Imagine this scenario: the hard-right president of the country warns that his upcoming re-election campaign will be rigged against him. He loses the election. He refuses to concede. He rallies his followers against the election, insisting it was stolen. His followers storm government offices in protest. His attempted coup fails. He was just arrested along with his top aides.
But it’s not Donald Trump. It’s Jair Bolsonaro, who looked up to Trump as his model.
Former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil oversaw a broad conspiracy to hold on to power regardless of the results of the 2022 election, including personally editing a proposed order to arrest a Supreme Court justice and call new elections after he lost, according to new accusations by Brazilian federal police unveiled on Thursday.
Mr. Bolsonaro and dozens of top aides, ministers and military leaders coordinated to undermine the Brazilian public’s faith in the election and set the stage for a potential coup, the federal police said.
Their efforts included spreading information about voter fraud, drafting legal arguments for new elections, recruiting military personnel to support a coup, surveilling judges and encouraging and guiding protesters who eventually raided government buildings, police said.
Apparently justice is swifter in Brazil than in the United States.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Argument happening right now on Colorado’s 14th amendment disqualification of Trump’s candidacy. Not going very well for Colorado so far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Justice Roberts made a good point: the 14th amendment was intended to curb states’ rights, otherwise southern states would have put Jefferson Davis on their ballots. If individual states can kick candidates off the ballot, red states will remove Biden (no one has suggested that Biden engaged in an insurrection though). But they can make up reasons. They are likely to rule that there was no “insurrection,” just a very nasty riot.
LikeLike
I just think the political question — that one state’s officials, and not even that state’s voters, could effectively decide a presidential election. That’s an extreme result from a constitutional provision that is not by any account unambiguous. Jackson and Kagan were vocally concerned about that.
LikeLike
I don’t see the ambiguity in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Neither did the historians who wrote about the history of it. Trump May successfully claim that 1/6 was a riot, not an insurrection, but it was clearly intended to overturn a free and fair election and give himself another term despite the election results. I’m hoping for a better outcome in Jack Smith’s challenge in DC. The Appeals Court decision, as George Conway wrote in The Atlantic, was brilliant, airtight.
LikeLike
I didn’t hear any interest at all in the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection.
LikeLike
You will.
LikeLike
That’s astonishing because, ofc, he did. He plotted and attempted to carry out SEVERAL concurrent insurrections, most egregiously, the attempt to stop the certification of the election results and the creation of fake electors.
LikeLike
The Supreme Court is going to endorse that BIDEN is allowed to use violent means to remain in office if he loses the election?
Why wouldn’t Biden – and every other president – take the Supreme Court decision as them legally approving of every president committing insurrection?
A sitting president can’t be indicted. And a sitting president can use violent means to prevent any elected successor from taking office.
I mean, that’s surely what the original intent of the founders was, according to this right wing Supreme Court.
We all know this decision would be a no-brainer if a Democrat had done this.
It is Orwellian that so many are brainwashed to believe there is a credible argument that a US president can incite insurrection to stay in power indefinitely.
Just substitute Biden and see if the Supreme Court would even take this up.
LikeLike
The language is clearly ambiguous as applied in this case. Whether it applies to candidates for the Presidency, whether states have the authority to execute the provision, and many other things.
LikeLike
The slippery slope isn’t whether other states can bar candidates from the ballot which they have already done historically without anyone objecting.
The slippery slope is whether other PRESIDENTS will now know that they can use their power to stay in office indefinitely.
In fact, THAT is exactly what the founders worried about. Not that a state would strike an ineligible candidate off the ballot, but that a president would hold unlimited power.
LikeLike
With friends like Robert Mueller and Merrick Garland, American democracy doesn’t need enemies.
Garland appointed Republican, Robert Hur, for the Biden documents case. Hur clerked for conservative jurist Renquist at the time of a case related to race and admission to universities and, a case about legality of gay sex. Renquist’s decisions- predictable.
LikeLike
I am looking forward to the Supreme Court decision next year endorsing that Trump has the right to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue if he wants.
Surely it was the original intent of the founders that no sitting president may be indicted for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, and no president should be barred from using violent means to remain in office indefinitely.
Replace Trump with Biden and no one would normalize this.
LikeLike
Different case. SCOTUS will affirm the DC Circuit ruling on presidential immunity.
LikeLike
FLERP, I agree.
LikeLike
Two different cases going on.
One is whether Colorado or any state can disqualify a presidential candidate and take his name off the ballot. The SCOTUS is likely to overrule this, despite the 14th amendment, section 3.
The other case is whether Trump and every other president has absolute immunity for any action committed during his term in office. The federal District Court ruled no. The federal Appeals Court ruled no (read the decision). Trump’s lawyers have until Monday to appeal to the Supreme Court, which they will surely do.
If the President has absolute immunity for anything he does while in office, Biden could order the assassination of Trump and be immune from prosecution. It’s nonsensical. Trump is setting the stage for the overthrow of our democracy. The Appeals court decision made that clear.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
If the Supreme Court rules that the president can incite insurrection to stay in office, it’s rather irrelevant that they rule that a president doesn’t have immunity after leaving office.
LikeLike
No one thinks that the Supreme Court will rule that a president can incite insurrection to stay in office. The question is whether Trump can be kept off the ballot based on his actions. The court is likely to rule that what he did was not an insurrection, though it was. The fake electors scheme was CLEARLY an attempt at overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States so that he, Trump, could continue in office.
LikeLike
No it’s not irrelevant.
LikeLike
Once a president remains in power through insurrection, how are they removed?
Only by having 2/3 of the Senate agree to impeach? I think Biden can stay in office indefinitely under that limitation.
And a sitting president can’t be indicted.
LikeLike
Bob,
Are you really saying that the Supreme Court will rule that what Trump did isn’t an insurrection? Then why shouldn’t Biden do it? Only with more skill so he can stay in office indefinitely?
It’s either okay to do or it isn’t. If the Supreme Court rules it is okay, then it is okay.
It would be the height of absurdity for the Supreme Court to rule that insurrection is okay if it doesn’t succeed, but illegal if it does succeed and the president has violently seized all power so is immune from any consequences.
LikeLike
As I said, I expect for the court to rule that what Trump did does not qualify as an insurrection, even though that is clearly false. They might also rule that the President is not “an officer under” the United States.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the Court can rule (with straight faces) that the President is not an officer of the US government.
LikeLike
I agree, especially since the Constitution clearly refers to the presidency as “an office” of the United States government. But this is the Trumpanzee Extreme Court we are talking about.
LikeLike
Trump’s team is arguing that as used in the amendment, office refers to appointed, not elected, officials. Weird,
LikeLike
Bob, I don’t think the court will address whether Trump is an insurrectionist. There are other ways to resolve the case that don’t require getting into that issue.
LikeLike
Makes sense.
LikeLike
Saying it “makes sense” for the Supreme Court to go against what constitutional scholars – including many highly respected conservative constitutional scholars – say is OBVIOUS is what scares me so much.
Even our side normalizes what isn’t normal.
When do we stop normalizing this? When Trump has total power and it’s too late?
It is just another descend into fascism that the right wing Supreme Court is fine with states striking presidential candidates off the ballot as long as it isn’t a popular Republican who appointed 3 of them and has completely undermined every norm of democracy.
Chilling.
The argument that Colorado must be forced to have Trump on the ballot is total nonsense. NO ONE has given any good reason except some “slippery slope” which somehow only applies to Trump but has never been invoked before.
The question to ask is when did the Supreme Court EVER force a state to keep a Constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot? THAT’S a slippery slope.
LikeLike
The argument is over. If there were any questions about whether Trump is an “insurrectionist,” I missed them.
It doesn’t look like the outcome of this case isn’t going to turn on that issue.
LikeLike
Comment meant as a response to Diane above.
LikeLike
If there were no questions about whether Trump is an “insurrectionist”, that implies that the Supreme Court believes it is not in question that Trump is an insurrectionist.
The Supreme Court may endorse a sitting president like Biden committing violent insurrection to stay in office, but it is clearly against everything the US stood for.
Those who support democracy may have to support the Supreme Court-endorsed legal method for Biden to stay in office — violently preventing anyone who defeats him from being installed. Biden will have to protect our democracy by doing what the Supreme Court says is fine with them – using violent methods to stay in office if Trump wins.
And Biden can just stay in office until death, so he never has to worry about being indicted. And he can pardon anyone who gets indicted.
It seems very strange to me that legal folks here believe that this is a normal interpretation of the Constitution, but I take them at their word that this is not a double standard and Biden should be allowed to engage in whatever behavior the Supreme Court says is fine if Trump does it.
LikeLike
No that’s not what it implies.
LikeLike
“If there were no questions about whether Trump is an “insurrectionist”, that implies that the Supreme Court believes it is not in question that Trump is an insurrectionist.”
No, it does not mean that.
LikeLike
Let’s take your logic to its’ conclusion.
It is irrelevant to the matter of whether an insurrectionist can remain on the ballot whether or not he is an insurrectionist.
The state has the right to remove someone who is 25 or someone born in another country from the ballot. But they can’t remove an insurrectionist?
Every legal mind who isn’t a kook knows how ridiculous this interpretation is.
If Colorado removed a 25 year old, there would be questions about his age UNLESS the Supreme Court decided that the Constitutional prohibition for age didn’t matter anymore.
LikeLike
I don’t know what you’re trying to say.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
I am saying the same thing respected conservative constitutional scholars are saying. This isn’t a difficult case. Why do you reject the arguments of unbiased constitutional scholars who obviously know more than you and give legitimacy to the right wing grasping at straws?
Only one side has the weight of legal argument. If the Supreme Court acts to protect Trump for political reasons, that should be called out, not legitimized as sound legal reasoning as you are doing.
The entire argument for letting an insurrectionist stay on the ballot is that other states might lie and claim a perfectly law-abiding person committed insurrection to keep them off the ballot.
Other states also might lie and say that Ted Cruz was born in Canada and isn’t eligible, but the fact that right wing
Republican controlled states often lie has NEVER been used by the Supreme Court to force a state to keep a 25 year old or Arnold Schwarzenegger on the ballot.
If anything, the fact that other PRESIDENTS now know that there are no consequences for insurrection is a far more dangerous slippery slope.
Why shouldn’t Biden do what Trump did to stay in office?
Every sitting president should do what Trump did – if they win, there are no consequences, and if they lose, they can delay and delay and there are still no consequences.
The Supreme Court’s willingness to give right wing Republicans special consideration they would not give a Democrat is the real crime here.
LikeLike
NYC, it is quite possible (I would say that it is probable) that the Supreme Court will rule that the clause doesn’t apply to Trump because he did not hold an office under the United States. If, as Flerp is saying, the court refuses to address the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, this would be misfeasance on their part because both the district and supreme courts of Colorado ruled that Trump was disqualified under the amendment BECAUSE HE HAD ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION. So, they would have to ignore commenting upon the reasoning of the lower courts. I suppose that they can do that, but doing so would show them to be a bunch of political hacks, not jurists.
LikeLike
“In Illinois, the secretary of state excluded presidential candidate Linda Jenness from
the ballot because she was 31, four years younger than the requirement in Article II
of the U.S. Constitution that a president must be at least 35 years old.
Following Jenness’ petition for candidacy, the State Electoral Board, composed of
state election officials including the secretary of state, governor, and attorney
general, voted to deny certification, excluding Jenness from the ballot on two
grounds. First, Jenness refused to submit a signed loyalty oath, which Illinois state
law required at the time. And second, Jenness did not meet the federal constitutional
requirement of being at least 35 years old.
Jenness and the state Socialist Workers Party sued the board over its decision. The
federal district court ruled that the loyalty oath requirement violated the First and
14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on Jenness’ right to
participate in the political process as well as her free speech and free association
rights. However, the court upheld the board’s finding that Jenness was unqualified for
office because she did not meet the age requirement established in the Constitution.
In so doing, the court held that the board had the power to exclude an unqualified
candidate and doing so did not violate any federal rights.”
LikeLike
Sorry, there is no comparison. A person of 31 can’t run for an office where the minimum age is 35. That’s open and shut.
Removing a former president from the ballot in one state is not so clearcut.
LikeLike
This is my point about ambiguity, Diane.
LikeLike
Diane,
The question to ask is when did the Supreme Court EVER force a state to keep a Constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot?
The fact that conservative Constitutional scholars (and everyone with eyes and ears) know this is an open and shut case but so many people even here are saying it isn’t, is why Trump will win. Why he will always win. We legitimize the most ridiculous narratives. The man committed insurrection in plain sight! That’s why those conservative scholars understand the DANGER of us agreeing that the jury is still out as to whether that’s okay!
LikeLike
I think the other case is more promising, the one where Trump claims he has total immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did while in office. He makes this claim in all the prosecutions: NO ONE MAY PROSECUTE AN EX-PRESIDENT!”
Please read the Appeals Court decision. This is the big one.
LikeLike
Diane,
I copied and pasted a number of examples, only one of which was age.
There were questions about a man with dual citizenship. The Supreme Court did NOT force the state to keep him on the ballot.
Can you name a single instance where the Supreme Court forced a state to keep someone on the ballot who is obviously ineligible?
What Trump did is either insurrection or it is something that Biden should do if he loses the election . Because Biden can’t be indicted for insurrection as long as he is in office.
LikeLike
Politico reported on the Supreme Court hearing this morning:
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court/trump-at-mar-a-lago-00140447
LikeLike
The Trump folks are also arguing that even if someone participated in an insurrection, a state does not have the right to bar the candidate from the ballot because Congress has the power to decide whether to bar or not bar the person from taking office based on the Amendment.
LikeLike
From Politico article:
A lot of skepticism from even the liberal justices on this challenge, from many angles. Here’s Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “Why didn’t they put the word president in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there.” A lot of the pushback from the justices has been on individual states making a disqualification call, but it is beyond that.
Zach Montellaro
ZACH MONTELLARO
02/08/2024, 12:11PM ET
The Supreme Court appeared to sharply veer against the Colorado voters challenging former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for office.
Justices on both the left and right raised pointed questions to Jason Murray, the lawyer arguing in favor of Colorado’s position, about the “extraordinary” ramifications of letting individual states decide whether a candidate is an insurrectionist.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that would essentially empower individual states to exert unilateral control over federal elections, a position “at war” with the notion that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was intended to empower the federal government to constrain wayward states. He was quickly followed by Justice Elena Kagan, who said permitting a single state to effectively tip the entire national election would be an “extraordinary” ruling.
The odds seemed stacked against the challengers even before the hearing began, with legal experts anticipating hostility from the justices that cut across partisan lines. Thursday’s questioning seemed to confirm that view.
Not only were conservative justices sharply critical, the court’s liberal justices also worried aloud about the impact of the ruling.
“My question is why the framers would have designed a system that would — could — result in interim disuniformity in this way?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.
Chief Justice John Roberts continued his skeptical line of questions toward the lawyer for the Colorado challengers, worrying aloud about the “plain consequences” of a ruling in their favor.
Roberts said that if Colorado were permitted to strike former President Donald Trump from its ballot, it would unleash a tit-for-tat where red states would respond by kicking President Joe Biden off their ballots.
LikeLike
Here are the oral arguments:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=726808629423549
LikeLike
If the Supreme Court condones a president fomenting an insurrection to stay in office indefinitely, then why does it matter that the Supreme Court rules that once he is out of office, he no longer has immunity.
Do you want to know the real slippery slope? That kind of decision INCENTIVIZES a criminal president to do everything he can to stay in office so he doesn’t lose his immunity!
It is a recipe for fascism. Does it matter whether Hitler or Stalin or Putin break some law on the books and they aren’t “immune” from prosecution after leaving office? They just stay in office.
LikeLike
nycpsp– [re: @1:28 & 1:41 pm 2/8]
The question is when did SCOTUS ever keep a constitutionally ineligible national candidate off the ballot [or remove them from office] for insurrection, and it’s answered by a handful of cases during Reconstruction. Participation in confederate army was automatically insurrection, just like Jenness not being 31yo, and so easily proven it did not require any due process other than consulting a list. Moreover, the govt received thousands of written requests for amnesty from Sec3 A14 from former confederates wishing to hold office, showing they understood no further due process was required.
Whether Trump participated in insurrection is open to interpretation in a way that participation in confederacy was not, which opens one line of argument. Who gets to review the evidence, decide—and by what means? That involves another line of argument, whether Sec 3 of 14A is “self-executing,” or whether it requires Congressional involvement [enabling legislation] like Secs 1 & 5. And Congress in fact did so for this part of Section 3 in 18 USC 2383. [So this line of argument says, there’s a way to do this, and the CO way is not supported by legislation.]
…Getting that last part from legal scholar Lawrence Lessig’s writeup [google Lawrence Lessig Why Trump Should Not Be Removed v.3]. But right in this argument he points to the counter-arguments of Mark Graber, whom Lessig esteems as one of the greatest in work on Reconstruction, and Free Speech for People (Lessig says their lawyering among the best in our generation). So: the issue is not cut and dried; esteemed legal experts provide conflicting interpretations.
LikeLike
Also excuse the accidental double negative. “Doesn’t look like the outcome IS going to turn on that”
LikeLike
Why? Can a state decide to strike or keep Putin on the ballot, or does the Supreme Court say that no one can decide that?
If it isn’t up to the state to remove people who are Constitutionally prohibited from running, then where does that power reside?
States struck off people in the past, so why is this different?
LikeLike
When has a state disqualified a Presidential candidate and removed him or her from its ballot?
As IQ45 would say, that’s unpresidented.
LikeLike
Boris Nadezhdin, a Russian-American dual citizen who ran for president in 2020 as an independent candidate was disqualified from the ballot in several states, including California, Texas, and Florida, for various reasons, such as failing to submit enough valid signatures, not meeting residency requirements, or having a foreign citizenship.
LikeLike
Not meeting legal requirements spelled out in the Constitution (age, natural born) is open and shut. Not comparable to present case.
LikeLike
You are right.
LikeLike
I recommend reading the briefing. This also is a pretty good overview:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-insurrection-provision-keeps-trump-off-ballot/
LikeLike
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/routine-disqualification-every-state-has-kept-ineligible-candidates-off-the-ballot-and-trump-could-be-next/
LikeLike
“In Colorado, the secretary of state excluded Abdul Hassan from the ballot for
president because he was not a natural-born citizen. Under Colorado law, any
individual seeking access to the presidential ballot must affirm on their
filing paperwork that they meet the constitutional qualifications for the office,
including that they are a natural-born citizen of the United States. Hassan, a native of
Guyana and a naturalized American citizen, announced his intention to run in the
2012 presidential election; in light of his status as a naturalized American citizen,
Hassan sought a determination from the Colorado secretary of state regarding his
eligibility for inclusion on the presidential ballot. The Colorado secretary of state
informed Hassan that he did not meet all of the state and federal qualifications for
president and therefore would be excluded from the presidential ballot.
Hassan appealed this decision to the federal district court, which rejected his
argument that the Constitution’s natural-born-citizen requirement, and its
enforcement through state law barring his access to the ballot, violated the privileges
or immunities clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Hassan appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. A
panel of the 10th Circuit, including then-Judge Neil Gorsuch, affirmed the lower
court’s determination that Hassan should be excluded from the ballot because he
lacks the constitutional qualifications to be president. In so doing, the court
“expressly reaffirm[ed]” the decision of the Colorado secretary of state, concluding
“a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of
the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are
constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”
LikeLike
“In New Jersey, presidential and vice presidential candidates Henry Krajewski and
Anne Marie Yezo were excluded from the ballot for violating the 12th Amendment’s
prohibition on electors voting for a presidential and vice presidential candidate who
are both from the same state as the elector.
Under New Jersey law, electors for president and vice president are required to
submit a petition to the secretary of state to confirm their eligibility. The secretary is
then required to notify county clerks of the names of qualified candidates and only
those names will be included on the ballot.
The secretary of state rejected the petition by Krajewski and Yezo’s electors,
because the petition revealed that both were New Jersey residents and thus the
state’s presidential electors could not vote for both of them under the 12th
Amendment. The New Jersey attorney general agreed with the secretary’s
determination in a formal opinion, noting that because listing both Krajewski and
Yezo would force their electors to violate the 12th Amendment, the secretary’s
rejection “was required by the United States Constitution and the applicable law of
New Jersey.”
LikeLike
“In Illinois, the secretary of state excluded presidential candidate Linda Jenness from
the ballot because she was 31, four years younger than the requirement in Article II
of the U.S. Constitution that a president must be at least 35 years old.
Following Jenness’ petition for candidacy, the State Electoral Board, composed of
state election officials including the secretary of state, governor, and attorney
general, voted to deny certification, excluding Jenness from the ballot on two
grounds. First, Jenness refused to submit a signed loyalty oath, which Illinois state
law required at the time. And second, Jenness did not meet the federal constitutional
requirement of being at least 35 years old.
Jenness and the state Socialist Workers Party sued the board over its decision. The
federal district court ruled that the loyalty oath requirement violated the First and
14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on Jenness’ right to
participate in the political process as well as her free speech and free association
rights. However, the court upheld the board’s finding that Jenness was unqualified for
office because she did not meet the age requirement established in the Constitution.
In so doing, the court held that the board had the power to exclude an unqualified
candidate and doing so did not violate any federal rights.”
LikeLike
I find it interesting that Constitutional scholars believe it is an open and shut case, but people here know better.
Yet only one side gives a reasoned legal argument. The other side doesn’t even challenge it with a different legal argument, they just keep saying things like “”it’s not open and shut” or who knows it if it insurrection, and the same kinds of vague reasoning I am positive we will hear when Trump shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.
Once you go down that slippery slope, our democracy is done. Once you ignore unbiased legal argument and replace it with vague arguments or political arguments, our democracy is lost.
I can come up with lots of reasons why it’s okay for Trump to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. Trump thought he was a terrorist. Trump thought the gun was a hose. If we arrest Trump for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, some other president won’t be allowed to send troops to war. If Trump can’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, it’s a slippery slope and no law officer will be able to shoot a man about to gun down 20 kindergarten students.
We’ve been so brainwashed to replace logic with twisting ourselves into knots to give the benefit of the doubt to a known liar and con man and nonsensical arguments. Maybe it’s not insurrection! If Trump can’t run just because he committed insurrection in broad daylight in front of us, why can’t a state lie and say that someone else who didn’t commit insurrection has to be struck off.
No good legal arguments that challenge the very sound legal reasoning of Constitutional scholars, and yet we say “both sides equal.”
LikeLike
nycpsp @1:59pm 2/8– I think my comment at 10:02 2/9 demonstrates that constitutional scholars do not believe this is an open and shut case at all.
LikeLike
So one Constitutional scholar who says “maybe” against all the Constitutional scholars who say definitely? Both sides equal?
There is a danger to our side grasping so desperately to give credibility to any single voice to drown out the huge weight of evidence that supports what is obvious.
LikeLike
I wonder if Bolsonaro is (or was) also a Putin Puppet.
Argentina
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/kremlin-notes-argentina-president-elect-mileis-comments-russia-hopes-good-ties-2023-11-20/
Venzuela
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-maduro-discussed-increasing-partnership-between-russia-venezuela-ifx-2022-03-01/
LikeLike
Bolsonaro was a Trump clone. Trump was run by his handlers in Moscow. So, yes.
LikeLike
Amen, Bob!
LikeLike
Biden appointed this left wing lunatic. Everyone loves Bolsinaro, he did not lose that election.
LikeLike
Which “leftwing lunatic” did Biden appoint?
LikeLike
Justice delayed is Justice denied. Politics in SCOTUS ; Majority to rule against Colorado but will deny certiorari on Trump’s lack of immmunity appeal. Fair and balanced as with Fox News
LikeLike
For several months this blog’s host has been claiming that SCOTUS should uphold the Colorado state Supreme Court ruling barring Trump from the ballot there. Now she admits that even the liberal Justices aren’t buying her argument and that the Colorado decision may not be justified. Partisanship sure changes minds in a hurry.
LikeLike
Robert,
I first argued that the Colorado ruling should be upheld and that Trump should be beaten at the ballot box. I believe he will lose again to Biden.
As I read the arguments of others, I changed my mind and said he should be disqualified. He seems to fit precisely the words of Section 3, Amendment 4. He swore an oath to the Constitution, and he then encouraged and engaged in a multi-faceted effort to subvert the election he lost. He tried to overturn the electoral system because he’s a sore loser.
What I found interesting in the arguments today was the question of whether one state could disqualify a candidate. Blue states would disqualify Trump, red states would disqualify Biden (based on Hunter’s laptop or something else equally absurd).
I think the Supreme Court will reject this case. Certainly by 6-3, possibly by 7-2, or 8-1.
Do I think Trump encouraged a revolt against our democratic institutions? Yes.
I think the case decided by the DC Court of Appeals is far stronger.
He may present a new dilemma for voters: will you vote for a man who has been convicted of crimes against our system of government? I hope voters throw him out.
LikeLike
Teri Kanfield explains the nuances of this case in a quite accessible, non-partisan way. It made me feel more relaxed about what SCOTUS will likely rule. It’s long, but worth your time. Near the conclusion, she writes:
Note: If the Supreme Court adopts the procedure I laid out, the Supreme Court will not have to decide whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection. The Court will also not have to decide whether Trump is an officer under Section 3. The Court doesn’t even have to define “insurrection” (the Court is not supposed to decide any more than it has to, and anything it doesn’t need to decide is considered dicta).
I’ll add this: If Trump is disqualified, and if his vice president assumes office, Trump will be the puppeteer and the vice president will be the puppet. And yes, the puppeteer can pull strings from a Georgia prison. In fact, pulling strings from a Georgia prison will thrill his supporters.
It seems to me that if Trump can win the election given everything we know about him — including court findings that he engaged in fraud in New York and that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll–we have a problem that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment cannot solve.
https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/
LikeLike
Christine Langhoff– Thanks for the Teri Kanfield link. Covers all the bases, yet user-friendly.
LikeLike
There is actually no ambiguity in this case.
Constitutional scholars on both sides have explained that there is no ambiguity. SOMETIMES those scholars see ambiguity, but they don’t see it with this.
Probably because it isn’t often that a president ignores laws and incites violence to stay in office after losing an election, right in plain sight.
There is no ambiguity, but as with Hitler, in a democracy it is possible for supposedly “good” people to normalize a leader seizing more and more power until it is too late.
What frightens me isn’t that a right wing Supreme Court is subverting the law to help a right wing Republican law-breaking insurrectionist.
It is how many people here and in the so-called liberal media have accepted and normalized this decision, when we should be expressing outrage and pointing out the illegitimacy of the Supreme Court.
The joke is on anyone who believes there is something comforting because it’s possible that that after allowing endless delaying tactics by Trump, the Supreme Court and the right wing judiciary are making some admirable decision when they say the president ONLY loses his immunity from prosecution if he is no longer in office and not when he is in office.
As if it matters whether Putin or Hitler or Trump would have legal immunity from crimes once they are out of office. As if matters whether a president who showed us all that he will never leave office cares whether he has immunity when he leaves. As if a president who appoints corrupt judges who will always side with him doesn’t have de facto “immunity”.
As if “immunity” after leaving office matters in an authoritarian state! No doubt the reason that Russia is so corrupt is that they have said that a leader has legal immunity after leaving office. Nope, that’s not why. It’s because once an authoritarian is allowed to seize power, the concept of his being constrained by fear of maybe – after years of delay – receiving any punishment SHOULD HE EVER CHOOSE TO GIVE UP POWER is truly laughable.
There is an excellent, but utterly depressing and heartbreaking comment in the NYT:
“What happens in this case has the potential for my own personal devastation. The law is quite clear. The tradition is quite clear. There is no ambiguity so the question is;
Has the country I’ve made my own and whose laws I follow faithfully still exist or are we passengers on an already hijacked plane.
Because if SCOTUS, with the already compromised Clarence Thomas, allows this candidacy to go forward, we are lost.
So everyone else will be glad handing a fasting what means what, but I will know for sure what’s what because I’ve seen this play once before. In my country of origin, where democracy was dismantled from the inside out. Just like this.”
LikeLike
The case heard today did not hinge on Trump’s claim of immunity. That’s the other DC case, which was rejected in a unanimous decision yesterday by the DC Circuit Court.
LikeLike
Question:
Why do you think it matters whether the Supreme Court says Trump has immunity if he is NOT president when they already know they will make sure Trump doesn’t stand trial until after he is president again?
Conservative Constitutional legal scholars agree that this is a very easy case to decide.
It is part of the brainwashing of America that it’s being normalized on this blog.
Whether or not a Justice who is liberal or conservative seems inclined to fall for the political arguments is irrelevant to what is TRUE. We sorely need a Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Although I wonder if all the liberal justices who asked questions are as receptive as it appears.
I remember when many of the people here were rabidly opposed to the Democrats impeaching Trump when he illegally held up foreign aid and tried to extort Zelensky to lie about Biden to help his campaign.
They put their fear of the politics ahead of doing what is right.
They were wrong. I was so happy that the Dems were willing to do what was right even if it hurt them politically.
Turns out that standing up for what is right – even when it isn’t popular – isn’t always a political death sentence.
We should all be standing up for what is right — that Colorado should be allowed to ban an insurrectionist from the ballot.
Instead, we are giving legitimacy to a right wing narrative that there are two sides to this.
The only “two sides” are the LEGAL and POLITICAL side. If some fearful liberal SC Justices choose the political side, they should be ashamed.
The legal argument is unambiguous and so many here are now legitimizing that there was nothing wrong with the SC deciding this way.
Very sad day, not because of what the SC decides, but because how quickly folks here jump to legitimize a right wing narrative despite the preponderance of legal reasoning that supports Colorado and the lack of any solid reasoning that it doesn’t.
I heard the exact same arguments from people on this blog when they were very worried about the Democrats first impeachment of Trump.
Remember that a favorite one – often repeated by the media – was that impeaching a president who had clearly committed a crime of extortion to help his own re-election campaign would mean that Republicans would invent reasons to impeach Democratic presidents.
It was exactly the same fear-based illogical rationale that I hear now. If we strike off a Republican who committed insurrection in plain sight, then Republican states could strike off
Democrats for lies.
CALL THEIR BLUFF and do what’s right. Just like the Dems did during impeachment.
This amplifying of the right wing narrative that the Democrats can’t follow the law because the Republicans will break the law to get revenge has got to stop.
I am glad the Dems didn’t listen during impeachment.
LikeLike
Democracy – and civil society – is dead once “fear of revenge” on someone innocent rules how our legal system works.
I’m not “fearful” that a Democrat who foments a violent insurrection to stay in power after losing an election will be struck off the ballot.
I WELCOME that. That Democrat SHOULD be struck off.
But I am supposed to be fearful that an innocent Democrat will be struck off in “revenge”. Just like I was supposed to rabidly oppose the Dems impeaching Trump for documented crimes because I was told again and again that it was too RISKY to impeach Trump because the Republicans would get revenge by impeaching Dem presidents for no reason.
And look how that fear has been normalized here. This isn’t about rule of law. It is about fear. Very dangerous times.
LikeLike
Justice Jackson made me laugh. Trump’s attorney said that it’s only an insurrection if it’s an organized, violent attempt to overthrow the Constitution. Jackson said something like, So a chaotic, violent attempt to overthrow the Constitution is not an insurrection? Hahaha!
LikeLike
Trump’s contribution to the insurrection didn’t happen on one day. It extended over several weeks. It was best described in the unanimous opinion of the DC Court of Appeals, which described the multi-faceted conspiracy to overturn the election. Because Trump refused to accept the fact that he lost.
He is a sore loser. And willing to break the Constitution if that is what it takes to prevent his loss. He lost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obviously, but the SCOTUS justices take bribes, so there goes rule of law.
LikeLike
There will be a lot of discussion in the coming days about the question of whether President Biden should be removed from office due to cognitive decline. This will be because of statements made the Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report declining to prosecute Biden for mishandling of classified documents. Here are the particularly damaging passages from the report:
Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. p.5
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Eiden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. p. 6
Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations-both at the time he spoke to Zwonitzer in 2017, as evidenced by their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded interview with our office. Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Eiden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries. p. 207
In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama. p. 208
For these jurors, Mr. Biden’s apparent lapses and failures in February and April will likely appear consistent with the diminished faculties and faulty memory he showed in Zwonitzer’s interview recordings and in our interview of him. p. 248
I am not certain that Mr. Biden’s failures of chronological memory constitute significant diminished cognitive capacity. People can be quite intelligent and capable and yet have poor episodic memory. Clearly, Trump ALSO shows signs of the sort of cognitive decline that is common with age, and clearly, despite his obvious agedness, Biden has been a superb president so far. It may well be that this is because he has the wisdom and experience to surround himself with people who can make the government function for the benefit of the people even if he himself does not have the level of vitality he once had. President Reagan was demonstrably senile during his second term in office, and therefore that term in office was what one might call a corporate presidency, with the people around him carrying the load that he no longer had the acuity to handle.
If it’s going to be Biden or Trump, there’s no question that it must be Biden. Trump is a disaster on many, many, many levels, and he is a danger to democracy. He is also clearly showing signs of dementia. For example, the mistook a dementia screening for an IQ test. And he continues to make the claim that this was an IQ test. That in itself is a sign of dementia. Only someone with limited cognitive capacity could fail to distinguish the two. It’s like not being able to tell the difference between a line drawing of a tree and a line drawing of an elephant.
My own preference would be for President Biden to step aside in favor of a younger candidate and to take his rightful place of honor as one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had. But if, as appears to be the case, this is going to be a Biden/Trump match, there’s no question that Biden, one of the greatest statesmen ever, should win.
Now, let the accusations that I am normalizing the critique of Democrats flow like drainage from a burst sewage pipe.
LikeLike
This is a total hit job.
LikeLike
Yes. It does have that smell about it. Garland appointed this guy, Hur, who was appointed United States Attorney for the District of Maryland by Donald Trump.
LikeLike
Merrick Garland, aka Sleeping Beauty
LikeLike
Disgraceful. Hit job by Trump loyalist. Couldn’t Garland have appointed a nonpolitical Special Counsel?
It’s not unusual to say, when questioned about events from 10 years ago, “I don’t recall.”
LikeLike
A choice between slow-talking Biden and conman Trump is not hard.
Biden has judgment, knowledge, wisdom.
Trump is a liar, racist, sexist, xenophobic who is ignorant of history.
And adores Putin and other dictators.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I’m not disputing the substance (it doesn’t sound surprising to me). But the timing is terrible for Biden and this seems like a hugely inappropriate way to frame the results of the investigation.
LikeLike
I don’t remember details of what I did ten years ago. Do you?
I seriously question the truth of the claim that Biden didn’t know the date of his son’s death.
LikeLike
I have always had an extremely poor memory for dates. What was the year of my first marriage? Well, I would have to think about that.
LikeLike
Agreed on both points.
LikeLike
I could see it. I blank out on dates and years sometimes, even important ones, and I assume I’ll do it a lot more when I’m 80.
But that doesn’t mean it merits a political attack like this. Despicable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FLERP,
I’m 85. I admit I sometimes, in the moment, forget names and dates. Later, I remember them. Full disclosure, I have never been good at remembering names, not even in my youth.
Nonetheless, i expect to be judged not by whether I got a name or date right, but whether I make sound decisions, whether I am kind and charitable, whether I reach out to lift others up, whether I aspire to act in public with dignity.
Being President is not a game show, where you are given 20 seconds to provide the right answer.
The President chooses aides and counselors who advise him. He ponders, reflects, makes decisions. The President should know history. He should certainly know and respect the Constitution.
He is also in charge of his public demeanor. Does he comport himself with dignity? Or does he hurl insults and curses at his competitors?
These are grounds for deciding how to vote.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd
Lets look at the contrast.
It would seem for all the claims of surrounding oneself with the smartest people in the room, dumb Republicans know how to game the system a lot better.
Rob Rosenstein appointed Mueller to land the plane. I am not claiming that Mueller was corrupt. But that he was well vetted. Rosenstein knew that Mueller was the only person in America who could stand in front of a camera with a straight face and say that he could not prove Roger Goodell and the Ravens management did not see the Ray Rice video. A video(actually 2 videos) that played on nightly news for days.
He knew that Mueller would stay in whatever guidelines laid down for him. In a case about money for Trump. At the start (and perhaps the end) Trump never expected to win . He was so to speak a paid disrupt-or for Putin. Mueller never investigated finances.
Mueller would” tell America the color of the the shoe laces that a conspirator wore yet never reach a conclusion of guilt” (close enough)
Note the date:
Do you suspect that this Journalist knew only weeks after Mueller’s appointment things that Rosenstein with connection in Mueller’s law firm was unaware of? Do you think Rosenstein did not know (speaking of memory ) that Mueller was to say the least no longer on the top of his game!
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/07/mueller-nfl-probe-rice-goodell-239216
LikeLike
My own preference would be for President Biden to be held to the same standard as every other president. None of whom had perfect recall.
There is no question that a younger candidate is going to have the same serious memory issues that Amy Coney Bryant did when she failed to recall things during her testimony. Look at how both AOC and Jamaal Williams both misidentified a Democratic Assemblywoman as a Republican! They must be suffering from early dementia.
No doubt that a younger candidate could be treated the way Republicans are treated and get a pass for their “demented” errors in speech and memory failures for not recalling perfectly every name and date. But WE don’t have to buy into that!
Remember when Jimmy Carter KISSED the Queen Mother in England! Surely he was demented at the time. Almost as demented as George W. Bush who gave Angela Merkel a back rub.
Neither of them were accused of having memory problems although clearly they were too demented to remember proper protocol as president.
Biden turns out to be a great president. If we help to undermine his candidacy because he has the same kinds of memory failures that EVERY intelligent and competent person has, then we deserve the fascism we get.
LikeLike
The Hur Report was a total hit job.
FYI, the way to respond to a hit job on a Democrat is to call it a total hit job.
The way to legitimize and amplify a hit job on a Democrat is to present the hit job as “Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report” and write a long paragraph about the questions it raises about whether Biden should be removed from office due to cognitive decline. Also, be sure to repeat the particularly damaging passages quoting the severe limitations of Biden’s hazy memory and his struggles.
To helpfully amplify the right wing narrative, make sure to highlight that your preference is for Biden to step down for a younger candidate, to really hammer home that Biden clearly is a problematic candidate, even though you would settle for Biden if the old guy who you wish would voluntarily step down does not step down. Don’t forget to throw in the disclaimer that you are NOT CERTAIN whether Biden has significant diminished cognitive capacity or not. That’s the kind of endorsement only a Republican can love. Then you can write some complimentary stuff about this guy who may or may not have significant cognitive issues who you prefer would step down for a younger candidate.
Once you have written your proper “fair and balanced” assessment of Biden, with the disclaimer that you are NOT CERTAIN whether Biden has significant diminished cognitive capacity or not, you can attack in advance anyone who wonders why you could not have just written the complimentary stuff about Biden without giving credibility to the right wing narrative.
If the answer is that you don’t believe it would be truthful not to include all the very negative stuff about Biden’s age that the Republicans are saying, then that speaks for itself.
LikeLike
Bob — here’s a good overview I just saw about the procedural and practical difficulties of changing candidates at this point.
LikeLike
Did you post the link, FLERP?
LikeLike
No. But please do. Thanks.
LikeLike
Oops. Here it is.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna138125
LikeLike
Not gonna happen.
LikeLike
Diane One of two things: EITHER Scotus doesn’t understand their relationship to the States and their role as the SUPREME Court, OR they are deliberately abdicating their authority, even from the left.
Whereas the Colorado lawyer was quite clear on the power relationship between States and Scotus (they were NOT trying to capture the entire election–they wanted SCOTUS to do their job and uphold the obvious meaning of the Constitution), even though they kept interrupting him.
All those legal scholars who signed that brief must be in a permanent state of eyeroll after watching that red-herring farce.
And BTW, who is following up on Romney’s revelations about Trump’s goons threatening the families of anyone who goes against him and thereby securing 100 percent GOP support? And if he did that to the GOP Congresspeople during the impeachments, what’s keeping Trump from holding the families of Scotus hostage in the same way?
And if it turns out the Biden gets to shoot someone with immunity on Park Avenue, let it be Trump. CBK
LikeLike
A helpful primer about the difference between truth and right wing narrative.
Truth:
“President Donald Trump’s written testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller showed Trump repeatedly responded to inquiries with brief denials or lack of recollection on wide-ranging topics, saying more than 30 times he did not recall, remember or recollect.”
Truth:
“President Biden’s testimony to special counsel Hur showed
Biden repeatedly responded to inquiries with a lack of recollection, saying more than 10 (?) times he did not recall, remember or recollect.”
Right wing narrative:
“Mr. Trump’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with others and in his interviews with Mueller. Trump’s memory impairment was evidenced during multiple interviews when Trump struggled and failed to recall some events, and in follow-up interviews strained and failed to remember other events. And Trump’s memory appeared hazy when describing the injecting bleach advice for covid that was once so important to him. Among other things, Trump said he had a real difference of opinion with John Kelly, when it fact, Trump once praised John Kelly.”
Oh, sorry, in the right wing narrative you have to replace Trump with Biden because of course the media never twisted Trump’s lack of recall into paragraphs like the one above, which is how Biden’s supposed failings are mischaracterized.
It amazes me when people ask why the public doesn’t worry about Trump’s age. Because the so-called liberal media doesn’t spin errors into a disqualifying trait when it is a Republican. They simply report the facts. Only Democrats misstatements get spun as either blatant lies (Gore, Kerry, HRC) or in the case of Biden, into clear evidence of dementia.
Hur stepped way beyond what was appropriate. I certainly hope that Hur is called to testify before the Senate and any time he is asked uncomfortable questions about his various contacts with Republicans, he understands that any lack of perfect recall about those conversations will be grounds for a follow-up question about whether Hur’s lack of perfect recall is due to his dementia, or possible drug use or some other serious mental health challenges he has. What’s most scary is that writing this kind of over the top hit job of a report is no longer embarrassing or shameful, it is something to be proud of that Republicans know will be well-rewarded.
LikeLike
The Republican Speaker of the House went on Meet the Press just 5 days ago and talked about supporting IRAN and not Israel. Yet the NYT ran 0 stories about how the Republican Speaker of the House suffered from dementia and had memory problems?
Marcy Wheeler at Emptywheel really is the best place for understanding how truly co-opted the NYT has become in pushing false narratives.
“Wow holy sh** @shearm. This is F***ING EMBARRASSING for you!!! You just vomited up what Robert Hur said as if 100 things is HIS OWN REPORT didn’t debunk them.
Does anyone at NYT know how to read? Bc holy sh**, this guy should be put on remedial duty.”
Link to huge NYT story that could have been written by Fox News.
LikeLike