was a coincidence? Russia knows exactly what districts to focus their divisional pys ops. Paul Manafort taught them.
Trump's win was something of a statistical fluke, an electoral college weighting which went against Clinton's popular majority. Another reform that is greatly needed. Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest.
No fluke. The Electoral College is the law. Clinton rejected the Howard Dean 50 state strategy and ignored the Electoral College. In her blinkered arrogance she acted as though she could build bridges in Texas, while ignoring mending fences with Democratic voters in large swing states such as Wisconsin. Especially Black voters alienated by the Clintons' treatment of Obama and progressives alienated by their treatment of Sanders. These voters ought still have voted for Clinton but ...
Swing voters in swing states. This was the polling data Paul Manafort traded with the Russians. It’s not that difficult to target people with a certain profile of grievance in a geographical area. Hillary won the popular vote, but, with Russian help, psychological warfare was deployed against her. TFG’s pathology of a malignant narcissist void of empathy and crudeness won the grievance inspired vote ( we need to stop saying in general “swing” vote. Because it wasn’t. It was a cyber attack by a closed society (Russia) into our open free speech society.
Swing because in both 2016 and 2020 winning margins were thin, as i recall. These states used to be "dependable blue", "the great blue wall" it was called? Here's Wiki on this. So do you figure it's the political force on the ground that mainly makes the difference? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Blue_wall_(U.S._politics)#2016:_Breach_of_the_blue_wall
Whatever Clinton herself was/is she ran one of the worst campaigns I'd volunteered on in decades. My perspective is informed by volunteering for our local Democratic committee from April-Nov 2016. Almost full time towards the end. In hundreds of thousands of phone calls and tens of thousands of door knocks, we made contact and established rapport with a wide range of potential voters, collected significant data, and were ready for GOTV. We could not even get yard/road signs from the Clinton campaign. The last week she airlifted in 3 newbies who were clueless and spent a lot of time talking about what to wear to inauguration events. They ignored our data, antagonized volunteers and voters, and were generally worse than useless. I heard the same from activists in important big electoral states and swing states.
Well, as many 'saw it' , blinkered arrogance is arguably correct, and I must say I agree, but had no means to share that with her. I can also say that many in my circles felt that was so as well Anne. What she ignored, 'looked like' arrogance to very, very many. Optics are extremely important; And those optics outweighed all those very true superlatives you named about her, perhaps more. Gop wonks w/ help from the vast resources of our National adversaries did their 'homework' better than her campaign wonks had any chance to do.
"Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest."
Changing the number of Senators per state to create equal popular representation would not be practical: the imbalance is too great. California has more than 68 times the population of Wyoming. Another solution which would be practical would require a Constitutional Amendment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution mandates not only two Senators per state, but also one vote per Senator. If that were changed by Amendment, lowest population states would establish the base of one vote apiece. More populous states would have more. California, in particular, would have 68. Unfortunately, low population states are unlikely to ratify an Amendment that would destroy their unfair popular over-representation.
You are generous in calling them "The Federalist Supremes." "Sycophant" comes to my mind, as does "Fanatics," or "RNC Staff," or "Acolytes" to their religious leanings. They are neither "Supreme" nor "Just."
Ditto... I am a storm watcher. Long before that - decades, I felt and recognized the 'shifts' in my circles, tried desperately to be heard and found no ear, much less champions.
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. *
'J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former U.S. Court of Appeals judge who co-wrote with Laurence H. Tribe a piece for the Atlantic in August that helped to galvanize interest in the 14th Amendment as a means to disqualify Trump, cited the language of the three liberal justices in their concurring opinion, which critiqued elements of the majority’s decision. The liberals agreed with the conservatives that states should be prohibited from kicking candidates off the presidential ballot under Section 3, while disagreeing with the majority specifying Congress’s role in any disqualification. The standard, Luttig argued, makes it functionally impossible to disqualify insurrectionists from holding federal office.' (WAPO)
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
'The impact of Monday’s decision was immediate, effectively nullifying efforts in states across the country to ban Trump from running. Within hours of the ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows withdrew her earlier determination that Trump should be barred from the ballot in her state. The Maine primary is Tuesday.'
'In comments shortly after the ruling, Trump praised the court’s decision and quickly pivoted to another case “of equal importance” before the court, one reviewing his sweeping claim of immunity from prosecution over actions taken while president. The Supreme Court agreed last week to review Trump’s arguments in that matter, setting oral arguments for late April. The decision was a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to move the federal Jan. 6 case quickly to trial, and cast doubt over whether there will be a verdict before the November election.'
'Trump allies cheered the Monday ruling. “The Supreme Court unanimously showed us today that we cannot silence the voice of the American people and stop democracy,” Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, wrote in a post on X.'
'The court pointedly did not address whether Trump engaged in insurrection. In Colorado, Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) said that while she welcomed the clarity the decision would give millions of Americans preparing to vote, she said she was “disappointed” by the ruling.'
“It means that federal oath-breaking candidates will have a pass to run for office again given the nonfunctioning in Congress,” she said. (WAPO, By Sarah Ellison and Toluse Olorunnipa) See gifted link generously provided by subscriber, Marj.
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
What is Judge Luttig’s rationale for saying this? I have read the SCOTUS decision and, beyond putting the burden on Congress (admittedly, as dysfunctional as Congress us today, an impossible challenge), I cannot connect the the dots to get to Judge Luttig’s conclusion or to that of the assenting opinions.
The only time Congress is mentioned in the 14th Amendment as an actionable body is the RESTORATAION of an Insurrectionist to their ranks, requiring a hefty, damn near insurmountable 3/4 vote. What "action" the Congress needs to make to declare an Insurrectionist isn't described. The SC is saying that the Congress has to first find the Insurrectionists, try him, then disqualify him. Would that have happened in 1865 if the Southern Confederates were still holding their Congressional seats? Because that's what happened here...
Trump was impeached in the house and convicted in the Senate 57 to 43. The Congress as a matter of record has already acted. If elected he cannot serve.
Yes, of course. If only Trump had been removed we would be in a very different place. But still, Congress did address citizen Trump and both the House and Senate voted in majority to convict. The Supreme Court threw the ball to Congress, which for me, has already kicked a field goal. We live in interesting times.
@MjXS, While your reply exquisitely shows the travesty of yesterday’s Court ruling, if I may, I merely would note that a two-thirds vote is required by each House to remove the disqualification.
The era of Trump has revealed cracks in our system of government. The list of cracks is long and varied. The problems with SC is a mini list. Others may have noticed the cracks but Republicans like Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society and others have aggressively sought to exploit those cracks for their own purposes, especially personal power. The SC needs to be expanded.
Emil, I didn’t see @MJXS’s reply until after I had posted mine. While I had thought about deleting my post, I decided to leave it since the 2 posts, though stated differently, made similar points. That clarified, I had stated the following:
Luttig’s concern is rooted in his understanding that our Founders had sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the excesses of any one branch. Having understood that the Congress would have its duties as would the judiciary, today’s crucial court ruling re-assigned a judicial duty to the Congress.
Dave, The one hope I derive from your post is that increasingly more of us will come to understand that any attempt to restore balance to the 3 branches will entail Democrats expanding the Court.
Barbara, in the short term, I believe the members of the Court should reflective of the population in terms of the number of district courts, in the long term, Senate Confirmation of nominees HAS to be based on the previous level of concurrence, not a simple radical majority
This way, a President has to select someone both sides can live with, iow, a fair(er) judicial mind
Lengthy quotation from Judge J Michael Luttig (via the Washington Post) is entirely on point and justified.
Allow me a short quotation.
"118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on ____________________.
RESOLUTION
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.
What should the Democrats in the House do in response to this challenge? Any ideas? Is this an opening that can be exploited?
'If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.'
Bravo, Judge Luttig, and thank you Mr. Schumacher for this particular quote of his.'
'The value of pi is approximately 3.14, or 22/7. To 39 decimal places, pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197. Pi is an irrational number, which means it is not equal to the ratio of any two whole numbers. Its digits do not repeat.'
'Pi occurs in various mathematical problems involving the lengths of arcs or other curves, the areas of ellipses, sectors, and other curved surfaces, and the volumes of many solids. It is also used in various formulas of physics and engineering to describe such periodic phenomena as the motion of pendulums, the vibration of strings, and alternating electric currents.' (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Looks like Clarence Thomas and the last three controversial judges are also insulating themselves. Ironically, they've just given Biden more power and protection, too. Suggest he use it.
The whole Trump v Anderson decision, including the four concurrences, appears to me to reek of fear. Unfortunately, this decision is laying the ground for another crucial hinge point to come immediately after the November election, if not on 6 January 2025, when the two chambers of Congress will be convened to accept (or reject) the electoral college votes. I predict a significant number of senators and representatives will be ready to take out their frustration by objecting to votes for the candidate of the opposing party.
Then what? It will be the Supreme Court to the rescue yet again. Hold onto your hats, folks! There may be a fortune to be made by investing in the manufacturers of razor wire, concrete traffic barriers, and teargas grenades.
I think you're saying a Dem priority has to be SCOTUS overhaul. A SC only works when it works to align with clearly wrong or criminal and otherwise lean towards neutrality on otherwise political/culture extremism. That is NOT this court.
Not only did they do the wrong thing, but the majority did it badly. In footnote 2 to the majority opinion, they cite the case of Mr. Tift, of Georgia, who in 1868 needed a so-called private bill to relieve him of disqualification. Then they go on to cite a law passed in 1870 to prove that Sec. 3, the disqualification clause, does nothing without congressional action. But if the 14th Amendment by itself disqualified Tift, why doesn’t it operate the same way now? How could a 1870 law amend the Amendment? Was Sec. 3 self-executing in 1868, but not in 2024? How can that be? I’ll go along with Joyce Vance, and suggest that the majority was impelled by fear of civil disturbance rather than partisanship, but it’s still bad lawyering. (I should note that the four concurring justices did not propose to decide whether Trump is barred as what the three “liberals” described as an “oath-breaking insurrectionist,” which would have to led to an immense crisis if he should prevail in November.)
** "This" Jon. I herded my squirrel brain like a champ and found it as i'm wearing down. Does this in your opinion 'fly' as a valid observation ?
"
D4N
D4N’s Substack
3 hrs ago
·edited 1 hr ago
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. * "
Hi Jon. I've religiously followed the brilliant Joyce V. on as much as her boundary 'firewalls' will permit a freeloader to do - no judgement there mind you. That said, I'm 2 weeks behind in my reading, including our good Professor's letter this evening (long story) ! However, basing this opinion of mine on your takeaway from Joyce, I both agree, yet differ. I agree the 'fear' dynamic is there - but it's both ; Fear of civil disturbance via partisanship. They have 'no fear' of liberal civil disturbance... - We are all passive pacifists, right ? Why fear this negligible group of sissies ? *edit > Seeing your advertised profession, I've got a question for you, as soon as I can look back to it; please remind me should I wear out before then. (thx)
From the "Daily Kos" article linked above on hypocrisy vis à vis original intent:
"2. SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.
"The three liberals toss Chief Justice John Roberts’ words back in his face. Using the case that overturned Roe was a nice touch . . .
"'If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.' Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic.
"In plain English, they told the Court’s conservatives — 'Where’s your respect for originalism and tradition now?' In a different setting, they could have written — 'Our colleagues are hypocrites.'
"They elaborate: 'Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.'"
All three branches of government and our media have failed us on the issue of oathbreaking Insurrectionists at the highest level. In effect we the people and our precious democracy are left hanging by an election. This November's General Election will decide whether we still have a democracy or whether a tyrant will have free reign over the (not so) United States of America. This is the stark reality that we must face. If we ever needed inspiration to vote, this must be this time and place. The people must save the people.
Meanwhile, insurrectionists have seized control of the institution which the Supreme Court sees as responsible for legislation pursuant to the 14th amendment.
In Ukraine, soldiers are dying for lack of ammunition -- just one consequence of Speaker Johnson and the Freedom Caucus's work on behalf of their boss... and HIS boss, Vladimir Putin.
*
This places immense responsibility in the hands of citizens aware of the unfolding plot against America, long before the time comes to vote.
I don't disagree and don't intend to stop paying attention to what Congress is doing. But simply put, it seems to me that McConnell pointed his finger at Roberts, who in turn pointed his finger back at McConnell and Johnson. There's something rotten in Denmark.
They like the rhetoric but don't like the actual consequences of the politics so they keep punting the ball to each other. They are doing the same thing with this that they did with voting rights, abortion and now IVF. I really thought the Constitution was self enforcing and didn't need a supporting law made to enforce already clear existing language, but I suppose not. It also gives a pass to those like Hawley, MTG, Graham, Cruz and others that were involved in this scheme, and frankly it's shameful.
Going by your second and third sentences, it is with me that you agree, not Mr. Schmeeckle... But the first impression is that you agree with him.
He, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have parsed my sentence properly.
"A major influencer" seems to be a neutral description when speaking of a couple who have so many affinities, not to speak of shared business and political interests.
I am constantly reminded of a couple of notes I jotted down in December 2016:
*
GREAT AGAIN?
Democracy? Democracy? Where's that? I see only oligarchy.
Chances are DT will bankrupt oligarchy, as he's bankrupted all he touches, and try for the only thing he (thinks he) understands: dictatorship.
But will the Republic survive the attempt?
*
SYRIA—DRESS REHEARSAL?
It all began, not with an armed uprising, but with protest demonstrations. As in Russia in 1905, it was the regime’s violent response that set fire to the powder keg.
Now here’s the question: is this war the dress rehearsal for what will befall whoever dares resist oligarchy?
Putin is often turned into a one-dimensional "enemy image," the target of people's repressed hatred.
If Trump and Putin are aligned somehow, then it should be clear what they both strive toward.
Biden and Co. are cynically using Ukraine's far-right thug regime to bleed Russia. This has proved to be incredibly stupid, as if Biden was deliberately undermining national security, NATO the U.S. Dollar, and the American economy.
It would seem that Biden, not Putin, is the common enemy.
Some of your comments this morning have almost made sense, John, but not these. I disagree with each of your points here. I could phrase that a bit more vividly, but I leave it there. I admit, however, that I would enjoy an opportunity, if one were ever to present itself, for a lengthy face-to-face discussion with you. Best regards.
That was hyperbole for effect. No one could say, however, that Trump is not extremely favorable to Putin. Indeed, he has never to my knowledge ever said a bad word about that murdering dictator which is horrendous in and of itself. WHY? is the question. Putin clearly hates America and is actively trying to hurt us in every way possible. Russia is now our undisputed enemy. For Trump's reputation this fact is damning.
Putin said himself that he hopes Biden wins, because Biden is a typical American politician and therefore a reliable negotiating partner.
You don't need me to point out that Trump is a loose cannon.
The war in Ukraine is approaching a phase where negotiating the aftermath becomes an attractive option. Ukraine is exhausted, its defensive line is starting to crumble, and the NATO countries have been unable to supply sufficient munitions.
The longer this war goes on, the worse it gets for Ukraine.
Putin said early in this war that the decisions aren't being made in Kyiv; they’re being made in Brussels and Washington.
We can decide to negotiate and cut Ukraine’s losses, or we can let Russia roll over Ukraine, or we can escalate with direct NATO involvement after we have shown to the world our inability to sufficiently supply the Ukrainian army.
"All three branches of government and our media have failed us on the issue of oathbreaking Insurrectionists at the highest level. "
Republicans in all three branches of government right wing media have failed us on the issue of oath breaking insurrectionists at the highest level.
And above all, Americans who refused to vote for Clinton failed us. They could have kept Trump out of the White House and they could have secured a center left Supreme Court majority.
There fixed it for you.
Do not elide the work of the Democrats who impeached Trump in the House and presented formidable arguments in the Senate trial. Do not elide reporters and investigative journalists from the NYTimes and Washington Post to the New Yorker, Atlantic, the Nation, the Guardian to ProPublica , Mother Jones et al and other smaller outlets. How do you think we know what we know at all.
During the first impeachment circus, Trump committed the high crime of murdering General Qasem Soleimani, and simultaneously committed the high misdemeanor of misusing the U.S. military to commit murder. Trump committed this murder at the Baghdad Airport as Soleimani was on a three-way peace mission involving the Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, according to government spokesmen for these three countries at the time.
The hypocritical Democrats, in the middle of impeaching Trump, said nothing about these crimes, but Bernie harrumphed a bit.
It’s true, sadly. We’ve seen it happen over the last who knows how many years, and it isn’t ok. Not for anyone who’s trying to get their particular idea written into law by manipulating the courts. Even if I support the idea. We have to all do the right thing, the ethical thing. I wish all our politicians agreed.
Damn him for all of it. The Supreme Court, plus the appalling performance of the Republican Senate during the second impeachment in particular. They could have freed themselves (and us) from Trump, and chose not to.
The timing of his exit from the leadership seems awfully suspicious. To paraphrase Lawrence O'Donnell, that had the look of someone running from the scene of a traffic accident.
But did he get an early tip on the SCOUTS decision? As you suggested yourself, we're in this mess in a wider sense because of the actions of NRA Mitch for many reasons. If he really wanted to atone to America he would give up his Senate seat effective immediately.
Trump's niece says Donald's fast becoming demented. This is the best account of his decline that I've seen. Reading this, I'm inclined to think that he's not going to be nominated, and if he IS nominated, he won't have a chance.
Pretty obvious that 5 "justices" decided to protect all the Republican Senators and Congressmen who violated their oath on January Sixth. They are utterly corrupt. A shameful disgrace from men who have no shame, led by Clarence Thomas the most shameless liar of them all.
Virginia Witmer, I agree; it's hard for me to pick also. They're all awful and terribly insane to be that disconnected from the desire for the well being of your fellow citizens.
I agree, the ECOTUS (Extremist Court of The United States), just stomped all over the Constitution of the USA. I am disgusted more than i have ever been.
Thank you, i think i like your name for them even better than mine. It's a more detailed description for those corrupt a-holes. I was contemplating on leaving the United States if King crook steals the election in November, but i just don't know if i am up to it because of a hip problem i have, and my right foot hurts constantly when i walk. That Clarence Thomas a-hole needs to be impeached and sent to prison along with that hag he is married to.
John T Phillips, no, I just meant one of the names not all, but I like yours too. Sorry, your hip and foot are hurting. I have another idea. How about the The Injustice Court of the United States? ICOTUS seated with the greatest Injustices money could buy.
I just thought of another name for that bogus court, ''KCOTUS''= ''Kangaroo Court of the United States'' I wonder why the 3 liberal judges voted with the 6 Fascist judges yesterday on the ballot disqualification thing? I am missing something with that??
Please find yourself a skillful, experienced physical therapist and maybe a podiatrist. (Speaking from experience with right foot and left hip pain--I work with it and am progressing steadily.)
Gotta remember even the Liberal members went along, while protesting some overreach in making sure Scotus stays out of the line of hot potato political issues. What am i saying??? Look at the overthrow of RvW, Citizens United? etc
And Dobbs did as well John. Not much hope for the Presidential immunity case with this Republican SCOTUS group that enjoys total immunity for life from everything.
Of course! But you know, looking back historically, you find cultural/political bias running through the veins of SCOTUS. It's been both conservative, if that's the right word for it, and progressive. eg Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education. One hastened the Civil War , the other accelerated an Era of Civil Rights. We all know over what.
All the more reason to make sure the White House and Congress are in Democratic hands, so that we can start impeaching these justices who are not following the laws of the land. Impeach Clarence Thomas, impeach Sam Alito, and impeach anyone else who is on the court with false claims.
Must win an election that is, even now, being stolen by the state repubs. They have been busy while Dems wring their hands and abide by rules that repubs pitched long ago.
However, that may be so, but rejoice in that their coffers are low. At least from the RNC. Which if Treacherous-treasonous-traitor Trump takes it over, will be more likely empty.
Congress needs to pass a law saying the SCOTUS justices must recuse themselves if there is a clear conflict of interest or 4 or more Supremes declare there is. (Of course the judge accused of the conflict cannot vote).
It is not a bad thing to have the Supreme Court declare that Congress is the proper body to be making political decisions. Senators and representatives have been avoiding their responsibilities for too long.
Here is a potential means to wake up the House and possibly a large number of voters who may not currently be paying attention.
I would be grateful if a number of the readers of Prof Richardson's letters would write to Representative Hakeem Jeffries a letter similar to the one I wrote Monday evening. Also, send a copy to your congressman or woman. See below.
(A further suggestion: Make it a letter, not an email. Put real USPS postage on it. Hand-write the address on the envelope.)
* * *** * *
Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
2433 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Congress's responsibility
Dear Representative Jeffries:
The Supreme Court has declared that the responsibility for interpreting and activating Section 3 of Amendment XIV lies with Congress. I see an opportunity that Democratic representatives should not ignore.
Representative Matt Gaetz has drafted and introduced a resolution on the subject. If passed, it would declare Donald Trump innocent of any wrong-doing. Such a resolution invites debate. Debate requires evidence. Evidence is presented by witnesses. Credible witnesses will be believed by most voters who pay attention and who are not already captive MAGA.
Debate also provides an opportunity to argue about the meaning of the evidence. Logical argument will persuade people of good faith.
I doubt that a better opportunity will arise this year to expose the lies and to educate a large part of the electorate. All the Democrats need do is present the truth. There is a lot of truth to present, much of it already presented in the Select Committee hearings of 2022. As the hearings wind up, Democrats should point out the significance of a failure of Mr Gaetz's resolution to acquire a 2/3 majority.
Please let your caucus consider taking Mr Gaetz's resolution and running with it. In soccer terminology, this looks to be an “own goal” by the Republicans.
It appears the referees are changing the rules of the game while the ball is in play. The cheerleaders are trying to engage the crowd's attention while the fans are off with hot dogs and beers.
Maybe we should talk. My comment was intended to encourage readers of Prof Richardson's letter to take action. I would like to hear from readers their opinions on the suitability of my letter to Rep Jeffries. Some people may think it a waste of time, but if thirty or forty readers send similar letters, Rep Jeffries will have to take notice.
Have I persuaded you to write a letter? If not, why not?
"All the Democrats need do is present the truth. "
The facts were presented in the Mueller investigation, both impeachments, both impeachment trials, and by the Jan 6 committee.
And the presidential race is neck in neck. The procedures of the new presentation you suggest will be determined by House Republicans. Who will use them to amplify their lies in support of Trump. Which they do in every proceeding anyway.
Most Republicans are unaware of Trump's authoritarian comments and promises of revenge. Of course Fox, Newsmax, Sinclair is never going to post Trump's most vile comments or threats so how will they know about them?
The trouble with passing over to Congress is that it's a snake pit of political polarization, whatever decision is taken will be a torch to put under the the seats of whoever loses. Civil war without the bullets....
Do you not see the beauty of turning Rep "mountebank" Gaetz's grandstanding ploy against him and the rest of the Republicans in the House?
Let them bring their resolution and convene hearings. The normal rules will give the Democrats on the committee equal time and equal opportunity to present witnesses and evidence.
That evidence will be damning and dramatic. I watched most of the Select Committee hearings in 2022. All of that evidence and more should be presented. The truth will prevail! And it will prevail in prime time on the Republicans' dime!
Problem - there are heaps of other crises piled high, just like Bannon planned. Getting attention from our MSM will be a challenge. However, seeing Gaetz on the ropes would be worth a try. The thought of seeing him with more power should make anyone’s blood run cold. Go get ‘em Vincent. I’m with you.
Good. I only ask that you not copy my letter to Rep Jeffries word-for-word. We don't want him to think that we are a bunch of programmed robots. Use real paper. Write it out longhand! Send it with a U S Postal Service stamp.
If the good people in Rep Jeffries's office open more than a dozen or so letters expressing the same sentiment, I expect that we will at least get a response.
Have you seen the text of Rep Gaetz's proposed resolution?
Here it is, in all its simplicity and duplicity:
* * *** * *
118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on ______________.
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or
give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Today's Letter by HCR drives as a bullet to the core of how our country's government, its founding principles, and its democracy can be controlled not by its Rule of Law but by the autocratic goals of the Republican Party and Donald J. Trump, in particular, if we let it. The US' future as a country will be determined by the American people who vote in the next presidential and national elections.
The effort to rid our society of injustices has been hampered and in some ways set back by the tactic of using the law to sabotage the law. Corporate lawyers do so increasingly, as have "Republicans" over the last four decades. Not that the tactic is that new, but it became the core "GOP" M.O. It's been the slow-burn insurrection leading up to January 4th. Now the (NOT) "Party of Lincoln" celebrates insurrectionists as heroes, and "victims" of settled rule of law.
But lord knows what than could mean... look how Trump won the White House. Gerrymandering, voting restrictions. Congress is now redder and bluer than ever state-wise. You need a tsunami shift in independent, some Republican voting, well... actually, 5% can make a big difference in first past the post...
Representatives and Senators are members of a federal body, so SCOTUS’s decision puts them in Section 5’s reach, but cannot the case be made that they are also STATE officeholders by virtue of their being voted in or out by their respective states and while in office supposedly represent their states, and, therefore, states can bar them from holding office? Reckon that’s worth another pass at XIV.3?
We hope to say farewell to as many as possible in November. But how to educate voters about the danger of retaining them when so many have no idea what “democracy” means? And how do we teach autocracy? Most with memories of Hitler and Stalin have died and Putin, for reasons other than fear of climate change I cannot fathom, looks attractive. Don’t any Americans have grandparents who knew how hard it was to remain a democracy in the 20th century?
Also the members of Congress who participated in Jan 6 are protected as they hold federal office. We need an all blue vote in November and the addition of members to SCOTUS. Then overturn this decision. Thank you Heather.
It seems to me that no one can logically be protected from liability from decisions on the job that are well outside of assigned duties, such as an embezzling accountant (or politician). Seems like trying to overthrow the legitimate goverment by fraud and violence would reasonably be in that category for political positions. Otherwise where is accountability to the public, with is also to say (theoretically) the "boss".
I support "Corporate Joe" Biden for Captain of the USS Titanic! His campaign slogan, "Full speed ahead!" really makes me want to get out and vote, because Corporate Joe is going to take us to the Promised Iceberg where we can ride the Inescapable Debt Spiral into the drink. And Joe has a "hyper" backup plan: Drill holes in the bottom of the Titanic to let the water out. Vote Joe, and we'll all take a bath.
Vote, baby, vote! Dems are holding their powder during the campaign unless someone's heard to the contrary. Is there a commission reviewing SCOTUS issues ongoing?
No we're not Karen; most people are good - either d or r badged, the majority are good. What we must have is far more participants thinking and voting.
Ideologues, especially those on the far right, are showing a lack of integrity by “winning at all costs.”
Legislators can lay back while courts legislate from the bench. Dobbs turned medical practice into a political proving ground instead of a healing art. Wherever you turn, well-funded special interest groups are getting their way and resistance is weak. I fear what America is becoming and will become if Trump is elected.
Trump could not pose a threat as an authoritarian strongman unless he had powerful Establishment backers who want him in power to do what they want.
Trump is "Mr. Bankruptcy" and the powers-that-be envision the need for the United States -- in the throes of global de-dollarization and consequent financial chaos -- shredding the social safety net (General Welfare, Social Security and Medicare) as hyperinflation ruins the life savings of the Baby Boomers.
It takes a "big stick" strongman to wield power in times of bone-crushing austerity, and some of the powers-that-be have decided that Trump is the man for the job.
The word "Establishment" gets scholarly credibility from "The Anglo-American Establishment" by Carrol Quigley, who taught at Princeton and Harvard before settling in at Georgetown:
Back in the 1930s the fascist faction of the Establishment tried to use Marine General Smedley Butler to pull off a coup against "socialist" President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
"George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography" gives a series of chapter-by-chapter studies of the Establishment at work. There has never been a more "Establishment" president than George H.W. Bush. I refer repeatedly to the contents of this book in the following extended Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/john_schmeeckle/status/1599051947096449024
" unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case,"
We should not let this one drop with the news cycle. The SCOTUS insurrectionists need to feel the heat from the democracy they so arrogantly betray.
I'm so pissed at the court I don't know whether to spit or shine my shoes.
I'm furious.
Their decision on the 14th section 3, “the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.”. Telling us it's unenforceable unless congress passes a law is an affront to all thoughtful people.
Once again they have proven their fealty to trump.
I'm disgusted.
Do they think I'm so stupid as to not see the subterfuge?
I don't believe the members of the court are afraid of trump, I think they're high on their own supply. They truly believe they're above the law themselves.
They should be ashamed.
Now, more than ever, we need restraints on the court. They have run rampant over women's rights, indeed all of our rights. They refuse to hold themselves accountable ethically.
This is something out of a sci-fi dystopian future movie. Are we completely shakled by the court from this point forward? They have shown their stripes. They are partisan hacks, only there to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from the laws of this great nation.
I believe their actions are treasonous.
They have set the stage for the 2024 election and have given trump a green light.
I expect they will issue a weak tea opinion about trump's immunity that leaves us all speechless. Setting the stage for unrest. God help us.
We need to vote in such overwhelming numbers that there can be no doubt about the outcome.
Yes.Of course you are correct.We absolutely do need to vote in mammoth numbers because we know that Trump will never abide by the voters tally if he loses.We are once again going down the Groundhog Day scenario of witch hunt and voter fraud.I know there is no way around this now but it still sickens me that we have this unsavory thing before us.The SCOTUS is a right wing operative just as surely as is the Putin wing of our Peoples House.Such a shame for We The People but we will carry on and prevail we must.
And Mitch McConnell was the man who pulled the trigger.
Some time ago, after reading such books as These Truths, Democracy in Chains, Strange Justice I began keeping a list of Enemies of Democracy. Featured members of the list include Samuel Alito, Robert Bork, Aileen Cannon, Ginny and Clarence Thomas, TFG, and the not-soon-enough-to-be retired Mitch McConnell. This list is ever growing. It is so tragic that so many people in high places are actively trying to tear down the democratic precesses that made this country great.
We will prevail?? Really? How?
republicans say thoughts and prayers work. riiiiight
Take the S away from this court, and you get: put us to rest. (Cot us)
Bob, I think that we all share your frustration, but permitting Red states to remove Democratic candidates' names from ballots on fake charges would have created chaos and if the Supreme Court had ruled in Colorado's favor, that is what would have happened right away, just like the trumped-up impeachment charges against Pres. Biden.
I agree with the court in their decision not to let a state decide who is a federal candidate. It's the rest of their judgment I have a problem with.
It doesn't bode well for the immunity case.
Yes, the real critical decision will be how long they delay the absurd, limitless, immunity claim. Are they trying to thread a needle so Biden can't claim it, but Trump would have a chance to claim it again as long as he is in office?
Having been a toddler with occupation forces during the Nuremberg Trials, I've had a bit more interest in the rise of Hitler and the Germans who thought he couldn't actually be that bad (before he got to about 30%, enough to grab the rest of the power eventually).
I've been sickened in the last few days to find out a few old friends who at some time supported Trump, unintentionally let him get enough power to do so much damage during his term in office. I look at them as sort of technocrats like I thought Herbert Hoover was, who assumed most powerful people were what I liked to call egalitarian capitalists (to me Ben Franklin, Herbert Hoover, Robert Galvin (Motorola), and the TVA administrators, who had higher ethical standards and to varying degrees, imagined most other industry leaders and financiers did, too. I was particularly shattered to find Herbert Hoover may have visited Hitler and been too impressed by Hitlers early boosting the German economy.
I have a lot more questions about the reports of the Hoover, Hitler meeting and how he might have compared FDR's actions to Hitler's during the Great Depression. One of my mother's comments always haunts me, she said Hitler was more popular in Germany than Roosevelt was in America.
People seem to want strong leaders, but what a horrendous difference in the longer term, and the sacrificial victims in the process.
Trump has made it clear he’s not adverse to sacrificial victims; one has only to note what T’s pal, Putin did to Alexi Navalny.
It’s as if we now have TWO Presidents, one on the Oval Office, legally elected by the majority of voters, but with his hands tied by a Congress in stalemate, and one ILLEGALLY sitting in a pseudo Oval Office in Miralago, most likely speaking daily with global autocrats, oligarchs, CEO’s, billionaire backers, Congressional leaders and minions, GOP Governors, and SCOTUS and their minions, while corrupting “Free Speech” on his social media, without any policing.
FYI…Charles Koch’s Libre Initative Action, an affiliate of his political network, is moving across the nation registering Latinos as Republicans. They are now endorsing Republicans candidates in key congressional races.
Thank you for this information.
Like the Trump-Orban meeting this weekend?
Bob, but I believe that an individual state needs to be able to decide whether someone can run for a statewide office such as US senator or US representative, just not a nationwide office.
I presume you mean state senator or state representative.
I mean the representative or senator that goes to Washington DC to represent the voters in their state. While I see the problem of having one or three states removing the candidates for President/VP. However, they should be able to remove candidates that a jury has found guilty of insurrection since it would not influence voting in another state.
But those are not state elections. They are Federal elections for federal offices.
Tom, exactly! However, they are elections that involve voters in only one state, so that state’s Supreme Court logically has jurisdiction.
This court could decide that Trump has presidential immunity. But that would completely undermine its authority. If they said Trump has immunity then all presidents going forward would have immunity. Their logic and interpretation of the law would be a contorted mess. They would be saying that laws are unenforceable. By that logic, we wouldn't have to abide by that ruling either.
I agree, but nothing seems to be too despicable for them.
so assassinations would be legit?
I agree with you on the reasoning that charges need to be verified by a trusted venue such as a soberly managed courtroom. While I hate the idea that Trump is still a viable candidate, dividual states shouldn't individually disqualify a federal candidate.
It's really disgusting that the DoJ took so long to indict Trump. It's also unfortunate because a conviction would have added nationally - recognized proof that he's not qualified for office. That would have preempted the SCOTUS majority that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
I'd like to point out that the impeachment attempt against Biden has fallen apart, because there is NO EVIDENCE. I would agree that if there was no evidence that Trump acted as an insurrectionist, he should not be removed from any ballot. There is plenty of evidence.
So this is pointing in two directions.
First, it is making clear that the SC does not trust the states. This is reasonable, given that the states have been tacitly permitted by the SC to gerrymander themselves into fifty banana republics. That's on the SC.
Second, it is saying that charges of insurrection have no way of being established, and is completely invalidating the insurrection clause. That's also on the SC.
Themon, that the Republicans have no verifiable proof of anything doesn't stop them from claiming that there is and taking action on it, removing the candidate from the ballot. It's the Civil War all over again. I think that the three Liberal justices voted as they did for the point that I made - the Red states would find a way to keep a Democratic candidate off the ballot. Bedlam would ensue.
What the Supreme Court did, in part, was to "legislate from the bench." That there are tens of millions who will vote for TFFG is a huge blotch on America. Republican Conservatives support Nikki Haley; the racists and Christian Nationalists support the TFFG.
I love it when people point out that it was the republicans who were against slavery and wanted citizenship for blacks. Back then (Lincoln's time), that was true BUT what happened is that the southern "Democrats" turned republicans wanted slavery and seized power. Now they managed to make segregation legal. South=red=republican. They are not so nice to blacks. I realize this is even less than a monarch guide about political parties and blacks.
Well, if the Congress would stop playing with themselves, maybe construing a definition of insurrection and what would be considered participating or being an accessory would be a good project.
Good point....a perspective I had not considered.
Richard. Yes it would have been total chaos.
Yeah, we’re kind of seeing this very mess play out with women’s rights to all kinds of healthcare issues that only women have in common with each other, in red-controlled states until it’s all nationalized, that is. SCROTUS can’t seem to make up its compromised mind on states rights or implementing a strong federal response concerning how a(biblical)society can treat women and girls in the future.
France just enshrined abortion rights in their constitution. There is picture of the Statue of Liberty with the words "mon corp mon choix" projected on it. How appropriate.
We need to do more. Just voting and complaining won’t protect us from this court taking more of our rights and freedoms away. Birth control, gay rights, unions, minorities, are in danger. We also will be subjected to more Christian interpretations of the law. We need to find ways to hold demonstrations to show that this court is destroying democracy and not protecting it. Thomas and others are obviously corrupt. They have lost the trust needed for us to respect their decisions. We need to force resignations now!!
Abolish the elctoral college.
2020 was actually a close election. Biden's victory wasn't indisputable. 44,000 votes in 3 swing states, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin would have tied the electoral college.
We need to abolish the electoral college, as it gives red states an advantage. The popular vote wasn't that close.
Bob, as a pragmatic first step to reducing the effects of the electoral college, we can have the electoral votes apportioned by votes per state, instead of the current winner-take-all. This wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment, just a law. For example, a theoretical state would have 20 votes. If person A got 60% of the vote in the general election, they would get 12 electoral votes instead of all 20. It would encourage candidates that are centrists.
Sounds like a very reasonable first step, but since the “legislative” government isn’t doing much law making, and the SCOTUS is trying to, how do we get such a law at the federal level, AND make one not subject to SCOTUS’ rethinking?
Win both the Senate and the House and then propose it. 2nd step is to make voting on Federal positions (House, Senate and President) ranked choice (with open primaries).
Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes in proportion to the votes. So it's a state by state thing.
We need to make it national.
At least one state (Nebraska?) does this today. (I should have read a few more comments before replying, it turns out Maine and Nebraska both split the number of electors. Thanks Joy.)
Absolutely right, Bob.
The electoral college, an institution of lower learning from which no one has ever graduated (sort of like the "Hotel California", where you can check in but can never leave), has long been the rotting appendix without our body politic. The longer it remains, the more toxic our politics become.
At the very, very least, as a Constitutional amendment to abolish it is most unlikely, more States should sign on to the Popular Vote Compact wherein the electors would be proportionally distributed, as opposed to winner-take-all.
Currently, only Maine and Nebraska have such a system.
Agreed! How do we abolish the electoral college and get rank choice voting at the national level?
Please put Christian in quotes. The brand you are writing about has little or nothing to do with Christianity— and is often its opposite.
Absolutely right, Diedra!
Maybe the nuns who taught me were missing something, but the Jesus of Nazareth I was taught about never brandished AR-15s, nor sought to demean those who were different than the majority of us. I seem to remember a Jesus who healed the sick, hung out with the outcast and downtrodden, constantly told a story about a foreigner who was closer to God than his nativist counterparts, counted a woman with a certain reputation as his best and ultimately most courageous friend, and mentioned something about judging not, lest ye be judged.
Daniel Streeter- same things I was taught by nuns in my Catholic school, 60 years ago. Still with me.
I love your recollection of the Jesus we were taught about. To veer for a moment from the current discussion, I just wanted to check if the "woman with the certain reputation" you referred to was Mary Magdalene. If so, I've been fascinated, and somewhat appalled to read that the prostitute aspect of her story was added after the original gospel writings.
For example, I found an article by James Carroll in Smithsonian, 2006, "Who was Mary Magdalene?," which ended, " But what most drove the anti-sexual sexualizing of Mary Magdalene was the male need to dominate women. In the Catholic Church, as elsewhere, that need is still being met." Challenging, eh?
Hi Chaplain Terry!
I was indeed referring to the wonderful and mysterious Mary of Magdalene. James Carroll is quite interesting as well, is he not?
She was most likely a disciple.
Yes. There is no good Samaritan, no Sermon on the Mount in evidence. Only evil.
All y'all "real" Christians need to buck up. If these people tell me that their almighty god is telling them how they should tell me to live my life, and they are basing their rules on the Bible, then I am going to call them Christian until my last breath.
You sound just like the people who say "not all cops are bad".
Faux Christian
Fake Christian
CINO
(Christian in name only)
Use these phrases when discussing and writing about deluded, amoral, hypocritical people who call themselves Christian. They are Not. They are the antithesis of Christian
Nope. When they beat me with a Christian version of the Bible, I am calling them a Christian.
Yeah, I get that they are so far from the word of Christ that it's a chasm. But, there are so many flavors of Christianity that they get to be one too.
Ally is on the money here, in my opinion.
I agree with the need for demonstrations against the extreme court. I think this should be happening every day outside the building in DC and hopefully spread to other cities.
Count me 'all in' Sheila. I've advocated for that since Roberts hit the court.
lIt's also weakening regulations that protect our health, safety and the environment.
Money rules this court. It’s been profits over people since Bush vs Gore. Some of them take direct payments.
I forget who said it...but I read it here...best quote, sums it up efficiently: "Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy! "
I am furious too, as any progressive would be who is paying attention. We have here the leg of the tree-legged stool of the federal government that is the most immune from oversite, acting with impunity. It appears to me that public opinion hasn't a shred of influence. The 5-member majority is in effect flipping a big fat middle finger at Americans. McConnell was pretty savvy packing the courts - we now have the tail wagging the dog - the minority ruling the majority. God do I hate that man - what he did to this country we may never heal from. I put him in the same category as Trump WRT harm done. What can we do? I think the framers of the constitution somehow forgot that the Supreme Court can be corrupted too. Their impunity comes from the Constitution. So I feel helpless.
I have made this point before - it is the American people who have allowed this nightmare to happen. A way-too-large portion of the electorate supports this sh_t. The perpetrators keep getting re-elected. The polls continue to be so scary. This is not the country I thought it was when I was growing up.
I don't believe the American people at large are responsible for this nightmare. This has been decades in the making.
With policies from the federalist society and the complicity of a few powerful elected officials ( McConnell et al) and their rich donors.
We outnumber them.
We need to exercise that power and take back control of our government and this great country.
I fear Jay is right to a significant degree, Bob. As horrifically effective as Machiavellian Mitch has been, he couldn't get there without constantly being re-elected by people who buy what he's selling. The irresponsibility and/or public laziness of way too many people is deeply disturbing. The rise of the Murdochian Ministry of Mendacity, the late and filled with hate Rush Limbaugh, etc., couldn't have occurred without some level of unconscious sympathy on the part of way too many.
It wasn't unconscious.
Yes, we outnumber them, and we can tax the hell out of them, if we had the guts to do it - we certainly have the right, until the Cowardly Nine rule against even that. The blame for our nightmares always falls on the rich and powerful. But the people indirectly bring on their own failure through disinterest and stupidity. And that plays into the hands of the fascists. The centerpiece of all human disasters was the Great Depression and WW 2. And it took an FDR to wake up the masses, and he did it masterfully. It is a terrible state of affairs. It suggests that things will get a lot worse, because the next FDR hasn't appeared yet. The fascists own, or will own, all three branches of the government. It will get worse.
I do have a thought James, getting the 'buy in' is the trick though. I think if just the folks of good will got together and picked one, just one of the biggest most blatant Gov't influencers - I'd personally pick "Cootch'ie Industries" - *(misspelled intentionally to evade word search algorithms, but you know who I mean). Put some politically friendly business geeks to the task of finding every single tentacle of them that makes a nickel. Once discovered, mount an "all out" , no - buy, bouy-cott till they are in bankruptcy. If my city buys from them - demonstrate, raise hell in every public meeting - Unrelenting, suffocating $ pressure. That would definitely raise blood pressure - and that's putting it mildly. Our 'trolls' will likely see this, and that's just fine, I don't like being targeted, but I have certain skills to amuse them.
Oh yes; you've got that right Bob - it's been in the works for a very, very long time.
James, not just any progressive. Any thinking voter paying attention. I'm nowhere near a progressive, but I'm furious, too. Livid. Pissed off. Angry. Focused. Motivated.
All thoughtful voters should put party aside and vote for the country and the constitution.
The insurrectionists in congress must be purged.
It, the current events leading into and following the overt insurrection and the overt Republican efforts to overturn the U.S. government; it has all boiled down to this. The U.S. voters are all that stands between the future of our country and the end of it. Wonderful. If all Republicans at every level are voted out, that would begin to give us some hope for the future. Who will enforce the outcome if Republicans AGAIN claim elections are no good unless Republicans win? What does our crumbling Constitution have to say? I haven't heard.
"..... the American people who have allowed this nightmare to happen." That includes ME.
I think the Supreme Court watch the video that Fox News put out about the insurrection, not showing any of the damage or the violet violation, or the thread of death to Nancy Pelosi and pence because I know somebody who said oh, it wasn’t an insurrection that they didn’t really do any damage they were just on tour The majority on the Supreme Court are spineless and definitely not for democracy. Only three on the Supreme Court are worth truly being on the Supreme Court the rest will fry in hell. If there was a hell I, TOO, AM DISGUSTED AND ANGRY
Remember when Republicans accused the Dems of installing "activist" judges? Projection, much?
Nailed it Michelle; It's the well worn story of the faithless lover, who's always accusing the committed partner, of cheating.
Yup
I also thought the Constitution was self enforcing so why they decided to punt a question that didn't need to be answered to a Congress that they know is highly partisan and also seems to not be able to function is beyond me. That's before I even get to the fact that Thomas didn't recuse himself. It's embarrassing at this point. Like I knew they weren't going to allow him to get kicked off the ballot, but at the same time, they always provide an off ramp and double standard to those who actually engaged in reckless, insurrection behavior in government. It is galling.
Not a lawyer here so explain it to me like I'm 5: didn't Congress already pass a law in the form of the 14th Amendment? Or do they have to pass a law that specifically says the events on a given date (say, "January 6", for example) was an insurrection?
This ruling gives cover to the insurrectionists in congress, Cruz, Hawley, Brooks, Biggs, Greene, Perry, Loudermilk et al. This seems to me to be in direct contradiction of the reason it was enacted.
Krista, I hadn't seen your post when I made mine. Agreed.
Per my Google search, the House of Representatives submitted the 14th Amendment. SCROTUS (or ECOTUS, as another Reader said, the E being for "extreme") is, in essence, "try again, Congress, while we have our Klown Kar Kawkus in control.
addendum:
This ruling gives cover to the insurrectionists in congress, Cruz, Hawley, Brooks, Biggs, Greene, Perry, Loudermilk, et al.
They have the power to keep themselves from being removed from congress under the 14th sec 3, in direct contradiction to the reason it was enacted.
You forgot number one Bob; the creep in tights - Jordan.
Yeah, and Ron Johnson and a bunch of others I'm certain.
I thought that the text of the 14th Amendment came from Congress originally...
Apparently not the congress "they" recognize.
Thank you.
I couldn’t agree with you more my friend. The law of the land that provides no oversight for the third branch our government makes no sense. My wife and I happened to watch the Jan 6th insurrection as it unfolded in real time. I was stunned to see that when the mob got to the Capital building the only visible security provided were a few wooden blockades and the same number of security guards that happened to be on duty at the time. I kept yelling at the tv “where’s the National Guard”. Then later I discovered that the man who planned the whole thing was sitting in the White House seemingly enjoying what was happening and instead of taking action to prevent the crowd from stopping the procedure to complete the electoral process he called for the hanging of his vice president and did nothing. In fact after watching for several hours he made a tv appearance stating that he loved them all and that they should all go home. Then a few months later Congress impeached him twice and then the Republicans acquitted him of both charges. So much for our two party system and government of, for and by the people. I believe Pres Biden to be a man for this time and place and that the Democrats in Congress should go on the offensive as he has. A large part of the reason our country has come to precarious situation in the history of Democracy is because the Democrats have not been adequately representing the needs and wishes of the vast majority of voters who happen to be Democrats. I never here about any of them challenging any of the stupidness that is going on in either the Congress or Senate. In fact I asked both a Ct congressman and Senator if they had had a conconversation with one of their republican cohorts and asking them if they could explain how they and their president were going to Make America Great Again and what they said indicated to me that they had not. Keep the faith, vote and defend what’s right
Robert 🙏😳
Yea, stretching this out so Biden will be out of reach of immunity and just in time for when Trump would take office. What I am trying to figure out is their plan to steal the election this time. Surely Pubbies are not actually relying on an honest election for the win.
I feel the same way, but I apportion the blame a little differently.
The US has always been broken by its slave/freedom schizophrenia. The slave states, mostly in the southeastern part of the country, were never in step with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Never. As a result, Congress has never worked properly. Our nation has had not one mind, but two, and our Cain and Abel had their hands around each others' throats from birth.
As a result, our laws have never been about a common vision, but about subterfuge and undermining and petty advantage. We have incomprehensibly shitty laws, glued together from the wreckage of sabotage. The two parties have changed names, but it's always been about hierarchy versus democracy. Cain and Abel.
The "liberal" court that brought us RoeVWade and Womens' Rights, was technically out-of-line with respect to its role. It was "legislating from the bench," and they did this because Congress was broken and never did its job.
The Roberts court seems, in a singularly tone-deaf and prissy way, trying to unilaterally restore its own role as a court, not legislators, and it is leaving us lowly citizens high and dry in the face of the slavers under a madman like Donald Trump. Because Congress is still broken.
I'm sure it was up to the Congress to flesh out the 14th amendment. The amendment itself says so. But Congress, short-sighted and struggling over the issue of what form slavery would take after the Industrial Revolution in the factories, never bothered. So there are no laws to determine what "insurrection" even means. It's fucking obvious what insurrection means, and it is fucking obvious that Donald Trump committed it, but THERE ARE NO LAWS for the courts to cite. And the Roberts court is prepared to let the nation fail, rather than step one toe-nail's length beyond their "proper jurisdiction."
I understand the 14th amendment as meaning that ANY official, who, having pledged to support the constitution, and engages in insurrection, would be automatically barred from running for any public office. It clearly means Trump, who the lower court ruled HAD been involved in insurrection, cannot take office. Such a person should therefore not be allowed to even run for office, because this would cause unnecessary confusion.
It is the individual states that administer the elections, even federal ones, and it should be their prerogative to decide on such a case. Hearings are appropriate, but a state supreme court ruling is not necessary.
The red states cannot disqualify a Joe Biden, because they would have no basis to say he was an an insurrectionist.
It appears that without a very specific, legal DEFINITION of "insurrection," the current Supreme Court will not enforce the 14th amendment insurrection clause at all. I suspect that if someone were to put up a 10-year-old for the office of President, the Supreme Court might require a specific LEGAL definition of age, and frankly, it might not exist with the specificity they demand. There was certainly a lot of furor about Obama's birth certificate and his standing as a "natural-born US citizen."
Yeah, Trump questioned Obama's citizenship for his not being born in America...After all, he wasn't....He was born in Hawaii.
It's not just that President Biden must be re-elected. We must retain the majority in the Senate and take back the House. Only then can actions like expanding the number of Supreme Court justices be accomplished.
There is a doctrine in the law that says that a court can ignore certain rulings that would otherwise be binding precedent. A court is not bound by "dictum."
From the law.cornell.edu website: dictum. Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase " obiter dictum ." As a legal term, a dictum is any statement or opinion made by a judge that is not required as part of the legal reasoning to make a judgment in a case. Although dictum may be mentioned in legal arguments, it does not have the legal precedent 's binding power.
The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions.
"The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions."
In Bush v Gore, the decision said flat out that it was not intended to set precedent. When of course setting precedent is exactly what Supreme Court decisions do. In this case, the Federalist Supremes flustered Trump's lawyer by arguing points for him which were not in the argument he presented. Partisanship and arrogance are the hallmark of the Roberts Court. This could have prevented in 2016. But those who refused to vote for Clinton cemented in conservative domination of the Supreme Court for decades.
The health, retirement and mortality of the current Justices, who the president is when one or more of them is to be replaced and the makeup of Senate's judiciary committee will be factors in terms of the judicial philosophy of the Chief Justice and the majority on the Supreme Court in the future.
Voting is crucial if you want to live in a democracy or prefer an autocracy, which I call an atrocity. The president appoints judges who are confirmed or not by the senate.
Yes. And we are all more fragile and temporary than most want to admit. Statistically, the odds are real that Trump, Biden, Alito - or me won't be functional
on November 5th. There is a surprise every day.
Oh, so true.
Fern, So much damage is being done now, that will take generations to unwind.
That damage that I believe you are referring to began about 45 year's ago. The Biden administration and many elected representatives reversed a bit of it, and almost everything in terms of democracy in the US depends on the presidential and national elections to take place soon.
Nicely wordsmithed, Fern. It is indeed an atrocity.
"The atrocity of an autocracy" Damn Fern... I like the 'ring' of that work. Who knew you had such poetic skills. More reveals please !
Yes! Yes! The same thing is happening again with Democrats and Independents who don’t want to vote for Biden!
This very thing kept me awake in the wee hours. No matter what your particular niche within the Party, or not a member, whether Women's Rights, LGBTQ Rights, Voting Rights, etc. (since Dems are noted for their inclusion of disparate interest groups, who often tussle to be The Main Event). To those voters I say this: If we don't stand together now, NOBODY'S rights are safe.
This is a battle for survival. This Supreme Court decision made that painfully clear. To those voices who have been insisting Trump MUST be beaten at the ballot box are right. We can scream and rend our garments later - now is the time to VOTE "like our lives depend on it, because they do."
I wish I could put more "likes" or exclamation points to this! Hope all those who voted "uncommitted" come back to vote for Biden in the general election, and that NO Dems or "progressives" take important votes away from Biden by voting for a third party or other candidate!
As an American Jew and Zionist I support the Uncommitted primary movement. As long as it is only for the primary and these voters support Biden in the general election. Two problems - 1. voter inertia and 2. reflexively ideological and emotional antisemitism skewing legitimate criticism of the criminal Netanyahu regime's policy, and dismissing Biden administration diplomatic efforts.
Those following Stein, Kennedy, West et al are just MAGAs in sheep's clothing
Agreed, lin.
Lin, I've just got to admit right here and now, that I adore the logical workings of your grey matter..
We are so immature, the gravity of our national security is at peril.
Thank you.
Bingo. We are an open book. Show outrage on any issue. The Russians don’t need spies to find out what the issue is, our media, polling, social marketing channels inform them of what the new divisive issue is. Does anyone think Wisconsin and Michigan primary voters obstaning to vote for Biden was a coincidence? Russia knows exactly what districts to focus their divisional pys ops. Paul Manafort taught them.
Yep
Trump's win was something of a statistical fluke, an electoral college weighting which went against Clinton's popular majority. Another reform that is greatly needed. Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest.
No fluke. The Electoral College is the law. Clinton rejected the Howard Dean 50 state strategy and ignored the Electoral College. In her blinkered arrogance she acted as though she could build bridges in Texas, while ignoring mending fences with Democratic voters in large swing states such as Wisconsin. Especially Black voters alienated by the Clintons' treatment of Obama and progressives alienated by their treatment of Sanders. These voters ought still have voted for Clinton but ...
Swing voters in swing states. This was the polling data Paul Manafort traded with the Russians. It’s not that difficult to target people with a certain profile of grievance in a geographical area. Hillary won the popular vote, but, with Russian help, psychological warfare was deployed against her. TFG’s pathology of a malignant narcissist void of empathy and crudeness won the grievance inspired vote ( we need to stop saying in general “swing” vote. Because it wasn’t. It was a cyber attack by a closed society (Russia) into our open free speech society.
My goodness... everyone's a winner at bingo today, er yesterday.. I'm still in 'catch up ' mode.
Swing because in both 2016 and 2020 winning margins were thin, as i recall. These states used to be "dependable blue", "the great blue wall" it was called? Here's Wiki on this. So do you figure it's the political force on the ground that mainly makes the difference? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Blue_wall_(U.S._politics)#2016:_Breach_of_the_blue_wall
"Blinkered arrogance". Depends which glasses you're wearing. I saw her as prepared, confident, politically experienced, riding the wave. A leader.
Whatever Clinton herself was/is she ran one of the worst campaigns I'd volunteered on in decades. My perspective is informed by volunteering for our local Democratic committee from April-Nov 2016. Almost full time towards the end. In hundreds of thousands of phone calls and tens of thousands of door knocks, we made contact and established rapport with a wide range of potential voters, collected significant data, and were ready for GOTV. We could not even get yard/road signs from the Clinton campaign. The last week she airlifted in 3 newbies who were clueless and spent a lot of time talking about what to wear to inauguration events. They ignored our data, antagonized volunteers and voters, and were generally worse than useless. I heard the same from activists in important big electoral states and swing states.
Well, as many 'saw it' , blinkered arrogance is arguably correct, and I must say I agree, but had no means to share that with her. I can also say that many in my circles felt that was so as well Anne. What she ignored, 'looked like' arrogance to very, very many. Optics are extremely important; And those optics outweighed all those very true superlatives you named about her, perhaps more. Gop wonks w/ help from the vast resources of our National adversaries did their 'homework' better than her campaign wonks had any chance to do.
....and let's not forget Jill (Putin) Stein....
And she's baack.
Bingo Lin !
i believe Biden won back by similar margins that Trump won in 2016. Those are narrow margins indeed.
"Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest."
Changing the number of Senators per state to create equal popular representation would not be practical: the imbalance is too great. California has more than 68 times the population of Wyoming. Another solution which would be practical would require a Constitutional Amendment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution mandates not only two Senators per state, but also one vote per Senator. If that were changed by Amendment, lowest population states would establish the base of one vote apiece. More populous states would have more. California, in particular, would have 68. Unfortunately, low population states are unlikely to ratify an Amendment that would destroy their unfair popular over-representation.
You are generous in calling them "The Federalist Supremes." "Sycophant" comes to my mind, as does "Fanatics," or "RNC Staff," or "Acolytes" to their religious leanings. They are neither "Supreme" nor "Just."
lin, that was my argument going into the 2016 election. Not as much about POTUS as it was SCOTUS. I hate that I was right.
Ditto... I am a storm watcher. Long before that - decades, I felt and recognized the 'shifts' in my circles, tried desperately to be heard and found no ear, much less champions.
"This could have prevented in 2016"
If ancient history is your hill to die on, better git back to the original text with a big fat marker and strike that 'electoral college' crap.
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. *
Good to know. Thanks.
Hoping this won’t be seen as precedent and ruled as if!
'J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former U.S. Court of Appeals judge who co-wrote with Laurence H. Tribe a piece for the Atlantic in August that helped to galvanize interest in the 14th Amendment as a means to disqualify Trump, cited the language of the three liberal justices in their concurring opinion, which critiqued elements of the majority’s decision. The liberals agreed with the conservatives that states should be prohibited from kicking candidates off the presidential ballot under Section 3, while disagreeing with the majority specifying Congress’s role in any disqualification. The standard, Luttig argued, makes it functionally impossible to disqualify insurrectionists from holding federal office.' (WAPO)
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
'The impact of Monday’s decision was immediate, effectively nullifying efforts in states across the country to ban Trump from running. Within hours of the ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows withdrew her earlier determination that Trump should be barred from the ballot in her state. The Maine primary is Tuesday.'
'In comments shortly after the ruling, Trump praised the court’s decision and quickly pivoted to another case “of equal importance” before the court, one reviewing his sweeping claim of immunity from prosecution over actions taken while president. The Supreme Court agreed last week to review Trump’s arguments in that matter, setting oral arguments for late April. The decision was a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to move the federal Jan. 6 case quickly to trial, and cast doubt over whether there will be a verdict before the November election.'
'Trump allies cheered the Monday ruling. “The Supreme Court unanimously showed us today that we cannot silence the voice of the American people and stop democracy,” Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, wrote in a post on X.'
'The court pointedly did not address whether Trump engaged in insurrection. In Colorado, Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) said that while she welcomed the clarity the decision would give millions of Americans preparing to vote, she said she was “disappointed” by the ruling.'
“It means that federal oath-breaking candidates will have a pass to run for office again given the nonfunctioning in Congress,” she said. (WAPO, By Sarah Ellison and Toluse Olorunnipa) See gifted link generously provided by subscriber, Marj.
https://wapo.st/3IqwteB
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/trump-supreme-court-ballot-voters/
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
What is Judge Luttig’s rationale for saying this? I have read the SCOTUS decision and, beyond putting the burden on Congress (admittedly, as dysfunctional as Congress us today, an impossible challenge), I cannot connect the the dots to get to Judge Luttig’s conclusion or to that of the assenting opinions.
The only time Congress is mentioned in the 14th Amendment as an actionable body is the RESTORATAION of an Insurrectionist to their ranks, requiring a hefty, damn near insurmountable 3/4 vote. What "action" the Congress needs to make to declare an Insurrectionist isn't described. The SC is saying that the Congress has to first find the Insurrectionists, try him, then disqualify him. Would that have happened in 1865 if the Southern Confederates were still holding their Congressional seats? Because that's what happened here...
Yeah, but they leave that part out as it would torpedo their position.
Ricky, the Roberts Court is clear “ we now make law , there’s NOTHING you can do to stop us, and we take our orders from our benefactor, Mr Leo”
As I continue to remind people, CONservatives today make accusations which are really confessions.
"their ranks"?? That leaves out tfg, who was impeached, but not convicted (because of McConnell).
Trump was impeached in the house and convicted in the Senate 57 to 43. The Congress as a matter of record has already acted. If elected he cannot serve.
He was acquitted 57-43
Yes, of course. If only Trump had been removed we would be in a very different place. But still, Congress did address citizen Trump and both the House and Senate voted in majority to convict. The Supreme Court threw the ball to Congress, which for me, has already kicked a field goal. We live in interesting times.
@MjXS, While your reply exquisitely shows the travesty of yesterday’s Court ruling, if I may, I merely would note that a two-thirds vote is required by each House to remove the disqualification.
Yes, in my pre-coffee rage I got that wrong. Though I'd like to see this Congress get two-thirds agreement that the sky is blue.
@MJXS, Certainly not unless someday we succeed in rescuing a country that has become so polarized that we nearly are paralyzed.
The era of Trump has revealed cracks in our system of government. The list of cracks is long and varied. The problems with SC is a mini list. Others may have noticed the cracks but Republicans like Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society and others have aggressively sought to exploit those cracks for their own purposes, especially personal power. The SC needs to be expanded.
Emil, I didn’t see @MJXS’s reply until after I had posted mine. While I had thought about deleting my post, I decided to leave it since the 2 posts, though stated differently, made similar points. That clarified, I had stated the following:
Luttig’s concern is rooted in his understanding that our Founders had sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the excesses of any one branch. Having understood that the Congress would have its duties as would the judiciary, today’s crucial court ruling re-assigned a judicial duty to the Congress.
Barbara, see my post
Dave, The one hope I derive from your post is that increasingly more of us will come to understand that any attempt to restore balance to the 3 branches will entail Democrats expanding the Court.
Barbara, in the short term, I believe the members of the Court should reflective of the population in terms of the number of district courts, in the long term, Senate Confirmation of nominees HAS to be based on the previous level of concurrence, not a simple radical majority
This way, a President has to select someone both sides can live with, iow, a fair(er) judicial mind
Then read it again
New day, news to sadden and disappoint.💔
...and another crucial impetus to vote in the presidential, national and local elections.
I lightly lectured (smiling and joking) a young student professional today. Can only hope I 'got' to one or more.
Charmed the innocent to go for democracy, did you!
Logic and passion... with a smile.
Thank you Fern.
Try this for a gift link.
https://wapo.st/3IqwteB
Marj, thank you. I hope that you would not object that I copy the gift link you generously provided within my comment giving you credit for it.
Fern, keep me in your hip pocket towards the end of the month for gift links...
As much as you are a wiz, Ally, I will try to uphold my role in this deal you have generously arranged. Thank you!
😇
Pls spread wide and far, no credit necessary.
Thank you for your generosity on behalf of us all, Marj.
Lengthy quotation from Judge J Michael Luttig (via the Washington Post) is entirely on point and justified.
Allow me a short quotation.
"118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on ____________________.
RESOLUTION
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.
What should the Democrats in the House do in response to this challenge? Any ideas? Is this an opening that can be exploited?
'If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.'
Bravo, Judge Luttig, and thank you Mr. Schumacher for this particular quote of his.'
'The value of pi is approximately 3.14, or 22/7. To 39 decimal places, pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197. Pi is an irrational number, which means it is not equal to the ratio of any two whole numbers. Its digits do not repeat.'
'Pi occurs in various mathematical problems involving the lengths of arcs or other curves, the areas of ellipses, sectors, and other curved surfaces, and the volumes of many solids. It is also used in various formulas of physics and engineering to describe such periodic phenomena as the motion of pendulums, the vibration of strings, and alternating electric currents.' (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Again, scary actions!!
They have heat shields comparable to anything that NASA conjured up…
nice
Looks like Clarence Thomas and the last three controversial judges are also insulating themselves. Ironically, they've just given Biden more power and protection, too. Suggest he use it.
Yes, and they've shown they do feel the heat somewhat from the public criticism. Let's crank up the temperature
At one point yesterday, I heard that SCOTUS justices show they are afraid of citizen trump and his base.
That isn't just idle speculation.
The whole Trump v Anderson decision, including the four concurrences, appears to me to reek of fear. Unfortunately, this decision is laying the ground for another crucial hinge point to come immediately after the November election, if not on 6 January 2025, when the two chambers of Congress will be convened to accept (or reject) the electoral college votes. I predict a significant number of senators and representatives will be ready to take out their frustration by objecting to votes for the candidate of the opposing party.
Then what? It will be the Supreme Court to the rescue yet again. Hold onto your hats, folks! There may be a fortune to be made by investing in the manufacturers of razor wire, concrete traffic barriers, and teargas grenades.
I think you're saying a Dem priority has to be SCOTUS overhaul. A SC only works when it works to align with clearly wrong or criminal and otherwise lean towards neutrality on otherwise political/culture extremism. That is NOT this court.
This is the news that brought me to my knees last night. I felt nauseous.
This is not the time to go high when they go low.
Not only did they do the wrong thing, but the majority did it badly. In footnote 2 to the majority opinion, they cite the case of Mr. Tift, of Georgia, who in 1868 needed a so-called private bill to relieve him of disqualification. Then they go on to cite a law passed in 1870 to prove that Sec. 3, the disqualification clause, does nothing without congressional action. But if the 14th Amendment by itself disqualified Tift, why doesn’t it operate the same way now? How could a 1870 law amend the Amendment? Was Sec. 3 self-executing in 1868, but not in 2024? How can that be? I’ll go along with Joyce Vance, and suggest that the majority was impelled by fear of civil disturbance rather than partisanship, but it’s still bad lawyering. (I should note that the four concurring justices did not propose to decide whether Trump is barred as what the three “liberals” described as an “oath-breaking insurrectionist,” which would have to led to an immense crisis if he should prevail in November.)
** "This" Jon. I herded my squirrel brain like a champ and found it as i'm wearing down. Does this in your opinion 'fly' as a valid observation ?
"
D4N
D4N’s Substack
3 hrs ago
·edited 1 hr ago
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. * "
Hi Jon. I've religiously followed the brilliant Joyce V. on as much as her boundary 'firewalls' will permit a freeloader to do - no judgement there mind you. That said, I'm 2 weeks behind in my reading, including our good Professor's letter this evening (long story) ! However, basing this opinion of mine on your takeaway from Joyce, I both agree, yet differ. I agree the 'fear' dynamic is there - but it's both ; Fear of civil disturbance via partisanship. They have 'no fear' of liberal civil disturbance... - We are all passive pacifists, right ? Why fear this negligible group of sissies ? *edit > Seeing your advertised profession, I've got a question for you, as soon as I can look back to it; please remind me should I wear out before then. (thx)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/4/2227484/-A-unanimous-decision-to-keep-Trump-on-the-ballot-reveals-bitter-divisions-in-SCOTUS
Originalism is what -- ¿decision by ouija board or séance? 😉 No, no no: originalism is an ideological cover story. 🤫
https://nedmcdletters.blogspot.com/2019/05/letter-157-why-originalism-is.html
Jotted down four and a half years ago: why originalism is dangerously original. 🤥
From the "Daily Kos" article linked above on hypocrisy vis à vis original intent:
"2. SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.
"The three liberals toss Chief Justice John Roberts’ words back in his face. Using the case that overturned Roe was a nice touch . . .
"'If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.' Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic.
"In plain English, they told the Court’s conservatives — 'Where’s your respect for originalism and tradition now?' In a different setting, they could have written — 'Our colleagues are hypocrites.'
"They elaborate: 'Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.'"
Yep
Turn up the heat! I voted today here in Texas! Wanted to put a match to the ballots! 😑
Oh... so well and briefly stated observation Tom.
The danger increases. It is so dangerous that even France is changing their laws based upon our rush to facism.
France has just written abortion rights into the Constitution - a world first.
Vive la France!
780 for, 72 against. It will be made official in a public ceremony on 8 March, International Women's Rights Day.
That makes you wonder just where the real political threat in France was coming from, doesn't it? Has teeth, but redundant in that political climate?
Say mon dieu!
Ala Major Jean Villeneuve: "Oui, faites confiance aux Français" *(my thought insert here: trust the fresh French passion vs an English tyrant)
All three branches of government and our media have failed us on the issue of oathbreaking Insurrectionists at the highest level. In effect we the people and our precious democracy are left hanging by an election. This November's General Election will decide whether we still have a democracy or whether a tyrant will have free reign over the (not so) United States of America. This is the stark reality that we must face. If we ever needed inspiration to vote, this must be this time and place. The people must save the people.
The vote is a far horizon.
Meanwhile, insurrectionists have seized control of the institution which the Supreme Court sees as responsible for legislation pursuant to the 14th amendment.
In Ukraine, soldiers are dying for lack of ammunition -- just one consequence of Speaker Johnson and the Freedom Caucus's work on behalf of their boss... and HIS boss, Vladimir Putin.
*
This places immense responsibility in the hands of citizens aware of the unfolding plot against America, long before the time comes to vote.
If it does.
Our betrayal of Ukraine is beyond shameful.
I don't disagree and don't intend to stop paying attention to what Congress is doing. But simply put, it seems to me that McConnell pointed his finger at Roberts, who in turn pointed his finger back at McConnell and Johnson. There's something rotten in Denmark.
They like the rhetoric but don't like the actual consequences of the politics so they keep punting the ball to each other. They are doing the same thing with this that they did with voting rights, abortion and now IVF. I really thought the Constitution was self enforcing and didn't need a supporting law made to enforce already clear existing language, but I suppose not. It also gives a pass to those like Hawley, MTG, Graham, Cruz and others that were involved in this scheme, and frankly it's shameful.
Shameful and embarrassing.
Putin is ecstatic, Moscow Mitch was the right moniker..
Referring to Putin as the boss of Speaker Johnson seems unhinged, as if Zelensky was Biden's boss.
I agree. There is someone in between them. TFG is the Speaker’s boss, and Putin is a major influencer of TFG.
Going by your second and third sentences, it is with me that you agree, not Mr. Schmeeckle... But the first impression is that you agree with him.
He, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have parsed my sentence properly.
"A major influencer" seems to be a neutral description when speaking of a couple who have so many affinities, not to speak of shared business and political interests.
I am constantly reminded of a couple of notes I jotted down in December 2016:
*
GREAT AGAIN?
Democracy? Democracy? Where's that? I see only oligarchy.
Chances are DT will bankrupt oligarchy, as he's bankrupted all he touches, and try for the only thing he (thinks he) understands: dictatorship.
But will the Republic survive the attempt?
*
SYRIA—DRESS REHEARSAL?
It all began, not with an armed uprising, but with protest demonstrations. As in Russia in 1905, it was the regime’s violent response that set fire to the powder keg.
Now here’s the question: is this war the dress rehearsal for what will befall whoever dares resist oligarchy?
Peter Burnett,
You may disagree with my reply to Emil L. Posey:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-4-2024/comment/50965415
My apologies to all who misconstrued my “agreement.” Obviously, I have to work on better conveying sarcasm electronically.
PS— The word I was wanting to use re Trump and Putin but couldn’t bring it up in my early morning, pre-coffee fog was bromance.
Putin is often turned into a one-dimensional "enemy image," the target of people's repressed hatred.
If Trump and Putin are aligned somehow, then it should be clear what they both strive toward.
Biden and Co. are cynically using Ukraine's far-right thug regime to bleed Russia. This has proved to be incredibly stupid, as if Biden was deliberately undermining national security, NATO the U.S. Dollar, and the American economy.
It would seem that Biden, not Putin, is the common enemy.
Some of your comments this morning have almost made sense, John, but not these. I disagree with each of your points here. I could phrase that a bit more vividly, but I leave it there. I admit, however, that I would enjoy an opportunity, if one were ever to present itself, for a lengthy face-to-face discussion with you. Best regards.
You agree???
You are correct in a technical sense.: TRUMP is Johnson’s DIRECT boss; PUTIN is Trump’s DIRECT boss.
To call Putin Trump's direct boss seems unhinged. You may disagree with my reply to Emil L. Posey:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-4-2024/comment/50965415
That was hyperbole for effect. No one could say, however, that Trump is not extremely favorable to Putin. Indeed, he has never to my knowledge ever said a bad word about that murdering dictator which is horrendous in and of itself. WHY? is the question. Putin clearly hates America and is actively trying to hurt us in every way possible. Russia is now our undisputed enemy. For Trump's reputation this fact is damning.
You foam at the mouth.
Putin said himself that he hopes Biden wins, because Biden is a typical American politician and therefore a reliable negotiating partner.
You don't need me to point out that Trump is a loose cannon.
The war in Ukraine is approaching a phase where negotiating the aftermath becomes an attractive option. Ukraine is exhausted, its defensive line is starting to crumble, and the NATO countries have been unable to supply sufficient munitions.
The longer this war goes on, the worse it gets for Ukraine.
Putin said early in this war that the decisions aren't being made in Kyiv; they’re being made in Brussels and Washington.
We can decide to negotiate and cut Ukraine’s losses, or we can let Russia roll over Ukraine, or we can escalate with direct NATO involvement after we have shown to the world our inability to sufficiently supply the Ukrainian army.
Do you have a preference?
good gosh.
No Trump is Johnson’s boss, Putin is Trumps boss.
To call Putin Trump's boss seems unhinged. You may disagree with my reply to Emil L. Posey:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-4-2024/comment/50965415
And the Republic. And the planet (or at least a major portion of it's living species, our own included.
"All three branches of government and our media have failed us on the issue of oathbreaking Insurrectionists at the highest level. "
Republicans in all three branches of government right wing media have failed us on the issue of oath breaking insurrectionists at the highest level.
And above all, Americans who refused to vote for Clinton failed us. They could have kept Trump out of the White House and they could have secured a center left Supreme Court majority.
There fixed it for you.
Do not elide the work of the Democrats who impeached Trump in the House and presented formidable arguments in the Senate trial. Do not elide reporters and investigative journalists from the NYTimes and Washington Post to the New Yorker, Atlantic, the Nation, the Guardian to ProPublica , Mother Jones et al and other smaller outlets. How do you think we know what we know at all.
During the first impeachment circus, Trump committed the high crime of murdering General Qasem Soleimani, and simultaneously committed the high misdemeanor of misusing the U.S. military to commit murder. Trump committed this murder at the Baghdad Airport as Soleimani was on a three-way peace mission involving the Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, according to government spokesmen for these three countries at the time.
The hypocritical Democrats, in the middle of impeaching Trump, said nothing about these crimes, but Bernie harrumphed a bit.
That last part. Damn that Moscow Mitch.
It’s true, sadly. We’ve seen it happen over the last who knows how many years, and it isn’t ok. Not for anyone who’s trying to get their particular idea written into law by manipulating the courts. Even if I support the idea. We have to all do the right thing, the ethical thing. I wish all our politicians agreed.
Non-manipulation is essential for "equal justice under law". like it says on the SCOTUS building. Every thing else is a flavor of tyranny.
SCOTUS hasn’t even read their own building, much less the Constitution
Maybe not, but at least some of them are familiar with obscure laws that protect the patriarchy.
Going back to medieval times, learned in the machinations of Machiavelli, etc
LOL!
Damn him for all of it. The Supreme Court, plus the appalling performance of the Republican Senate during the second impeachment in particular. They could have freed themselves (and us) from Trump, and chose not to.
The timing of his exit from the leadership seems awfully suspicious. To paraphrase Lawrence O'Donnell, that had the look of someone running from the scene of a traffic accident.
To be fair, he’s quite elderly and looks very unwell.
But did he get an early tip on the SCOUTS decision? As you suggested yourself, we're in this mess in a wider sense because of the actions of NRA Mitch for many reasons. If he really wanted to atone to America he would give up his Senate seat effective immediately.
I suspect he’s proud of himself, while we watch in horror.
Of course he did JS.
Trump's niece says Donald's fast becoming demented. This is the best account of his decline that I've seen. Reading this, I'm inclined to think that he's not going to be nominated, and if he IS nominated, he won't have a chance.
https://marytrump.substack.com/p/aide-warns-donald-is-losing-it?r=1exgz
That geriatric fossil Mitch McConnell will soon be gone from the political landscape. May Trump and Biden quickly join him in the old folks' home.
Pretty obvious that 5 "justices" decided to protect all the Republican Senators and Congressmen who violated their oath on January Sixth. They are utterly corrupt. A shameful disgrace from men who have no shame, led by Clarence Thomas the most shameless liar of them all.
Never sure who is worse: Thomas, Alito, or Kavanaugh.
All liars....
All self-serving.
And all prefer that we have a theocracy than a democracy.
Virginia Witmer, I agree; it's hard for me to pick also. They're all awful and terribly insane to be that disconnected from the desire for the well being of your fellow citizens.
Exactly! You might say it's Just Insane
Yes. Thomas is more corrupt, Alito is more crazy, Kavanaugh is totally unqualified. All of them bad.
They are proud and UNashamed of any action and rejoice in our condemnation.
And immune from prosecution for life.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America rides roughshod over the Constitution of the United States.
Well there's one for the history books, indeed.
I agree, the ECOTUS (Extremist Court of The United States), just stomped all over the Constitution of the USA. I am disgusted more than i have ever been.
John T Phillips, I like your E for Extremist! How about Tyrannical, Terrorist, Oligarch's Court? I share in your utter disgust, my friend.
Thank you, i think i like your name for them even better than mine. It's a more detailed description for those corrupt a-holes. I was contemplating on leaving the United States if King crook steals the election in November, but i just don't know if i am up to it because of a hip problem i have, and my right foot hurts constantly when i walk. That Clarence Thomas a-hole needs to be impeached and sent to prison along with that hag he is married to.
John T Phillips, no, I just meant one of the names not all, but I like yours too. Sorry, your hip and foot are hurting. I have another idea. How about the The Injustice Court of the United States? ICOTUS seated with the greatest Injustices money could buy.
I just thought of another name for that bogus court, ''KCOTUS''= ''Kangaroo Court of the United States'' I wonder why the 3 liberal judges voted with the 6 Fascist judges yesterday on the ballot disqualification thing? I am missing something with that??
STAY, John.
Please find yourself a skillful, experienced physical therapist and maybe a podiatrist. (Speaking from experience with right foot and left hip pain--I work with it and am progressing steadily.)
Gotta remember even the Liberal members went along, while protesting some overreach in making sure Scotus stays out of the line of hot potato political issues. What am i saying??? Look at the overthrow of RvW, Citizens United? etc
And Dobbs did as well John. Not much hope for the Presidential immunity case with this Republican SCOTUS group that enjoys total immunity for life from everything.
"Not' everything Gary.
I agree!!Our constitution is definitely is in jeopardy!!So is our democracy!!
History repeats itself.
Deciding for Bush as tragedy.
Deciding for Trump as farce.
Same cast of characters.
Arguing for Bush before the bench. Arguing for Trump from the bench.
Nicely encapsulated, lin. So very, very wrong.
Overstated. It seemed clear from the get go that Section 5 would decide the matter.
Republicans have always condemned “activist” judges, unless they promoted conservative values and policies.
They bombastically condemn the very crimes they commit. It seems preposterous, but it also seems to fool a lot of the people all of the time.
Cherry picking indeed.
Of course! But you know, looking back historically, you find cultural/political bias running through the veins of SCOTUS. It's been both conservative, if that's the right word for it, and progressive. eg Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education. One hastened the Civil War , the other accelerated an Era of Civil Rights. We all know over what.
I am reminded of an earlier "precedent," Bush v. Gore, which involved a different section of the famously flip-flopping 14th Amendment.
.. Projection of their hearts desire and intents Ralph
Indeed. The same with their religion.
I don't 'know' with any certainty where your head is on "All This" hubris, but for me - A 'reckoning' is on the way, and I'll be in front.
All the more reason to make sure the White House and Congress are in Democratic hands, so that we can start impeaching these justices who are not following the laws of the land. Impeach Clarence Thomas, impeach Sam Alito, and impeach anyone else who is on the court with false claims.
Must win an election that is, even now, being stolen by the state repubs. They have been busy while Dems wring their hands and abide by rules that repubs pitched long ago.
However, that may be so, but rejoice in that their coffers are low. At least from the RNC. Which if Treacherous-treasonous-traitor Trump takes it over, will be more likely empty.
Just hope Leo doesn't refill. Poor repubs would be awesome to witness...
lol Jeri !
I’m afraid so
Congress needs to pass a law saying the SCOTUS justices must recuse themselves if there is a clear conflict of interest or 4 or more Supremes declare there is. (Of course the judge accused of the conflict cannot vote).
It is not a bad thing to have the Supreme Court declare that Congress is the proper body to be making political decisions. Senators and representatives have been avoiding their responsibilities for too long.
Here is a potential means to wake up the House and possibly a large number of voters who may not currently be paying attention.
I would be grateful if a number of the readers of Prof Richardson's letters would write to Representative Hakeem Jeffries a letter similar to the one I wrote Monday evening. Also, send a copy to your congressman or woman. See below.
(A further suggestion: Make it a letter, not an email. Put real USPS postage on it. Hand-write the address on the envelope.)
* * *** * *
Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
2433 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Congress's responsibility
Dear Representative Jeffries:
The Supreme Court has declared that the responsibility for interpreting and activating Section 3 of Amendment XIV lies with Congress. I see an opportunity that Democratic representatives should not ignore.
Representative Matt Gaetz has drafted and introduced a resolution on the subject. If passed, it would declare Donald Trump innocent of any wrong-doing. Such a resolution invites debate. Debate requires evidence. Evidence is presented by witnesses. Credible witnesses will be believed by most voters who pay attention and who are not already captive MAGA.
Debate also provides an opportunity to argue about the meaning of the evidence. Logical argument will persuade people of good faith.
I doubt that a better opportunity will arise this year to expose the lies and to educate a large part of the electorate. All the Democrats need do is present the truth. There is a lot of truth to present, much of it already presented in the Select Committee hearings of 2022. As the hearings wind up, Democrats should point out the significance of a failure of Mr Gaetz's resolution to acquire a 2/3 majority.
Please let your caucus consider taking Mr Gaetz's resolution and running with it. In soccer terminology, this looks to be an “own goal” by the Republicans.
Respectfully yours,
* * *** * *
It appears the referees are changing the rules of the game while the ball is in play. The cheerleaders are trying to engage the crowd's attention while the fans are off with hot dogs and beers.
This bank robbers' approach -- diversions, diversions -- is a constant of MAGA tactics.
Ms Fenton:
Maybe we should talk. My comment was intended to encourage readers of Prof Richardson's letter to take action. I would like to hear from readers their opinions on the suitability of my letter to Rep Jeffries. Some people may think it a waste of time, but if thirty or forty readers send similar letters, Rep Jeffries will have to take notice.
Have I persuaded you to write a letter? If not, why not?
You may have, but must get out more GOTV postcards for Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) first.
Great, so you are taking action but kicking and screaming negativity the whole way?
Didn’t know I was “screaming negativity,” but I am scared so taking action. I have been writing GOTV postcards since 2018.
"All the Democrats need do is present the truth. "
The facts were presented in the Mueller investigation, both impeachments, both impeachment trials, and by the Jan 6 committee.
And the presidential race is neck in neck. The procedures of the new presentation you suggest will be determined by House Republicans. Who will use them to amplify their lies in support of Trump. Which they do in every proceeding anyway.
Most Republicans are unaware of Trump's authoritarian comments and promises of revenge. Of course Fox, Newsmax, Sinclair is never going to post Trump's most vile comments or threats so how will they know about them?
How optimistic you are. As Churchill said, of what use is it to be anything else. Or something like that…
Thank you Vincent. We need to build each other up here
The trouble with passing over to Congress is that it's a snake pit of political polarization, whatever decision is taken will be a torch to put under the the seats of whoever loses. Civil war without the bullets....
My thought is that that might well be the result in any case.
I would prefer to fake the Republicans into exposing their lies and expending what rhetorical ammunition they have during the summer.
Do you perceive any harm in writing to your congressperson?
If i were American, I'd recommend it.
Thank you!
I'm assuming you refer to the idea to call the House Republicans' bluff. Yes?
Yes, but that's not the problematic area of the ruling.
J L:
Do you not see the beauty of turning Rep "mountebank" Gaetz's grandstanding ploy against him and the rest of the Republicans in the House?
Let them bring their resolution and convene hearings. The normal rules will give the Democrats on the committee equal time and equal opportunity to present witnesses and evidence.
That evidence will be damning and dramatic. I watched most of the Select Committee hearings in 2022. All of that evidence and more should be presented. The truth will prevail! And it will prevail in prime time on the Republicans' dime!
Problem - there are heaps of other crises piled high, just like Bannon planned. Getting attention from our MSM will be a challenge. However, seeing Gaetz on the ropes would be worth a try. The thought of seeing him with more power should make anyone’s blood run cold. Go get ‘em Vincent. I’m with you.
Jeri:
Good. I only ask that you not copy my letter to Rep Jeffries word-for-word. We don't want him to think that we are a bunch of programmed robots. Use real paper. Write it out longhand! Send it with a U S Postal Service stamp.
If the good people in Rep Jeffries's office open more than a dozen or so letters expressing the same sentiment, I expect that we will at least get a response.
Have you seen the text of Rep Gaetz's proposed resolution?
Here it is, in all its simplicity and duplicity:
* * *** * *
118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on ______________.
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or
give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
* * *** * *
Does that inspire you?
Thank you, I’ll even write cursive, since I’m old enough to have been taught that…
Jeri:
Do it!
Let's hoist a few MAGA representatives on their own petard (whatever that is)!
Vince S
Today's Letter by HCR drives as a bullet to the core of how our country's government, its founding principles, and its democracy can be controlled not by its Rule of Law but by the autocratic goals of the Republican Party and Donald J. Trump, in particular, if we let it. The US' future as a country will be determined by the American people who vote in the next presidential and national elections.
The effort to rid our society of injustices has been hampered and in some ways set back by the tactic of using the law to sabotage the law. Corporate lawyers do so increasingly, as have "Republicans" over the last four decades. Not that the tactic is that new, but it became the core "GOP" M.O. It's been the slow-burn insurrection leading up to January 4th. Now the (NOT) "Party of Lincoln" celebrates insurrectionists as heroes, and "victims" of settled rule of law.
One Congressman (?Benny Thompson) called it “Groupies of Putin.” I think it’s on target.
Did you catch Eric Swalwell asking James Comer if he was going to release the transcript of the Hunter Biden closed door session in Russian?
It was beautiful.
Comer's clever and witty response, "What did you say?" /S
Comer, Jordan, Greene, Gaetz think they are so clever when they are just as dumb as Boebert.
Oh damn... I totally missed that Gary ! Drats; I could so use some uproarious laughter !
I like it Vi... could we make it go viral ?
Using the law to sabotage the law. Chump’s money and the 1.6 billion in Leo’s grubby hands, can sabotage our whole legal system.
Yes! Yes! Yes! And with Putin’s and now Orban’s help.
Rich evil helps incompetent evil. Not smart, I hope
Profound my friend. Bravo
But lord knows what than could mean... look how Trump won the White House. Gerrymandering, voting restrictions. Congress is now redder and bluer than ever state-wise. You need a tsunami shift in independent, some Republican voting, well... actually, 5% can make a big difference in first past the post...
One interesting statement in the SCOTUS ruling is this:
"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold State office."
Goodbye MAGA Insurrectionist Representatives!
Trump v. Anderson, Part II-B para. 1, page 6.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23
Representatives and Senators are members of a federal body, so SCOTUS’s decision puts them in Section 5’s reach, but cannot the case be made that they are also STATE officeholders by virtue of their being voted in or out by their respective states and while in office supposedly represent their states, and, therefore, states can bar them from holding office? Reckon that’s worth another pass at XIV.3?
Interesting thought
We hope to say farewell to as many as possible in November. But how to educate voters about the danger of retaining them when so many have no idea what “democracy” means? And how do we teach autocracy? Most with memories of Hitler and Stalin have died and Putin, for reasons other than fear of climate change I cannot fathom, looks attractive. Don’t any Americans have grandparents who knew how hard it was to remain a democracy in the 20th century?
Just Security has a deep dive on America's drift towards autocracy. Take a look.
https://www.justsecurity.org/92714/american-autocracy-threat-tracker/
I'll look at it David; Hope it's not too awful hyperbolic... thx
that's for those running only for state office, right?
Thank you, hope more notice
"The great Wizards of Oz have spoken."
Hold my beer, folks. November is a comin'.
Update: I voted this early a.m. on Super Tuesday!
We have one more chance and then what......
The end of the great democratic experiment.
I'm afraid so Derek.
I still will keep going until we win.
It's our only option Lynell. I agree.
At warp speed
lol Lyn
Also the members of Congress who participated in Jan 6 are protected as they hold federal office. We need an all blue vote in November and the addition of members to SCOTUS. Then overturn this decision. Thank you Heather.
It seems to me that no one can logically be protected from liability from decisions on the job that are well outside of assigned duties, such as an embezzling accountant (or politician). Seems like trying to overthrow the legitimate goverment by fraud and violence would reasonably be in that category for political positions. Otherwise where is accountability to the public, with is also to say (theoretically) the "boss".
Agreed!
A trial during Presidency may be delayed but not denied.
This is truly what judicial activism looks like.
So wrong. Needs to be overturned by a new enlarged SCOTUS after we turn our country blue in November.
Agreed.
One justice per circuit.
Let's work hard to regain the House, maintain the Senate and re-elect Biden/Harris.
It must happen.
I support "Corporate Joe" Biden for Captain of the USS Titanic! His campaign slogan, "Full speed ahead!" really makes me want to get out and vote, because Corporate Joe is going to take us to the Promised Iceberg where we can ride the Inescapable Debt Spiral into the drink. And Joe has a "hyper" backup plan: Drill holes in the bottom of the Titanic to let the water out. Vote Joe, and we'll all take a bath.
Vote, baby, vote! Dems are holding their powder during the campaign unless someone's heard to the contrary. Is there a commission reviewing SCOTUS issues ongoing?
Really don’t want to wait til the last minute
This country is screwed
No we're not Karen; most people are good - either d or r badged, the majority are good. What we must have is far more participants thinking and voting.
Ideologues, especially those on the far right, are showing a lack of integrity by “winning at all costs.”
Legislators can lay back while courts legislate from the bench. Dobbs turned medical practice into a political proving ground instead of a healing art. Wherever you turn, well-funded special interest groups are getting their way and resistance is weak. I fear what America is becoming and will become if Trump is elected.
Potentially, a hell to put the Third Reich in the shade.
I'm serious. Simply extrapolating from the man's basic outlook to the Pandora's Box of consequences that mind opens up.
*
Just try that out.
EXTRAPOLATE.
The worst may not necessarily happen, but consider the implications of a power as vast as America today in the hands of a madman.
Rave on, the trolls are the madman’s disciples
You rave.
Trump could not pose a threat as an authoritarian strongman unless he had powerful Establishment backers who want him in power to do what they want.
Trump is "Mr. Bankruptcy" and the powers-that-be envision the need for the United States -- in the throes of global de-dollarization and consequent financial chaos -- shredding the social safety net (General Welfare, Social Security and Medicare) as hyperinflation ruins the life savings of the Baby Boomers.
It takes a "big stick" strongman to wield power in times of bone-crushing austerity, and some of the powers-that-be have decided that Trump is the man for the job.
Regarding what I mean by the "Establishment":
The word "Establishment" gets scholarly credibility from "The Anglo-American Establishment" by Carrol Quigley, who taught at Princeton and Harvard before settling in at Georgetown:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/991680.The_Anglo_American_Establishment
Then comes the book "America's 60 Families" by Ferdinand Lundberg:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_60_Families
Back in the 1930s the fascist faction of the Establishment tried to use Marine General Smedley Butler to pull off a coup against "socialist" President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/coup-jan6-fdr-new-deal-business-plot-1276709/
"George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography" gives a series of chapter-by-chapter studies of the Establishment at work. There has never been a more "Establishment" president than George H.W. Bush. I refer repeatedly to the contents of this book in the following extended Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/john_schmeeckle/status/1599051947096449024