Patterico's Pontifications

12/11/2020

Traitors to Democracy Supporting Texas Lawsuit Now Include 106 Elected Republican House Members

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Shameful in the extreme. Remember their names. They include people I once respected, like Dan Crenshaw and Tom McClintock.

A Republican congressional ally of President Trump solicited more than 100 of his fellow GOP lawmakers to sign on to a brief with the Supreme Court in support of a long-shot lawsuit filed by Texas seeking to delay certification of presidential electors in four battleground states won by President-elect Joe Biden.

Congressman Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, circulated an email, obtained by CBS News, from his personal account to GOP members Wednesday that asked them to join a friend-of-the-court brief to be filed in support of the effort spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Johnson was a vocal defender of Mr. Trump during impeachment proceedings.

Some defend these people because they claim not to back the particular allegations of fraud in the lawsuit, but rather supposedly intend only to communicate their concerns about the election system, or something. But the reporting has made clear that Trump solicited their support, and it’s quite clear what they’re doing. To my knowledge, not a single one of these frauds has issued a public statement stating that Trump lost a free and fair election but nevertheless yada yada yada. The language in bold is what I would require to see from someone to take their fig leaf “we’re not really trying to overturn the election” argument seriously.

I don’t think any of these people should ever hold elective office again and I would never vote for any of them. It’s very difficult to overstate how terrible Trump’s actions are. Every dictator in history who has seized absolute power has had a pretext, and even if Trump is not able to pull off such a coup here, the presence of a flimsy and obviously false pretext for his actions does not justify what he is trying to do. Anyone who lends legitimacy to that pretext has, in my view, declared themselves to be an enemy of democracy, and should be written off for good.

People understate the seriousness of this simply because it is so farcical that it seems extraordinarily unlikely to work — but to me, the proper way to think about it is to imagine that it did work. After all, that is what Trump wants to happen, even if his effort is unlikely to succeed. If it did succeed, it would be the end of the American experiment. An illegitimate ruler would sit in power, with the only peaceful way to remove him — a free and fair election — having failed.

The only option left would be force.

That ought to frighten people.

312 Responses to “Traitors to Democracy Supporting Texas Lawsuit Now Include 106 Elected Republican House Members”

  1. What should frighten you more is the number of previous moderate republican voters who now frankly don’t care if Trump seizes power. We’re no longer under the illusion that we should play by rules that the other side ignores at will. The republic is a sham. Trump is merely hastened the inevitable collapse.

    jeff (4de066)

  2. More than half the Republicans in the House (and how many Senators if put to the question?) want to run the whole election over again. They can claim it’s because of “irregularities”, but it’s hard not to feel that it’s because their choice for president lost, even at the same time they gained Congressional seats.

    “Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.”

    David Frum

    Victor (4959fb)

  3. I feel like this post was for me…

    “Traitors” is a wee bit hyperbolic…as, to me this is part of the rough & tumble process of our politics these days.

    Lemme flip the script a bit: What changes would you advocate for to mitigate/prevent *this* election turmoil?

    Because, I got nothing… as, I don’t think there’s a way to federalize the election process.

    whembly (c30c83)

  4. I’m old enough to remember when it was the GOP that valued the constitution.

    They don’t anymore.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  5. Aha! But who stopped clapping first?

    PS Dan Crenshaw has never been more than a nascent Ted Cruz to me.

    PPS I have been blind in one eye, too, and I still “see differently” from it after three operations. It don’t make me nothing special. Not even when I go without shaving for a while.

    nk (1d9030)

  6. @2, They swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Instead they’re helping a con man destroy all faith in it because they don’t like the outcome of an election not one has been able to show wasn’t fair. That sounds traitorous to me.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  7. What changes would you advocate for to mitigate/prevent *this* election turmoil?

    After 50 or so losses in the court, accept the results as legitimate. Don’t broadcast charges of voter fraud you can’t bring to court. If you are behind more than 5,000 votes in a state, accept the fact you will lose. Don’t put your faith in someone like Trump. Don’t call the Secretary of State to try to pressure him/her to leave out votes or disenfranchise voters.

    None of this seems very hard.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  8. You do have to wonder if the GOP has thought this through. Do they want to govern a nation so egregiously divided by such a ‘win’? It would be miserable and people would be hurt. Wouldn’t it be OK to wait a couple years and run for office?

    I’m just going to try to elect the most conservative democrat I can in primaries for a long time. If I vote for a Republican it will be for some specific important reason that overcomes the effort to steal the election.

    What cowards these guys are.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  9. The silver lining in all this is that waging lawfare is being equated with terrorism.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  10. So the definition of “waging lawfare” is now up for grabs.

    Dana (cc9481)

  11. That ought to frighten people.

    While they were shirking their duty and violating their oaths during impeachment, how many of these fascism-curious Republicans insisted that the election was the only tribunal that could properly pass judgment on Trump and his crimes?

    Now that justice has (belatedly) been done, it turns out that a free and fair election simply won’t do, either.

    Even if there are a minority of Republicans who stand up for what’s right, how can we ever risk giving power to this cabal of traitors again?

    Dave (1bb933)

  12. (I should give Allahpundit due credit for the term “fascism-curious”)

    Dave (1bb933)

  13. I’m old enough to remember when it was the GOP that valued the constitution.

    They don’t anymore.

    For a long time, it seemed to me that the GOP was the party saying that if something like this were ever to happen it’d be the Democrats who would try it. The Democrats were the party that wanted more government intrusion in daily life and would do anything to wield that power, or gain more of it.

    To me, the GOP lost any authority in those respects much in the same way that the Catholic church did. In both cases, the institution purportedly speaks for a certain set of values and then you come to find out they’re perfectly willing to violate everything they claim to stand for so long as it helps them keep power.

    JohnnyAgreeable (c49787)

  14. Ben Sasse says some of the right things, albeit not as emphatically as he should.

    Dave (1bb933)

  15. So the definition of “waging lawfare” is now up for grabs.

    Sorry, I should’ve phrased it as “waging lawfare we don’t like.”

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  16. I’m old enough to remember when it was the GOP that valued the constitution.

    They don’t anymore.
    Time123 (66d88c) — 12/11/2020 @ 9:03 am

    Neither party does, which scares me. We are heading down a dark road.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6)

  17. We apologize for endorsing U.S. Rep. Michael Waltz, who wants to overturn the election (Orlando Sentinel)

    We apologize to our readers for endorsing Michael Waltz in the 2020 general election for Congress.

    We had no idea, had no way of knowing at the time, that Waltz was not committed to democracy.

    During our endorsement interview with the incumbent congressman, we didn’t think to ask, “Would you support an effort to throw out the votes of tens of millions of Americans in four states in order to overturn a presidential election and hand it to the person who lost, Donald Trump?”

    Our bad.

    Trust us, some variation of that question will be asked of anyone running for Congress in the future, particularly Republican candidates whose party is attempting to upend the way we choose a president.
    ………….
    We now know what we didn’t then — that Waltz, a U.S. Army Green Beret who served his country — is willing to undermine the nation to ensure his political party remains in control of the White House.
    >>>>>>>>>

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  18. Sorry, I should’ve phrased it as “waging lawfare we don’t like.”

    Can you cite prior examples of lawfare that you view as comparable to what these suits are seeking to accomplish?

    JohnnyAgreeable (c49787)

  19. Neither party does, which scares me. We are heading down a dark road.

    On Nov 4 or thereabouts, Trump could’ve said “Hey, looks bad and it seems I lost. Unlike what was done to me the past four years we’ll just accept it and move on. Congrats to Biden.” He should’ve, and he’d be better for it, but that’s not his way. His way is to smoke out rank hypocrisy, and he’s succeeding fabulously at least in that.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  20. Neither party does, which scares me. We are heading down a dark road.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 12/11/2020 @ 9:32 am

    I’m going to remind you that, with regard to presidential elections, even Hillary Clinton conceded her loss to Trump, and the country witnessed a fairly smooth transition of power. There was no mockery or undermining of the Constitution by a mass number of Democratic leaders glomming onto a lawsuit after already witnessing 50 (baseless) post-election lawsuit losses by the President.

    Had there been any of the claims that Trump is making, any of the same “lawfare waged,” Republicans would have been furious and out in protest. Especially if there was no convincing evidence provided. One of the worst things about this is, Democrats don’t even have to make a sound because the GOP is working overtime to destroy itself. They are giving Dems the best PR possible.

    Dana (cc9481)

  21. His way is to smoke out rank hypocrisy, and he’s succeeding fabulously

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Dustin (4237e0)

  22. @6

    What changes would you advocate for to mitigate/prevent *this* election turmoil?

    After 50 or so losses in the court, accept the results as legitimate. Don’t broadcast charges of voter fraud you can’t bring to court. If you are behind more than 5,000 votes in a state, accept the fact you will lose. Don’t put your faith in someone like Trump. Don’t call the Secretary of State to try to pressure him/her to leave out votes or disenfranchise voters.

    None of this seems very hard.

    Appalled (1a17de) — 12/11/2020 @ 9:10 am

    ..a “Move On dot org” isn’t going to be enough. I know that.

    What I’m asking, is if there’s ANYTHING anyone can do to alleviate this? Better education on the process? A lot of folks are attribution malfeasance than simply misunderstanding.

    How do you reach to those folks?

    whembly (c30c83)

  23. That Orlando Sentinel editorial is great. Read the whole thing.

    Dave (1bb933)

  24. His way is to smoke out rank hypocrisy, and he’s succeeding fabulously at least in that.

    The only hypocrisy he’s succeeding at “smoking out,” is his own. It doesn’t come as a surprise though. He is just further revealing himself to be what we’ve known him all along to be: a weak man who lives in denial simply cannot accept losing. It is beyond him to acknowledge and recognize that he is now one of the losers that he so despises. I don’t think he is constitutionally able to wrap his mind around the concept of losing on a personal level. My guess is that anytime in life when he has been defeated, he has immediately and wholly blamed someone or something other than himself for that loss. He has not admitted to it, owned it, and learned from it. Neither at a cerebral or visceral level. All of this undermining of the election is simply a way for him to keep from acknowledging the truth.

    Dana (cc9481)

  25. Can you cite prior examples of lawfare that you view as comparable to what these suits are seeking to accomplish?

    Using law enforcement to spy on an opposition campaign based on a bar conversation, doctor evidence in a FISA warrant, leak classified info (a felony) to jumpstart an investigation that was all but closed, fake whistleblowers coordinating with Schiff to impeach, “no serious prosecutor would bring such a case”, pee dossier, ignore the effort by HRC to link Trump to hacked emails…. etc.

    All to be dismissed as whaddabouts in 3, 2, 1….

    But, where are the indictments…?? Let’s talk about “norms”, then.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  26. Trump’s goal is chaos because it benefits him. He has no interest in “smoking out hypocrisy” except to hurt his opponents and help himself. He and his campaign aren’t texting me daily about standing up to hypocrisy or anything ideological. They only want money, and lots of it.

    As for Trump’s sad GOP supporters, they are desperate for any influence or control of the Republican Party that Trump is willing to share. Crumbs are enough for them, even if it hurts our system.

    DRJ (aede82)

  27. Meanwhile, Trump called on the Supreme Court to use its power to award him a second term because the Joe Biden administration will be ‘a scandal plagued mess.’ We have survived the past 4 years of Trump scandal and chaos. Biden won because of it. Trump the narcissist truly does project about everything.

    DRJ (aede82)

  28. This is all a War of Narratives, friends. Each side wants to hyperbolize the other in any way possible, to make their opinions radioactive. HRC certainly did concede the election, but she also was happy to feed into the “illegitimate election” view, and still does (which amuses me no end now, feeling as I do about hypocrisy). Since most politicians are sheep, following what they believe will give them approval from the electorate (which is now distorted through the intentional lens of the new Fourth Arm of government, the media), they will bleat their way—on both sides—off a cliff.

    The real question, pure and simple, is how to move toward trust in the process. It will require a kindergarten view of politics between the Right and the Left: “I cut” and “you choose.”

    Both sides define compromise in dishonest and self serving ways.

    I will say this, with great respect: there is plenty of sociological evidence that the longer a person stays in a group steeped in self-agreement, the more extreme their opinions become. We must find a way to respect and listen to people with whom we differ.

    But Media doesn’t want us to do this. They like the anarchy.

    Do you really think elected officials are in charge of things, other than being figureheads to adore or revile?

    Jonathan Swift wrote about this a long, long time ago, discussing the leadership of Laputa.

    Simon Jester (58ffc9)

  29. Also, I am quite certain, based on conversations with many, many people who believe differently than I do, that getting DJT out of office has become a “the ends justify the means” kind of position for many. It worries me.

    Simon Jester (58ffc9)

  30. IANAL, but I’m pretty sure the joint friend-of-the-court brief by New California State and New Nevada State won’t be persuasive, starting with standing. The attorney representing these states is based in a UPS Store in Pahrump, NV.
    It’s amazing the number of Enemies of Democracy coming out of the woodwork.

    Paul Montagu (5a2167)

  31. Tom McClintock gets elected as “generic Republican”. He’s an opportunist carpetbagger who doesn’t live in his district and has barely been to it. He doesn’t turn up for town halls, doesn’t meet with community organizations, doesn’t attend openings of anything or go to any football games. He has no idea of the needs of his constituents, wouldn’t recognize a single one of them if he tripped over one, and doesn’t care as long as he can keep getting elected as “generic Republican.” If you set him down in Coloma and told him he had to get to Eldorado Hills and his navigational system was out on his car, he’d get lost. He probably doesn’t know where either of those places even is. I have zero expectations of McClintock other than that he will continue being a useless opportunist.

    Nic (896fdf)

  32. What I’m asking, is if there’s ANYTHING anyone can do to alleviate this? Better education on the process?

    I think it’s a serious mistake to imagine we can construct a system that guarantees us safety.

    If enough evil people like Trump have power, and enough weak, cowardly people like the fascist 107 (another GOP traitor said she was left off the list of amici due to a clerical error) can be bullied or bribed into following them, no amount of legal safeguards will suffice.

    All the law can do is slightly increase the number of bad actors necessary to defeat it.

    We saw that Michigan’s election results were almost overturned because one out of four state commissioners was corrupt. If one more had also been corrupt, things would have taken a very dangerous turn.

    Similarly in Georgia. Fortunately, the Republican Secretary of State there proved to be a man of good character, who put his country above party, and probably his own future career. We all owe him a debt of gratitude. But we also see 17 other states whose Republican Secretaries are eager sign onto election theft.

    Character matters. Trump’s fans have been insisting otherwise for the last five years, and now we see the poison fruit of that error.

    This was a near-death experience for American democracy. It would not have required very many more corrupt people in the right places to destroy our country’s democracy and precipitate a civil war.

    There must be severe consequences for this wanton assault on the Constitution.

    As a first step to a solution, having violated their oaths the 107 should not be seated in the next Congress. Their states should elect replacements untainted by sedition.

    Any who are attorneys should be disbarred.

    For conspiracy to implicate the Court in a corrupt and unconstitutional coup, the Supremes should hold all of them, and the state attorneys general, in contempt.

    Dave (1bb933)

  33. Using law enforcement to spy on an opposition campaign

    This is a lie. Law enforcement never spied on Trump’s campaign.

    The Trump campaign repeatedly and categorically disavowed Carter Page, saying he had no involvement or connection with them.

    “Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign,” the campaign’s communications director Jason Miller said in an email to The Hill. “I’ve never spoken to him, and wouldn’t recognize him if he were sitting next to me.”

    Presented with a statement from a campaign spokesperson in August that characterized Page as an “informal adviser,” albeit one who “does not speak for Mr. Trump or the campaign,” Miller doubled down.

    “He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period,” he said.

    Another spokesman, Steven Cheung, said Page “has no role” in the campaign.

    “We are not aware of any of his activities, past or present,” Cheung added.

    They couldn’t possibly be lying to conceal information from a counter-intelligence investigation, or trying to cover anything up, could they?

    Dave (1bb933)

  34. As a first step to a solution, having violated their oaths the 107 should not be seated in the next Congress. Their states should elect replacements untainted by sedition.

    Any who are attorneys should be disbarred.

    In the genre of Godwin’s Law, let’s call this the “dark night of fascism” Law.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  35. @27 Simon, thank you for that as you’ve articulated my mindset much better than I have.

    @28

    Also, I am quite certain, based on conversations with many, many people who believe differently than I do, that getting DJT out of office has become a “the ends justify the means” kind of position for many. It worries me.

    Simon Jester (58ffc9) — 12/11/2020 @ 10:19 am

    This worries me too. I worry that the same sort of indulgence that otherwise would not have had happened under a normal administration would be used to justify future actions. The childish “but he DID IT TOO!”.

    whembly (c30c83)

  36. …… that getting DJT out of office has become a “the ends justify the means” kind of position for many. It worries me.
    What should worry you is Trump’s “end justifies the means” attempts to retain power.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  37. @34 and @28 While that may be a concern, what the Dems actually did to get DJT out of office was to turn out the vote. That is… not… what the Republicans are doing to keep him in office.

    Nic (896fdf)

  38. This is a lie. Law enforcement never spied on Trump’s campaign.

    Who then, Dave? It had better not be anyone affiliated with the DOJ, the chief law enforcement agency. So who, Dave?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  39. While that may be a concern, what the Dems actually did to get DJT out of office was to turn out the vote.

    Do you think failure to get him out by other means was from lack of intent?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  40. I worry that the same sort of indulgence that otherwise would not have had happened under a normal administration would be used to justify future actions.

    This is what WE, the conservatives on this site, have been warning YOU, the Trump apologists, about for the five years.

    Very gratifying that you now see things our way.

    At least until the next Republican presidency (if there is one) when norms will presumably (again) be no obstacle to any partisan aim you want to achieve.

    The childish “but he DID IT TOO!”.

    My Irony Meter just collapsed into a black hole.

    Dave (1bb933)

  41. For a long time, it seemed to me that the GOP was the party saying that if something like this were ever to happen it’d be the Democrats who would try it. The Democrats were the party that wanted more government intrusion in daily life and would do anything to wield that power, or gain more of it.

    Hey, if the voters make the wrong choice, we need a handful of legislatures or a few judges to “correct” their vote so that Dem politicians and their appointed judges can’t keep trampling on the will of the people!

    Radegunda (20775b)

  42. WSJ NEWS EXCLUSIVE
    Barr Worked to Keep Hunter Biden Probes From Public View During Election

    Attorney General William Barr has known about a disparate set of investigations involving Hunter Biden’s business and financial dealings since at least this spring, a person familiar with the matter said, and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign.
    ………
    One investigation became public this week after federal investigators served a subpoena on Hunter Biden. The subpoena sought detailed financial information in connection with a criminal tax investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware, according to people familiar with the matter.
    ………
    Mr. Barr was aware of the investigations involving Hunter Biden before the spring, the person said, though it isn’t clear when or how he first learned of the inquiries.
    …….
    On Thursday night, Mr. Trump tweeted his frustration about the Justice Department and the FBI’s failure to disclose the Hunter Biden investigation earlier. “Why didn’t the Fake News Media, the FBI and the DOJ report the Biden matter BEFORE the Election,” he wrote.
    ………
    Part of the William Barr rehab tour, along with his statement regarding the lack of evidence of election fraud.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  43. So who, Dave?

    Nobody.

    Law enforcement never “spied on” Trump’s campaign.

    Dave (1bb933)

  44. “Who then, Dave? It had better not be anyone affiliated with the DOJ, the chief law enforcement agency. So who, Dave?”

    Feb-Mar 2017 isn’t during Trump’s campaign.

    Davethulhu (431e91)

  45. Nobody.

    Lie.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  46. His way is to smoke out rank hypocrisy, and he’s succeeding fabulously at least in that.

    The only hypocrisy he’s succeeding at “smoking out,” is his own.

    Slight disagreement here. Trump certainly holds others to standards he freely violates, but I’m not sure that he has enough moral awareness to be an actual hypocrite, because he doesn’t seem to understand that the same standards should apply to himself. His code revolves around self-promotion and self-interest, and he’s totally unapologetic about it.

    I think the hypocrisy he’s smoking out is from the defenders who hold it wrong to judge Trump by the standards they apply to other politicians. I think most of them made a decision to change the rules for Trump’s sake.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  47. @41:

    Activity in the investigation had gone covert in recent months due to Justice Department guidelines prohibiting overt actions that could affect an election, the person said.
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigtation/index.html

    Sounds like a decent reform, much like the elimination of Holder’s corrupt slush fund. But, this is Trump’s DOJ, so that can’t be so we have to frame it as something else.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  48. Sounds like a decent reform…..

    Actually that’s longstanding DOJ policy…..

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  49. At 47: fuck. that’s the *one* thing that Trump could have done that would be the most likely to *reduce* the willingness of the public to get the vaccine.

    At this point I think he’s just trying to destroy the country.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  50. “a weak man who lives in denial simply cannot accept losing”

    Oh I think he knows he lost….he’s just scheming for what comes next….and how to work the sheeple. I think it amuses him to no end how he is controlling the GOP….with direct support from FNC.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  51. Actually that’s longstanding DOJ policy…..

    Ok, since when? And, link?

    Either it isn’t actually longstanding DOJ policy, or that policy was violated in 2016. Which is it?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  52. Lie.

    I already presented direct statements from Trump campaign officials refuting your lie:

    “Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign,” the campaign’s communications director Jason Miller said in an email to The Hill. “I’ve never spoken to him, and wouldn’t recognize him if he were sitting next to me.”

    Presented with a statement from a campaign spokesperson in August that characterized Page as an “informal adviser,” albeit one who “does not speak for Mr. Trump or the campaign,” Miller doubled down.

    “He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period,” he said.

    Another spokesman, Steven Cheung, said Page “has no role” in the campaign.

    “We are not aware of any of his activities, past or present,” Cheung added.

    Dave (1bb933)

  53. I am not so sure that this suit will be thrown out. I think the justices may hear it in order to smack it down more forcefully.

    The questions raised (Is malfeasance in one state a cause for complaint in another state? Do the federal courts have jurisdiction is assessing alleged malfeasance? Does a governor have the right to change election rules unilaterally? Does a state have a duty to impose uniform rules across the state?) have some actual meaning.

    Some have been answered already, I think, such as the last one in the case of a congressional candidate who experience different procedures in two counties — they threw that out as “too late.” But the real killer to all of this is the Electoral College itself.

    The existence of the EC means that interstate arguments over how presidential electors are selected should be un justicable.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  54. (continued) …unjusticiable. It was set up to prevent just this sort of dispute. If the firewall of the EC can be breached, then its protections fail.

    I expect the justices to hold oral arguments early next week, then crush this thing 9-0.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. @38 I think you have a willfully blind hobby-horse you want to ride, if that helps?

    Nic (896fdf)

  56. GOP senators offer weasel words on House-supported coup attempt:

    Asked about his House GOP colleagues joining the amicus brief, including Rep. Steve Scalise, Sen. John Cornyn asked, “Did they read it?” before laughing.

    “I’m for people seeking recourse,” he said, adding that he looks forward to seeing the Supreme Court decision when it happens.

    When asked if he’s aligning himself legally with the lawsuit, close Trump ally Sen. Mike Braun responded, “I just haven’t made my mind up yet.”

    “You know I’ve all along said that I want the process to play out and I’m just watching it, observing, not sure what’s going to happen, I’m anxious to see if the Supreme Court is going to hear it, I think they should,” he said.

    When asked about the Texas lawsuit, retiring GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander said, “I’m never surprised by the House of Representatives” and laughed.

    And Sen. Joni Ernst dodged questions on if she’s supportive. “I think it’s important all vote be counted,” she said.

    Meanwhile, Sen. Steve Daines told CNN he was supportive of the lawsuit.

    “Montana has joined it and I’m glad to see why,” Daines said, adding he supports it. “I have great confidence in the United State Supreme Court … and we’ll wait to see what the Court rules.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  57. Using law enforcement to spy on an opposition campaign based on a bar conversation, doctor evidence in a FISA warrant, leak classified info (a felony) to jumpstart an investigation that was all but closed, fake whistleblowers coordinating with Schiff to impeach, “no serious prosecutor would bring such a case”, pee dossier, ignore the effort by HRC to link Trump to hacked emails…. etc.

    All to be dismissed as whaddabouts in 3, 2, 1….

    But, where are the indictments…?? Let’s talk about “norms”, then.

    Even putting aside the questionable factual bases for some of these claims, none, in my view, come anywhere close to trying to use lawsuits to overturn an election based on no facts justifying that result.

    For instance, let’s say Carter Page was part of the Trump campaign, but see above, and let’s further suppose that the an invalid warrant was procured to spy on him as part of spying on a campaign. That would be troubling, and it’s troubling that invalid FSIA warrants are issued. But I don’t see how illegal methods used to obtain evidence is at all comparable to using the courts to try and get a remedy without any facts to prove it.

    Additionally, isn’t there a pretty big difference between using methods to uncover true things versus this suit? It’s a bit like Fourth Amendment violations. I’m troubled when law enforcement violates the constitution, but on the other hand it’s hard to ignore facts and evidence uncovered by unconstitutional searches. Indeed, many conservative types see no rational reason to suppress evidence of guilt just because the authorities did something bad.

    So let’s go back to some of your examples, here. Suppose the authorities installed illegal wiretaps in the home of Dominion executives and let’s further suppose that all of this stuff is actually true about Dominion. And the tapes capture the executives bragging that they stole the election from Trump. My guess is you’d suddenly be focusing on the facts and not the methods.

    JohnnyAgreeable (c49787)

  58. White House orders FDA chief to authorize Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine Friday or submit his resignation

    This is an unforced error, hopefully the last of many. Were I FDA boss, I’d resign today as a matter of principle, and rip the President a new assh0le for interfering. Done in that order it wouldn’t be gross insubordination, protecting the pension.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  59. Can you cite prior examples of lawfare that you view as comparable to what these suits are seeking to accomplish?

    Using law enforcement to spy on an opposition campaign based on a bar conversation, doctor evidence in a FISA warrant, leak classified info (a felony) to jumpstart an investigation that was all but closed, fake whistleblowers coordinating with Schiff to impeach, “no serious prosecutor would bring such a case”, pee dossier, ignore the effort by HRC to link Trump to hacked emails…. etc.

    All to be dismissed as whaddabouts in 3, 2, 1….

    But, where are the indictments…?? Let’s talk about “norms”, then.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 12/11/2020 @ 9:59 am

    Here’s the problem. Most people think your characterization of events is incorrect. Because that’s not an accurate characterization it doesn’t justify Trump doing similar things. However, Even if I accept your characterization of events as correct the answer isn’t for everyone to do it, the answer is to hold the people accountable for their wrongdoing and reform the system to prevent it from happening again. Your position, if correct, is morally bankrupt.

    Time123 (80b471)

  60. > and even if Trump is not able to pull off such a coup here, the presence of a flimsy and obviously false pretext for his actions does not justify what he is trying to do.

    I keep saying this, but this is a walk-through. Republicans of a certain flavor are using this as a dress rehearsal, finding out who their fellow-travelers are, where they need people on the ground, what arguments resonate.

    I will bet money that, in 2024, if Biden is re-elected, a substantially similar effort will be launched. If this continues, it is a very serious, very present threat to the republic.

    john (cd2753)

  61. BnP, you used to have interesting thoughts and bring facts I hadn’t seen to discussions. Now all you do is throw up a post that basically says “I think it was wrong and improper to investigate Trump’s involvement in the Russian hacking of the DNC and I think the writer of the post is a hypocrite for not agreeing with me.”

    In the last thread about Fartwell you couldn’t even lay out what point you were trying to make.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  62. There’s a question that is not being asked, or a least not answered with anything more than snark. WHY IN THE WORLD have all these people lost their fracking minds? Is there something they know that we don’t? These are, allegedly, professionals. They are saying that something that they should know quite a bit about — an election — is crap and should not be trusted. Why? There have been close elections before, there have been elections with better candidates before (almost all of them), where the good guy lost. Why this one? You’d think they were protecting Lincoln.

    I am at a loss to understand what they are thinking, how overturning the result is expected to play out going forward (e.g. do you send the army to stop the secessions?), what kind of constitutional process do you use here? A contingent election? A re-do? A state legislative usurpation? Do you really think the effing Supreme Court is going to go along?

    I don’t get it, and I’ve spent some time trying to get it. Any help appreciated. They cannot all be crazy, can they?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  63. National Review:

    It’s not too much to say Texas wants the Supreme Court to betray the U.S. constitutional order in a purported effort to save it.

    That 17 other Republican states have filed a brief supporting Texas — and so have over 100 Republican members of the House — is a symptom of how far down the rabbit hole Trump has led the GOP in his election challenge. He’s no longer simply seeking his day in court, but explicitly trying to get the Court to overturn the election.

    Too guarded. An attempt to overthrow democracy, endorsed by a majority of a party’s congressional representatives and the president, is a bit more than a “rabbit hole”.

    Jonah:

    Even in this particularly dumb chapter in American history, to say that this lawsuit stands out as a shining example of willful stupidity would be an understatement. I won’t focus on all the legal reasons it is deservedly doomed to fail, because it would be like trying to list all the reasons 2 plus 2 does not equal a horse. Nor will I dwell on the innumerate statistical hogwash it cites as evidence, even though it’s about as impressive as that equine equation.

    But philosophically this lawsuit is a betrayal of everything defenders of federalism and the Electoral College claim to believe. The state of Texas has no standing to complain how those other states conduct elections or appoint their electors. If it were taken seriously, it would open a Pandora’s box of asininity in which various states would use the federal government to dictate how other states operate.

    More infuriating, the driving impetus of this lawsuit—outrageously joined by 17 other Republican run-states and supported by 106 House Republicans who signed an amicus brief—is to steal a presidential election. That’s why you don’t have to agree with me about the Electoral College; the Republicans supporting this lawsuit have long claimed to agree with me about the Electoral College and its role in the constitutional order. Yet they are throwing that away to aid and abet a president in precisely the sort of constitutional crime the Electoral College was designed to prevent.

    It is an act of cynical, unpatriotic, undemocratic hypocrisy unrivaled in American history, a pure power play on behalf of a president whose disregard for the very Constitution these people have long claimed to adore is total. It is shameful. Infuriatingly shameful.

    Much better.

    Dave (1bb933)

  64. In another country, this would be the lead-up to a self-coup. I cannot see that here. Maybe there’s a secession movement being set up with a justification. I’m at a loss.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  65. I’m old enough to remember when it was the GOP that valued the constitution.

    They don’t anymore.
    Time123 (66d88c) — 12/11/2020 @ 9:03 am

    Neither party does, which scares me. We are heading down a dark road.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 12/11/2020 @ 9:32 am

    Maybe not, one of the questions I always want asked in debates is “What things do you want to do but can’t because your office doesn’t have that power.”

    There’s a leak of Biden talking to progressive leaders. He tells them that he’s not going to do things because he doesn’t think the constitution allows it. I have very low expectations of Biden, but it’s nice to hear a president elect telling his base that they can’t have what they want because the constitution won’t allow it. It’s really strange that it’s coming from a Democrat.

    So there’s some things that I’m going to be able to do by executive order. I’m not going to hesitate to do it, but what I’m not going to do is I’m not going to do what used to — Vanita [Gupta], you probably used to get angry with me during the debates, when you’d have some of the people you were supporting saying, ‘On Day 1, I’m gonna have an executive order to do this!’ Not within the constitutional authority. I am not going to violate the Constitution. Executive authority that my progressive friends talk about is way beyond the bounds. And as one of you said, maybe it was you, Reverend Al [Sharpton], whether it’s far left or far right, there is a Constitution. It’s our only hope. Our only hope and the way to deal with it is, where I have executive authority, I will use it to undo every single damn thing this guy has done by executive authority, but I’m not going to exercise executive authority where it’s a question, where I can come along and say, ‘I can do away with assault weapons.’ There’s no executive authority to do away that. And no one has fought harder to get rid of assault weapons than me, me, but you can’t do it by executive order. We do that, next guy comes along and says, Well, guess what? By executive order, I guess everybody can have machine guns again. So we gotta be careful.

    Time123 (80b471)

  66. Dave,

    I see Jonah agrees with me that the EC is the ultimate basis for tossing this thing. This suit makes a mockery of the vert concept of federalism.

    That being said, the SC may feel obligated to take the case in order to smash it utterly.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  67. There’s a question that is not being asked, or a least not answered with anything more than snark. WHY IN THE WORLD have all these people lost their fracking minds? Is there something they know that we don’t? These are, allegedly, professionals. They are saying that something that they should know quite a bit about — an election — is crap and should not be trusted. Why? There have been close elections before, there have been elections with better candidates before (almost all of them), where the good guy lost. Why this one? You’d think they were protecting Lincoln.

    I am at a loss to understand what they are thinking, how overturning the result is expected to play out going forward (e.g. do you send the army to stop the secessions?), what kind of constitutional process do you use here? A contingent election? A re-do? A state legislative usurpation? Do you really think the effing Supreme Court is going to go along?

    I don’t get it, and I’ve spent some time trying to get it. Any help appreciated. They cannot all be crazy, can they?

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/11/2020 @ 11:45 am

    Trump has brought out the Crazies who believe in conspiracy theories. They’re going to vote in primaries so the GOP is humoring them. The GOP is confident that blatantly lying to their base has no downside, leads to great fundraising, and much of the GOP has either insufficient courage or patriotism to stand up for our democracy.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  68. Kevin M – i wouldn’t be surprised if the net result of this is that the republicans in the house, and some of them in the senate, refuse to work with the biden administration on anything, and spend the next four years (a) denouncing it as illegitimate and (b) saying this is no different than what democrats did during the Trump administration.

    But then i’m already on record saying I think the republic dies within my lifetime.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  69. > The GOP is confident that blatantly lying to their base has no downside, leads to great fundraising, and much of the GOP has either insufficient courage or patriotism to stand up for our democracy.

    they appear to be right.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  70. Dave,

    I see Jonah agrees with me that the EC is the ultimate basis for tossing this thing. This suit makes a mockery of the vert concept of federalism.

    That being said, the SC may feel obligated to take the case in order to smash it utterly.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/11/2020 @ 11:53 am

    2020 hasn’t had any good surprises. A 9-0 decision against Texas with a written opinion calling the lies out as lies just isn’t likely.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  71. I don’t get it, and I’ve spent some time trying to get it. Any help appreciated. They cannot all be crazy, can they?

    The conventional wisdom is that nearly all of them know the effort is doomed to failure, know that the legitimacy of the election is not truly in any doubt, and that this is merely a gesture of loyalty required to avoid being primaried by a Trump/QAnon-endorsed candidate in 2022.

    In other words, they are moral cowards.

    That they are doing tremendous harm to our country and its institutions is obviously of no concern them, and this is why they must all be turned out of office and kept out of power.

    This is essentially Allahpundit’s take on it, which I agree with, but think it is incomplete.

    I think (and probably Allahpundit would agree) that some fraction of them really are amenable to overturning the democratic process if it enhances their power, and if they get away with trying it this time, they will keep trying.

    Dave (1bb933)

  72. @50-
    In general, see here. I don’t know when they were originally promulgated, but I’m sure they were issued prior to 2016.

    Specifically concerning statements during an election, see here. It’s the same policy that Comey violated when he made the announcement about HRC’s emails.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  73. This isn’t unprecedented in kind; Florida 2000 exposed similar intentions among the Democrats. It IS different in scale and effect as it now breaches the Electoral College walls. That it cannot succeed and have the country hold makes it existential, where we might have got past a Gore victory in 2000.

    The problem I am having with the surprising support that Trump continues to enjoy is whether it is also existential if it fails. The wound from this is going to be deep.

    Right now, this afternoon, I think that this is more likely to destroy the GOP than the USA. BUt not so obviously as to bet money.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  74. @61 They aren’t crazy, they are ruthless. They know that they could personally benefit and will not be personally harmed by what they are doing. They do not think they will win and they don’t care if it’s long-term detrimental to the country, as long as they are benefited. It’s a cold calculation of personal self-benefit.

    Nic (896fdf)

  75. this is a walk-through. Republicans of a certain flavor are using this as a dress rehearsal, finding out who their fellow-travelers are,

    I think this is a rational view, and it’s why “they didn’t get away with it — the process worked!” is weak tea.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  76. Kevin M – i wouldn’t be surprised if the net result of this is that the republicans in the house, and some of them in the senate, refuse to work with the biden administration on anything, and spend the next four years (a) denouncing it as illegitimate and (b) saying this is no different than what democrats did during the Trump administration.

    But then i’m already on record saying I think the republic dies within my lifetime.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 12/11/2020 @ 11:56 am

    The GOP is killing it before our eyes. They convincing their base that democracy doesn’t work without any supporting evidence. They’re already talking about using these lies as a basis not to approve Biden’s cabinet. If there’s no downside I expect whoever loses the next election do the same thing. Eventually we’ll get a close election and it will get worse. There was already one plot by political extremists to kidnap and murder governor Whitmer.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  77. There’s a question that is not being asked, or a least not answered with anything more than snark. WHY IN THE WORLD have all these people lost their fracking minds?

    They know it’s pure political theater meant to rile up the ignorant and easily fooled, in addition to pleasing the pure bad faith GOP voters who know it’s BS but don’t care as long as their guy stays in power.

    In that sense, they haven’t lost their minds at all, as opposed to just their decency. The iron law of institution applies: these people want to advance their own power within the institution even if it doesn’t advance the actual goals of the institution (I’ll be charitable and assume that the GOP as an entity actually still gives a damn about core things like, oh, elections should be used to determine the president).

    And there’s the problem. This stuff works. I guarantee in a few years some of the attorney signing these briefs will absolutely cite their participation as a positive and the fact that their opposition didn’t sign it / criticized Trump will be a mark against them.

    JohnnyAgreeable (c49787)

  78. …much of the GOP has either insufficient courage or patriotism to stand up for our democracy.

    I think you are too generous to the Democrats. Had Trump gotten a few more votes and won in those states (as he did in 2016, but still “lost the popular vote by millions”, the cry of a broken election and/or state malfeasance would have been just as loud for the Left. So…

    …much of the country has either insufficient courage or patriotism to stand up for our democracy.

    It’s tribal now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  79. Kevin, the 2000 election in Florida at least had a specific question to dispute and when Gore lost he didn’t run around screaming that it was rigged. He accepted the SC decision.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  80. Kevin, I love this article, sorry if you’ve read it already.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  81. …much of the GOP has either insufficient courage or patriotism to stand up for our democracy.

    I think you are too generous to the Democrats. Had Trump gotten a few more votes and won in those states (as he did in 2016, but still “lost the popular vote by millions”, the cry of a broken election and/or state malfeasance would have been just as loud for the Left. So…

    …much of the country has either insufficient courage or patriotism to stand up for our democracy.

    It’s tribal now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/11/2020 @ 12:03 pm

    I suspect you’re right and it just hasn’t been demonstrated yet.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  82. There was already one plot by political extremists to kidnap and murder governor Whitmer.

    Well, yeah, but that’s just lawfare, ya know? I heard some Democrat voters once yelled at a GOP official and threw things at him. Same thing.

    JohnnyAgreeable (c49787)

  83. Why this one? You’d think they were protecting Lincoln.

    Well, according to Trump himself, he’s at least as great as Lincoln.
    Why some otherwise intelligent people go so far to promote and protect such an unworthy hero — who would toss them to the curb as soon as they became inconvenient to his purposes — is a mystery I may never fathom.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  84. This isn’t unprecedented in kind; Florida 2000 exposed similar intentions among the Democrats.

    The Dems had a colorable claim to challenge the initial Florida results, but did so in a dishonest and opportunistic way.

    I don’t really see a good analogy, because Trump’s shifting claims have had only one thing in common since day one: complete absence of any basis in fact.

    Dave (1bb933)

  85. refuse to work with the biden administration on anything, and spend the next four years (a) denouncing it as illegitimate and (b) saying this is no different than what democrats did during the Trump administration.

    Quite likely. Pretty much what they did to Trump if you’re keeping score.

    Even Ryan’s most reasonable, well-crafted reforms to the ACA were met with a discipline-enforced 0 Democrat votes. It took 5 months to get a vote on the Vatican ambassador, longer for other offices. Sure, the top jobs were too visible to do that to, but the ambassadors and deputies were filibustered and even after that ended, they slow-walked everything they could.

    This is a symptom of a broken system, and it has been broken long before this jackanapes. And it is getting worse. It’s possible that Biden will try to mend it, but not only has he shown no real interest, Trump continues to pour poison into the wound.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  86. @77 We know how the Dems would’ve reacted, because we already saw it in 2016. Large protests and calls for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college. What we are seeing from the Rs currently isn’t at all what we saw from the Dems in 2016. We can reasonably predict that the Dems would have reacted similarly this time. While there are many situations in which one side is actuing wrongly and you can reasonably predict the other side would too, this isn’t one of them. This particular set of events is not a “both sides” situation.

    Nic (896fdf)

  87. I expect the justices to hold oral arguments early next week, then crush this thing 9-0.

    I expect a one sentence dismissal without any arguments.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  88. Dave,

    The difference is more that Gore’s claims could easily be validated as it just required counting votes. Trump’s claims are not falsifiable for the most part. The ONLY claim they have made that had any hope of being tested was claiming that a large number of mail ballots had invalid signatures, but they only made that after those signature envelopes had been discarded.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  89. It took 5 months to get a vote on the Vatican ambassador, longer for other offices.

    Given that she was the wife of a political hack, I’m not surprised.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  90. I expect a one sentence dismissal without any arguments.

    Well, they hold their conference today, so we’ll know soon. But I note they did not dismiss this out of hand as they have done others.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  91. Given that she was the wife of a political hack, I’m not surprised.

    By “hack” you mean Trump supporter? I would think they’d want to get the both of them out of the country.

    I use that as an example of an inconsequential position. I could have picked 30 other ambassador positions, but I expect you have some snark about them all. Why do you defend filibustering everyone? Do you have some principle here you’ll apply next year?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  92. One of the things that really irks me about Texas’ case is its obvious dishonesty. Many of the “these changes were done by the executive or courts and not the legislature and are therefore unconstitutional” cases could have been brought well before the election and weren’t, which strongly suggests that Texas is suing over the *outcome* using the process as an excuse (they didn’t object to the process before the outcome was known). Furthermore, Texas *itself* made executive changes to election procedure.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  93. …a coup here…

    “…or something.”

    “No miracle is coming.” – Plagiarist-elect Joe Biden 😉

    Glorious.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  94. There was already one plot by political extremists to kidnap and murder governor Whitmer.

    1) It is alleged. The last time the DoJ went after the MI militias they had to apologize for their thoroughly political actions. They may have had to pay damages. The judge was irate.

    2) I think they were going to ransom her, not kill her.

    OTOH, it will surprise me if there is no violence resulting from an official Biden win. The fever pitch is so high, on both sides. If you think it isn’t, suppose for a second that Trump ends up winning.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  95. @56: But I don’t see how illegal methods used to obtain evidence is at all comparable to using the courts to try and get a remedy without any facts to prove it.

    JohnnyAgreeable, I agree it’s not comparable. The former is infinitely worse. There is nothing illegal in what Trump is doing, and that makes it that much more innocuous compared to using illegal methods to obtain evidence. Biden will take the oath on Jan 20, and unlike what we saw after 2016, whatever fight Trump wants to continue with will be his own private project not underwritten by the DOJ for years at taxpayer expense.

    If you want to discuss norms, as opposed to illegality, that’s an entirely different discussion.

    As for your Dominion scenario, isn’t the fact that’s it’s a hypothetical relevant to evaluating it? If illegal methods to obtain evidence yield something of significance, is anyone allowed to object on the basis that those types of methods (whether successful or not) only seem to be employed against one particular political persuasion? Or, is success the only metric?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  96. Montana’s governor says his state did many of the things Texas said make an election illegal but Texas didn’t sue them because Trump won, “underscoring, of course, that this is less about election integrity than it is about attempting to overturn the will of the electorate.”

    Link

    Radegunda (20775b)

  97. cases could have been brought well before the election and weren’t

    Well, some were, in state courts. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that such disputes cannot be brought up NOW in federal court. At least not by same-state plaintiffs. I see this case failing on standing though, based largely on the existence of the Electoral College.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  98. What really will count is who votes to reject the Electors from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and Georgia.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  99. @58, @60: Time123, I’ve never put forth any viewpoint that you’ve attributed to me. This should just be my boilerplate response to you at all times.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  100. Montana’s lame-duck governor is a Democrat, so is hardly impartial. His Republican AG did sign onto the Texas suit. Still just tribes.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  101. Sure, the top jobs were too visible to do that to, but the ambassadors and deputies were filibustered and even after that ended, they slow-walked everything they could.

    It was well-documented in 2017 that most unfilled positions had no nominee, due to dysfunction/incompetence in the WH.

    The slow-walking was described as payback for Merrick Garland, who you may recall received even less courtesy.

    Even Ryan’s most reasonable, well-crafted reforms to the ACA were met with a discipline-enforced 0 Democrat votes.

    The Republicans had a solid majority in the House, and you’re blaming the Democrats for the fate of Ryan’s bill?

    Dave (1bb933)

  102. Polls show that about three quarters of people who describe themselves as Republicans believe there was fraud. And there’s no basis for this.

    When an election is determined by massive fraud you usually know how it was done.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/11/14/934749679/for-the-birds-voter-fraud-ruffles-new-zealand-bird-of-the-year-competition

    Evidence of election rigging has roiled New Zealand’s “Bird of the Year” competition after a case of ballot-box stuffing has threatened to derail avian democracy.

    Suspicion began when organizers received more than 1,500 votes sent from the same email address early Monday — each vote was in favor of the little spotted kiwi (kiwi pukupuku), according to a statement from Forest & Bird, a conservation organization that runs the election.

    “That is an amazing bird – it deserves all the support, but unfortunately these votes had to be disallowed and they’ve been taken out of the competition,” Forest & Bird spokeswoman Laura Keown told NPR’s Weekend Edition….

    The race isn’t over yet — voting closes Sunday — but Keown said the disqualification immediately lifted one species, legitimately, to top billing: the Kakapo, a rare nocturnal bird known for its owlish beak and yellow-green coloring and the only flightless parrot in the world. As of Friday, the Antipodean albatross, a critically endangered seabird, had swooped to the top of the leader board.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  103. Given the list of 106 Enemies of Democracy, it’s not hard to see how the chips will fall in a GOP break-up. I’ll be in the party that doesn’t have Trump and his 106 political dwarves.
    If this does happen, Trump could be the greatest secret Democrat agent of all time, breaking up a 160-year old political party and giving the Democrats an almost insurmountable majority for years–maybe decades–to come, and my party will have deserved it for welcoming this unfit con man in the first place.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  104. @57. Again, the classic contrasting conflict between the ‘get it done’ corporatist mentality and the swamp creatured bottom feeding bureaucracy surfaces. The nation first on the moon will be, what– number four or five on this one. But then…

    “When you’re number two, you try harder.”- Avis Rent-A-Car ad slogan, 1962

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  105. Paul — the problem is that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are *supporting* this.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  106. JohnnyAgreeable, I agree it’s not comparable. The former is infinitely worse. There is nothing illegal in what Trump is doing, and that makes it that much more innocuous compared to using illegal methods to obtain evidence. Biden will take the oath on Jan 20, and unlike what we saw after 2016, whatever fight Trump wants to continue with will be his own private project not underwritten by the DOJ for years at taxpayer expense.

    There’s nothing illegal in what Trump is doing, insofar as the act of filing a lawsuit isn’t itself illegal, yes. But there’s certainly something illegal in what he is requesting, which is based on nothing but a fervent belief that Trump could not have lost and therefore did not lose.

    That seems to me much, much worse.

    As for your Dominion scenario, isn’t the fact that’s it’s a hypothetical relevant to evaluating it? If illegal methods to obtain evidence yield something of significance, is anyone allowed to object on the basis that those types of methods (whether successful or not) only seem to be employed against one particular political persuasion? Or, is success the only metric?

    If you think shady doings have been the province of one political party, I’m not sure we’d have a very productive conversation.

    JohnnyAgreeable (c49787)

  107. The bottom line is that Trump could have won this thing. That should be the thing that both parties are talking about instead of this crapfest.

    Any one of the the follwoing would have produced a legitimate Electoral College win for Trump:

    * Trump could have endorsed mail ballots, allowing himself the month of GOTV that Biden enjoyed. As it was he put all his effort into day-of, and failed by a small margin in places he previously won.

    * Trump could have arrived at the first debate without taking an extra dose of rage pills. His completely unhinged performance repelled all but his amen chorus. Up to then there was a chance that I might have voted for him (considering my abject horror at his choice of the utterly dishonest Senator Harris), but after that NFW. Commander-in-Chief? Not.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  108. @62. Conservative whine; bitter dregs.

    Wholly Buckley’d; Jonah and Mona are irrelevant.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  109. The slow-walking was described as payback for Merrick Garland

    That’s exactly the kind of thinking you will find wanting if the GOP tries to use it. Why do you support it when the Dems do it?

    most unfilled positions had no nominee

    Positions where the boss hasn’t been approved will HAVE no nominee as that’s the boss’s job.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  110. . WHY IN THE WORLD have all these people lost their fracking minds?

    They are hacks who have been taking dictation for quite awhile because of money coming from the RNC or other politicians and they probably think it’s safe to take that position because it will all be forgotten when and if Trump is gone.

    I don’t even like what Bill O’Reilly is doing – where he says Biden will be sworn it, but says there’s fraud but not enough of it and misdescribes the legal situation (probably because he doesn’t understand it)

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  111. BTW…

    How do you spell Hunter Biden?

    B-i-l-l-y-C-a-r-t-e-r.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  112. By “hack” you mean Trump supporter?
    By “hack” I mean someone (Newt Gingrich) who subsequently advocated that Barr arrest Pennsylvania poll workers.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  113. The Republicans had a solid majority in the House, and you’re blaming the Democrats for the fate of Ryan’s bill?

    I am blaming them for their lack of support of something that was in their interest, due to an absolute commandment to give no quarter.

    I also blame the so-called House Freedom Caucus, and did so rather clearly at the time.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  114. If you think it isn’t, suppose for a second that Trump ends up winning.

    At this point, if Trump ends up winning, it will be the duty of all Americans to re-establish constitutional government by any means necessary.

    Sadly, I have to agree with you. Political violence is a predictable consequence of the rhetoric Trump and his lackeys are using.

    Kudos to the Democrats for mostly not responding in kind.

    Dave (1bb933)

  115. @106-
    He lost because he (still) lacks empathy for 290,000 dead Americans, now dying at rate equal to the 9-11 death toll every day.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  116. 106. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/11/2020 @ 12:41 pm

    * Trump could have endorsed mail ballots, allowing himself the month of GOTV that Biden enjoyed. As it was he put all his effort into day-of, and failed by a small margin in places he previously won.

    He also endorsed early voting.

    Now there is a problem with mail ballots – about 10% of the people can spoil their ballots because of mistakes. Trump was preparing before the election to declarw them a form of ballot box stuffing.

    * Trump could have arrived at the first debate without taking an extra dose of rage pills. His completely unhinged performance repelled all but his amen chorus. Up to then there was a chance that I might have voted for him

    Somebody should write a book as to how good policy came out with regard to most things with such an ignorant president.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  117. And, Dave, you are distracting me from the real question: Since there is ample precedent for not giving the other side any support in Congress, I would not be surprised if that continues. We could argue for days which is tit and which is tat, but it’s not very productive.

    If Biden tries to fix the real problems of Obamacare, as Ryan did, and the GOP gives him no votes (and they would be needed — the Dems have their own whackjobs) then I’ll be the first to call them on it. It’s something that everyone should care about, even though Obama made it so 90% of voters were isolated from the effects, and know damn little about the system themselves.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  118. The former is infinitely worse.

    It was “infinitely worse” that an FBI lawyer doctored an email on a FISA warrant renewal? That was the only crime that was actually committed, yet somehow that was worse than attempting to thwart the will of the people by overturning elections in four states? Really, beer?

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  119. Somebody should write a book as to how good policy came out with regard to most things with such an ignorant president.

    Things he didn’t frack with were OK. D of Ed, for example. But he had a Touch of Crap whenever he got involved.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  120. Kevin McCarthy has joined now, too.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  121. Kudos to the Democrats for mostly not responding in kind.

    There were enough examples earlier in the year to make that claim a bit hollow.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  122. It will take some time for all of this to sink in, and there’s still time for individual members of Congress to retreat.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  123. To some degree this suit is a litmus test. Of what, I’m not sure. The crazy ends of the spectrum write the largest donation checks. Maybe that’s it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  124. GOP Politicians and the Presidential Electors Suit
    …….
    We are no longer in the “the president has the right to pursue his legal remedies” phase of the process. We are now in the “the Republican Party is now tying itself to Donald Trump’s quixotic quest to overturn the certified election results” phase. This is a disturbing development and a further sign that the Republican Party will not soon return to its traditional principles but will remain deeply influenced by Trump’s particular populist style of politics.
    …….
    This is no longer Trump being Trump. This is now significant components of the Republican Party lending their own reputations to the effort to undermine American constitutional democracy and providing political cover for acts that would once have seemed outlandish. They are moving the baseline of what we can expect in future elections, and the result will make American democracy less secure.

    Second, we should take note of why elected Republicans feel the need to posture in this way. They are doing so because they believe it is a popular position among their constituents that the election was stolen, that Joe Biden’s presidency would be illegitimate, and that citizens should act by any means necessary to keep Donald Trump in the White House. Although Americans generally express their preference for Americans, there is evidence that many Americans are surprisingly open to the subversion of democratic norms, values and institutions if doing so would favor their particular party. Moreover, voters with authoritarian preferences have particularly favored Donald Trump’s candidacy and presidency.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  125. Kevin M — a few months ago, when we were discussing the possibility that Trump would do this, you insisted that the party would never go along.

    I’d like to submit the really difficult to swallow proposition that perhaps your trust in the party was misguided and your understanding of them incorrect.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  126. Glorious.

    “Give George a headline and he’s good for another 30 miles.” – Omar Bradley [Karl Malden] ‘Patton’ 1970

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  127. Paul — the problem is that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are *supporting* this.

    You’re probably right, aphrael. I haven’t seen any polls about the lawsuit, but I won’t mind being in the smaller Conservative Non-Trump Party.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  128. @97

    What really will count is who votes to reject the Electors from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and Georgia.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080) — 12/11/2020 @ 12:30 pm

    You mean one House GOP and one Senate GOP rejecting the state slate of electors?

    Yeah, I don’t see that happening at all.

    whembly (c30c83)

  129. @100

    Even Ryan’s most reasonable, well-crafted reforms to the ACA were met with a discipline-enforced 0 Democrat votes.

    The Republicans had a solid majority in the House, and you’re blaming the Democrats for the fate of Ryan’s bill?

    Dave (1bb933) — 12/11/2020 @ 12:33 pm

    Remind me, did GOP have a filibuster proof senate at this time?

    whembly (c30c83)

  130. a few months ago, when we were discussing the possibility that Trump would do this, you insisted that the party would never go along.

    I think I’ve said, today, that I am bewildered by their actions. e.g. #61

    Then again, I never thought he’d be nominated.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  131. The slow-walking was described as payback for Merrick Garland

    That’s exactly the kind of thinking you will find wanting if the GOP tries to use it. Why do you support it when the Dems do it?

    Where did I support it? I intentionally characterized it in neutral terms.

    My point was that I don’t think it was justified by reference to thwarting Trump, but rather McConnell.

    I don’t know if it’s true, but I recall Schumer saying that he was prepared to work out some kind of deal with McConnell, but Mitch had not shown any interest. It does stand to reason that if McConnell considered it important enough, he could have offered some incentive in return.

    Dave (1bb933)

  132. If you think shady doings have been the province of one political party, I’m not sure we’d have a very productive conversation.

    I’m not sure why you construed that from what I wrote.

    You posited that I would be ok with an illegal investigation of Dominion if it yielded evidence of wrongdoing, as if that’s the basis on which I would evaluate it or any other illegal investigation. Setting aside the material fact that Dominion is not an opposition campaign, does the fact that this is a hypothetical suggest anything else to you as to how to evaluate it, compared to something that actually did happen?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  133. Here is the argument I wish I had the wit to make:

    Texas’ attempt to bring an original action challenging the election results in four states is not a serious legal claim in a legitimate procedural posture, for reasons that many people have already given and that I will not repeat here. The easy thing for the Supreme Court to do is simply deny Texas permission to file the complaint (and deny the motions to intervene as moot) and be done with it. No fuss, no muss.

    But the court should do more….

    A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.

    In a time that is so very deeply polarized, I cannot think of a person, group or institution other than the Supreme Court that could do better for the country right now. Supporters of the president who have been gaslighted into believing that there has been a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election recognize that the court is not a liberal institution. If the court will tell the truth, the country will listen.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-dont-just-deny-texas-original-action-decimate-it/#more-298173

    I only disagree about per curiam. I’d rather see a 9-0 decision by Justice Thomas to put a stake in it.

    (Note that Thomas and Alito believe the Court is obligated to deal with original jurisdiction cases.)

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  134. Sorry I missed the blockquote

    Texas’ attempt to bring an original action challenging the election results in four states is not a serious legal claim in a legitimate procedural posture, for reasons that many people have already given and that I will not repeat here. The easy thing for the Supreme Court to do is simply deny Texas permission to file the complaint (and deny the motions to intervene as moot) and be done with it. No fuss, no muss.

    But the court should do more….

    A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.

    In a time that is so very deeply polarized, I cannot think of a person, group or institution other than the Supreme Court that could do better for the country right now. Supporters of the president who have been gaslighted into believing that there has been a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election recognize that the court is not a liberal institution. If the court will tell the truth, the country will listen.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-dont-just-deny-texas-original-action-decimate-it/#more-298173

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  135. I’m going to remind you that, with regard to presidential elections, even Hillary Clinton conceded her loss to Trump, and the country witnessed a fairly smooth transition of power. There was no mockery or undermining of the Constitution by a mass number of Democratic leaders glomming onto a lawsuit after already witnessing 50 (baseless) post-election lawsuit losses by the President.
    Dana (cc9481) — 12/11/2020 @ 9:47 am

    I would also remind you that long after the inauguration, Clinton maintained she’d contest the election if there was evidence of Russian “meddling.” Ron Wyden said he believed the election was rigged and Russia had altered votes – even after the USIC said there was no evidence of such. Wyden said this in 2017.

    Democrats whined daily about the Constitution – the Electoral College had to go, the Senate needs its powers stripped, etc. Never did they float a balloon about sending their changes through the proper legal channels – ie, through a Constitutional amendment, just that those institutions and rules had to go.

    Hoi Polloi (7cefeb)

  136. We could argue for days which is tit and which is tat, but it’s not very productive.

    Quite so.

    If Biden tries to fix the real problems of Obamacare, as Ryan did, and the GOP gives him no votes (and they would be needed — the Dems have their own whackjobs) then I’ll be the first to call them on it. It’s something that everyone should care about, even though Obama made it so 90% of voters were isolated from the effects, and know damn little about the system themselves.

    I don’t recall the details of Ryan’s plan, or whether it was in any way “reasonable” from a Democratic perspective. Given that the GOP had campaigned for years on the platform of getting rid of it completely, Democratic reluctance to credit assurances that “no, don’t worry – we just want to improve it!” seems understandable.

    Also, the GOP process was just as chaotic and opaque as the passage of the original bill. Compromise is a much more realistic possibility if both sides are involved from the beginning. That didn’t happen in 2009, and it didn’t happen in 2017 either.

    Dave (1bb933)

  137. #99 Montana’s lame-duck governor is a Democrat, so is hardly impartial.

    Whether he’s partial or not, is there something counterfactual in his observation that the Texas AG targeted his lawsuit according to election results and not election processes?

    Radegunda (20775b)

  138. I’m not sure why you construed that from what I wrote.

    You originally stated, “… is anyone allowed to object on the basis that those types of methods (whether successful or not) only seem to be employed against one particular political persuasion,” which in context certainly reads like an assertion that “those types of methods” are employed against one party. If that isn’t what you meant, I’m not quite sure what relevance this observation has within the context of your reply.

    You posited that I would be ok with an illegal investigation of Dominion if it yielded evidence of wrongdoing, as if that’s the basis on which I would evaluate it or any other illegal investigation.

    I do think that’s the case, yes. I fear your answer “But that’s a hypothetical!” in response to my statement, “Hey, here’s a hypothetical” isn’t as clever a response as you think.

    But anyway, that was more of an aside. I’m in agreement with Paul at #117.

    Setting aside the material fact that Dominion is not an opposition campaign,

    This makes no difference to what I’m asking. What I’m trying to figure out is whether you object to the method or what is uncovered. In one scenario involving Republicans being investigated, you seem to be quite concerned not with what those investigations might reveal, but how the investigation occurs.

    And surely you can see how I arrived at the conclusion that you seem to believe dirty methods are limited to one political side given that you explicitly frame this question in terms of “what party did what to whom?”

    JohnnyAgreeable (c49787)

  139. I don’t recall the details of Ryan’s plan, or whether it was in any way “reasonable” from a Democratic perspective.

    It basically tried to fix the way the subsidy cap was fixed despite, but premiums were not, leading to a 5-figure welfare trap around age 60. Among his reforms was to increase the cap with age.

    By stamping the program with the GOP signature, it would have cemented the ACA for all time. Maybe that was the problem; it might have reduced dependence on continued Democrat control.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  140. Whembly, at 128: I don’t see how any Congressman who signed on to this petition could in good faith *not* vote against recognition of the electors.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  141. But really, Congresspeople are expected to pay more attention to bills than college professors.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  142. “To my knowledge, not a single one of these frauds has issued a public statement stating that Trump lost a free and fair election

    EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!

    “I don’t think any of these people should ever hold elective office again”:

    That sounds like eliminationist rhetoric, not to mention cancel culture. Why can’t you respect the results of previous free and fair elections in a year where the legal, political, and financial obstacles to running one were greater than ever before? Are you some sort of king, whose words must be law?

    “Anyone who lends legitimacy to that pretext has, in my view, declared themselves to be an enemy of democracy, and should be written off for good.”

    More eliminationist rhetoric. Don’t you mean ‘written out?’ You seem like a rather unhinged and intolerant guy, my dude. Don’t be a conspiracy crank.

    “the proper way to think about it is to imagine that it did work.”

    What if the proper way to think about it was that the justification for it was true? Mind blown yet?

    “If it did succeed, it would be the end of the American experiment.”

    Wow, it’s been an ‘experiment’ and not a ‘country’ the entire time?

    “An illegitimate ruler would sit in power, with the only peaceful way to remove him — a free and fair election — having failed.”

    The Presidential term is limited to eight years, crazypants. We survived Obama, we will survive Donny.

    “The only option left would be force.

    That ought to frighten people.”

    Well, maybe people who can’t readily convince others to administer force on behalf of their ideas, but out country has used plenty of force in the past, and we’ll likely use plenty in the future. But this apocalyptic language is just so much overwrought rhetoric by bitter clingers to online conspiracies from within their filter bubble.

    Peaceful Transition (62e901)

  143. Whether he’s partial or not, is there something counterfactual in his observation that the Texas AG targeted his lawsuit according to election results and not election processes?

    I will not be defending this suit today, other to say that it raises issues that need explicit squashing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  144. Safe harbor. I think only Pennsylvania missed it and maybe not.

    nk (1d9030)

  145. A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.

    Can the Supremes issue an opinion on the merits without actually taking the case and hearing arguments?

    Accepting the case seems like a plunge even deeper into the abyss.

    Dave (1bb933)

  146. The Presidential term is limited to eight years, crazypants. We survived Obama, we will survive Donny.

    I think it’s four years, and “Donny” has had his four. He wanted more and the country demurred.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  147. > > “I don’t think any of these people should ever hold elective office again”:

    > That sounds like eliminationist rhetoric, not to mention cancel culture.

    These people have demonstrated a willingness to abandon democracy and to overturn the will of the voters as expressed via an election. Doing that *once* is a sign that they cannot be trusted with power — what possible reason do we have to trust that they won’t do it again if they have the power to do so?

    If we aren’t entitled to bar such cretins from public office, we have no protection against future attempts to dismantle the republic.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  148. > Can the Supremes issue an opinion on the merits without actually taking the case and hearing arguments?

    yes.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  149. Accepting the case seems like a plunge even deeper into the abyss.

    There is an argument that, having original jurisdiction, they must at least listen. Thomas and Alito have said so in dissent (at the link).

    It’s been a few days now and it has not been dismissed out of hand. I think they might agree they have to state an opinion, however obvious. As the ScotusBlog poster suggests, this requires a good solid hammering.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  150. This is clearly the most important supreme court decision since US v Nixon, and possibly since Dred Scott.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  151. Thanks aphrael.

    It’s been a few days now and it has not been dismissed out of hand.

    From CNN’s coverage, today was the first day a ruling might have been made.

    The 4 states whose voters Texas is trying to disenfranchise had the opportunity to respond, and then Texas had the opportunity to respond to their response. That final step only happened this morning.

    Dave (1bb933)

  152. BTW, the docket is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

    There are many many briefs in already. I expect that the Court will have a statement Monday.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  153. which in context certainly reads like an assertion that “those types of methods” are employed against one party.

    The list of opposition campaigns investigated and surveilled might be larger than I thought. What others?

    But, I understand now why you construed my response as you did. In any case, I don’t think shady doings are confined to one party. This particular shady doing was done by members of both parties (more in one than the other) directed against one campaign. If there’s an actual case of procuring evidence illegally by Trump against an opposition campaign, would be more than happy to discuss it.

    If you want it to be broadened to obtaining evidence illegally under any circumstances in whatever imagined scenario (and it sounds like you do), then my answer would be just as broad, meaning that in general the method matters as opposed to what is uncovered.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  154. This is clearly the most important supreme court decision since US v Nixon

    Maybe. INS v Chadha had more, and lasting, effect

    and possibly since Dred Scott

    Uh, no. There are several since that rate pretty highly. Cruikshank*, Plessy, Brown, Wickard, etc.

    ——-
    *in enabling Jim Crow, gutting the 14th Amendment and countenancing lynching, it may have been the worst since.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  155. Wow, just wowie, seems like aphreal needs to take a chill pill:

    “Tdemonstrated a willingness to abandon democracy and to overturn the will of the voters as expressed via an election.”

    So what was this year’s impeachment over allegations that GOSH DARN IT turned out to be true? 4-D deep cover 2016 election respecting?

    “what possible reason do we have to trust that they won’t do it again if they have the power to do so?”

    We’ve pretty firmly established that everyone will try, and a few may even succeed, but if you can accept the results of 1960, you can accept whatever candidate 2020 brings to you

    “If we aren’t entitled to bar such cretins from public office,”

    Where is the word ‘cretin’ in the Constitution or any legal document? That word sounds suspiciously like ‘kulak’, inside jargon among nefarious plotters for people who aren’t going along with The Plan.

    “we have no protection against future attempts to dismantle the republic.”

    You’ve got a Constitution, don’t you? Just build your own Republic! Duh! Geez! Not hard!

    Sister-biting Moose (8b819e)

  156. Even though it won’t make a difference in the result — Biden will still have a majority — expect the Grand Orange Pimps in Congress to challenge Wisconsin’s slate so that Biden will not have beaten Trump by the same margin that the orange beat Hillary.

    nk (1d9030)

  157. My favorite brief so far: Brief of state of New California and New Nevada state as amici curiae in support of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file bill of complaint

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163506/20201211114620451_Amicus%202020-12-11.pdf

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  158. @139

    Whembly, at 128: I don’t see how any Congressman who signed on to this petition could in good faith *not* vote against recognition of the electors.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 12/11/2020 @ 1:34 pm

    Why not? If the courts says its kosher…

    whembly (c30c83)

  159. It’s clear from some of the arguments here that part of the plan is to gaslight everyone about what the process IS and what the Constitution, statutes and precedent require. After that, Calvinball.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  160. Why not? If the courts says its kosher…

    God help us, not 5-4.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  161. I repeat that it is STILL not to late to impeach Trump.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  162. Whembly — because every state court to consider the factual claims in the Texas case, and every lower federal court which has considered the factual claims in the Texas case, have *already rejected them*.

    Anyone who signs on at this point is saying they believe the existing cases were wrongly decided. A Congressman with integrity who believes those cases to have been wrongly decided and who takes seriously their oath to defend and protect the Constitution is *obligated* to refuse to accept the electors regardless of what the Supreme Court does.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  163. Kevin M — i really don’t understand why so many people mispell Newsom’s name as Newsome. Particularly in the case of this brief, which correctly spelled Deukmejian.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  164. @141

    EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!

    No, no, sorry. The claim that they weren’t fair is the extraordinary claim. The ordinary one is that they were free and fair. Your null hypothesis (ordinary claim) is always that your proposed factor had no effect. And yet you seem to have believed the extraordinary claim despite the lack of evidence and holding that evidence is necessary in order to believe it. Interesting.

    That sounds like eliminationist rhetoric, not to mention cancel culture. Why can’t you respect the results of previous free and fair elections in a year where the legal, political, and financial obstacles to running one were greater than ever before? Are you some sort of king, whose words must be law?

    “People who I disagree with don’t belong in office.” OMG! Eliminationist rhetoric! No, wait, that’s the way democracy works. You vote for the people you agree with while maintaining the other guy shouldn’t get voted in.

    More eliminationist rhetoric. Don’t you mean ‘written out?’ You seem like a rather unhinged and intolerant guy, my dude. Don’t be a conspiracy crank.

    Trouble with colloquialisms? or deliberately misinterpreting what is said in order to build a straw man? Hmmmmmmm.

    What if the proper way to think about it was that the justification for it was true? Mind blown yet?

    I mean, you can imagine that the moon is made of green cheese and have your mind blown by the idea of space cheese, but the evidence isn’t there.

    Wow, it’s been an ‘experiment’ and not a ‘country’ the entire time?

    Does not recognize a reference to a famous quote about American Democracy? Hmmmmm.

    The Presidential term is limited to eight years, crazypants. We survived Obama, we will survive Donny.

    1. The problem wouldn’t be Donny himself (though he is a significant problem), the problem would be what overturning the election results through the courts would mean to democracy itself.

    2. The maximum term limit is 8 years, but an election is a term limit at the 4 yr point. Hmmmm.

    Well, maybe people who can’t readily convince others to administer force on behalf of their ideas, but out country has used plenty of force in the past, and we’ll likely use plenty in the future. But this apocalyptic language is just so much overwrought rhetoric by bitter clingers to online conspiracies from within their filter bubble.

    1. You again seem to be having difficulty understanding a common American idea. Hmmmm.

    2. Again, the non-conspiracy idea is that this election was free and fair. The conspiracy is the idea that thousands or millions of people conspired to interfere with the election and they all stayed quiet about it and there’s no evidence.

    You seem to have difficulty with Americaning. Are you sure you aren’t sitting in a cubicle farm in a non-American country?

    Nic (896fdf)

  165. Kevin M — consider the possibility that the Supreme Court endorses this nonsense. That would make it clearly the most important case since Dred Scott, IMO.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  166. @160

    Why not? If the courts says its kosher…

    God help us, not 5-4.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/11/2020 @ 2:04 pm

    If it wasn’t apparent, I was being snarky.

    The courts won’t entertain it, as technically it’s really Congress’ power. So, the Congress critter needs to sack up and do it themselves w/o any cover from the Judiciary.

    I don’t think they’re that brave.

    whembly (c30c83)

  167. Whew, wish everyone could take a few deep breaths, relax, and wait for the ongoing collective madness that has been 2020 to dissipate.

    I supported Trump for a number of policy reasons, and also, frankly, for “tribal” reasons because I felt like a number of forces in our society were vilifying people like me for being part of a tribe (white males) when my whole life I had never even thought in those terms. But if you call me a racist long enough simply for existing, after a while it will have an effect. Trump came across as someone who would fight back against that sort of attack, which appealed to the Us v. Them side of me. So even when my rational side was troubled by things Trump said or did, my irrational side would always look to excuse them.

    That said, while I wish the results had been different, it’s impossible to support the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court. It would be appalling if the suit were to succeed, absent hard evidence of the sort that has been constantly promised but never produced of actual fraud that changed the results. We’d be looking at the prospect of civil war. If the Supreme Court were to declare Trump the winner, and, say, to pick one leading institution, the Joint Chiefs then said, “we’re not going to recognize what the Supreme Court said,” then what? A lot of bad possible outcomes for the country come to mind. It might even be worse in that example if the Joint Chiefs were to endorse that Supreme Court ruling.

    And yet, why does everyone (almost) always seem to question the motives and integrity of the people they disagree with? Usually, unless you know someone personally, there’s scant reason for it. I disagreed with Patterico’s strident opposition to Trump, but have never questioned his motives or integrity, nor those of virtually all the anti-Trump commenters on this site. Similarly, why should anyone disparage the motives of the likes of Dan Crenshaw for supporting the Texas suit? Is there any evidence that he doesn’t truly believe the election was stolen by fraud and that the harm to the country if the results are upheld would be greater than the harm if the Supreme Court overturns the election? IMHO he would be very wrong in that belief, but as far as I know he’s sincere.

    My late father had a saying he would deliver, with a smile, when I disagreed with him: “you have the right to be wrong.” I wish we could all stop the constant pillorying of opponents as hypocritical, venal hacks, and accord everyone, even (fill in the blank) the right to be wrong.

    RL formerly in Glendale (fda61c)

  168. RL formerly in Glendale — sincerely held belief or not, these people have crossed an uncrossable line and have seriously damaged the country.

    Furthermore the situation is so bad that *if* the belief is sincerely held, the very fact that it’s a sincerely held belief is per se evidence of negligence in thinking about it.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  169. aphrael–

    It’s Newsome who spells it wrong!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  170. That would make it clearly the most important case since Dred Scott, IMO.

    Not to mention the last.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  171. Kevin M, at 171 — which is somewhat my point; this is the first case that i’m aware of where the outcome could potentially represent the end of the republic. Chaudha wouldn’t have. Bush v. Gore didn’t and wouldn’t have. Citizens United didn’t and wouldn’t have.

    This *could*.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  172. “No, no, sorry. The claim that they weren’t fair is the extraordinary claim.”

    Which fair elections in the past have involved barring observers from one party from effectively observing?

    “Your null hypothesis (ordinary claim) is always that your proposed factor had no effect.”

    Yes. I reject ‘all elections should be presumed free and fair by default’ as a silly and misinformed null hypothesis that allows for fantastic abuses. The sovereign is he who controls the null hypothesis, and allowing yours to reign as sovereign is about as destructive as saying ‘count every vote’ is a perfectly unproblematic slogan.

    “despite the lack of evidence”

    Nope, the evidence exists, even if lower courts refused to hear it.

    “the non-conspiracy idea is that this election was free and fair.”

    That might be a more believable assertion if the suspected parties didn’t act exactly like conspirators with something to hide when observers and auditors came knocking. No, the non-conspiracy, fact-based community idea is that all elections are suspect unless constant surveillance and auditing methods are applied. Florida can be null-hypothesized this way, for example, because Florida had years of motivated auditing by both parties. Pennsylvania? Wisconsin? Michigan? Georgia?

    Absolutely not! When the people in charge of elections have no backup for ‘it was free and fair’ outside of ‘trust me!’ then the null hypothesis must be shifted aggressively!

    Sister-biting Moose (496d9b)

  173. I’m going to take a contrarian view of the Texas suit: That it is an intentional regurgitation of all of Trump’s nonsense, sent to a place that can obliterate it once and for all. The folks behind it do not want to listen to this for fracking ever, and cannot kill it on their own. So they send it, wrapped to a nerf ball, to the Supreme Court.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  174. Even though it won’t make a difference in the result — Biden will still have a majority — expect the Grand Orange Pimps in Congress to challenge Wisconsin’s slate so that Biden will not have beaten Trump by the same margin that the orange beat Hillary.

    Even if both the Royalist Party senators from Georgia are re-elected, it’s hard to see how any electoral votes will be rejected.

    Romney and Murkowski are not going play along with Trump’s shenanigans, and I imagine at least one other (Collins? Sasse?) will refuse to sign on to a coup.

    Allahpundit makes the point that forcing the entire GOP House and Senate caucuses to vote on extinguishing American democracy may backfire.

    Dave (1bb933)

  175. Chadha wouldn’t have

    The effect of Chadha — transferring significant legislative authority to the great regulatory agencies by removing the checks written into the laws that created them — significantly altered the ability of the legislature to control what was Law.

    Before Chadha, Congress could nullify a regulation by a majority vote in either house (representing the normal legislative power to block a new law). Afterwards they had to pass a law to repeal a law they never made and get the Executive to sign off.

    This has diminished Congress considerably, to the point where several recent Presidents have governed without them.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  176. Sure. I’m not denying that Chadha wasn’t important and didn’t enact a structural change — it was, and it did.

    I’m arguing that neither outcome of that case had the destructive potential that *both* outcomes of this case do.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  177. Romney and Murkowski are not going play along with Trump’s shenanigans, and I imagine at least one other (Collins? Sasse?) will refuse to sign on to a coup.

    I would be surprised if a majority of Senate Republicans signed on. I’d be sad, too, if they did. It would mean that we had no party which gave a damn about principle or the Constitution.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  178. You seem to have difficulty with Americaning. Are you sure you aren’t sitting in a cubicle farm in a non-American country?

    Canada, but he seems to have his own office, or maybe it’s a bookstore, in one photo he put on the internet when he was still operating under his real name. He is a neo-Nazi, in the Spencer/Molyneux stamp, long known on this site and other sites that commenters here also frequent.

    nk (1d9030)

  179. “Nope, the evidence exists, even if lower courts refused to hear it.”

    No it doesn’t.

    Davethulhu (431e91)

  180. Dave — part of the problem is that the lies have generated so much noise that more than half of the republicans think the democrats have stolen the election and the republican legislators are just defending democracy, while more than half of the democrats think the republicans are trying to steal the election.

    our inability to communicate with each other and establish common facts means each side thinks its side is the only side to care about democracy.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  181. Should the SC agree to hear this, I hope that PA is represented by Ted Olson. Because I enjoy irony.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  182. The fact that it’s uncertain whether a naked attempt to corruptly erase the votes of tens of millions of Americans, and steal an election won by a historic blowout landslide, will entail any political costs shows just how much damage Trump and his cult have done to our country and its institutions.

    Dave (1bb933)

  183. our inability to communicate with each other and establish common facts means each side thinks its side is the only side to care about democracy.

    As I said earlier, the system is broken. Particularly the two-party system which has become about power and power alone.

    Today, if Florida was invaded by Cuba, all the two parties would discuss is how it would effect the next election.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  184. shows just how much damage Trump and his cult have done to our country and its institutions.

    A process that started much earlier, as institutions became no more than levers in the power game.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  185. Aphrael, #168.

    I agree with you on this point. Really, the best thing that Texas and the other states could do now would be to withdraw the lawsuit for the good of the country.

    But, the people on the other side who believe the election was stolen could, and many already have, try to turn the argument around and say it’s the Democrats, or the media, or the other usual suspects, who have crossed the line and damaged the country. It would be jarring and unfair for anyone to make that charge against you, but they likely feel the same about having it made against them.

    All I’m really trying to say is it would be good if we could tone everything down a bit. Would like to believe that rational arguments, like yours, are the cure for negligent thinking, like mine all too often. I might disagree with you on other points, but am willing to be shown the error of my ways.

    RL formerly in Glendale (fda61c)

  186. @127-

    You mean one House GOP and one Senate GOP rejecting the state slate of electors?

    Yeah, I don’t see that happening at all.

    That’s not how is works. If a Senator and a House member object to the EC votes by a statue, then the Senate and House retire to their own chambers and vote.

    Members of Congress can object to any state’s vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. An objection supported by at least one senator and one representative will be followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each House of Congress; after both Houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed.

    A state’s certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection, meaning the votes from the State in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.

    With a Republican Senator and a Democratic House, it ain’t gonna happen.

    Source

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  187. A process that started much earlier, as institutions became no more than levers in the power game.

    Yes, since the Jackson administration, I suppose.

    But the present situation would have been unimaginable before Trump crawled out of his sewer.

    Dave (1bb933)

  188. Murdock — imagine that the Senate votes to reject the electors while the House votes to accept them, which is sadly not unthinkable at this point.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  189. it would be good if we could tone everything down a bit.

    Would you agree that much of the “tone” problem in politics today starts with the president, and his habit of flinging hyperbolic accusations at anyone who crosses him in any way, and painting opposition to himself as form of treason?

    Radegunda (20775b)

  190. The vote is on the question of whether to accept the challenge. Unless both houses agree to accept the challenge, it fails.

    Dave (1bb933)

  191. Dave — legally and procedurally you’re right. but this isn’t primarily a legal or procedural question.

    what happens when 40% of the country thinks Biden was wrongly seated as a result of Democratic corruption, and what happens when that 40% retakes control of the government?

    play out the *next* step, not just the first one.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  192. Murdock — imagine that the Senate votes to reject the electors while the House votes to accept them, which is sadly not unthinkable at this point.

    Then they’re accepted.

    nk (1d9030)

  193. @186 Thanks Rip, I oversimplied it a bit. What I mean, is that they’d have to go on Congressional record for that. Which I don’t see happening, and you’re right if the did… in that the Democrat controlled House would put a stop to that.

    whembly (c30c83)

  194. what happens when 40% of the country thinks Biden was wrongly seated as a result of Democratic corruption, and what happens when that 40% retakes control of the government?

    I agree aphrael, but that seems inevitable.

    Based on what’s happening right now, we have to assume that the next election won by the Trump Party will be the last election.

    Once Trump is gone and somebody unscrupulous AND intelligent (a Putin type, like Cotton, for instance) takes over, I think we’re screwed.

    Dave (1bb933)

  195. Moreover, unless the Supreme Courty McCourtface grants Paxton the relief he requests, only Wisconsin’s slate could conceivably be challenged since it was the only State not to certify its Electors by December 8, the Safe Harbor date.

    nk (1d9030)

  196. The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

    Davethulhu (431e91)

  197. So much winning!

    Dave (1bb933)

  198. Order just released.

    The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

    Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  199. I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like Alito and Thomas would have dismissed it with a reason other than standing?

    Davethulhu (431e91)

  200. re: toning it down:
    Joseph diGenova said on Newsmax TV that Chris Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and “taken out at dawn and shot,” because he said the election had been secure (for which sin Krebs was fired by Trump). After diGenova’s threat, “an angry mob immediately bombarded” Krebs “with a barrage of death threats and harassment, which continue to this day.”

    Miles Taylor has had to change locations multiple times because of Trumper death threats against him. A list of GOP election officials is being sent around as targets for assassination because they have refused to abet Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. Etc.

    All things considered, this site is not where the tone problem is found.

    As for motives, way back in the primaries I was often accused of being un-patriotic because I criticized Trump.

    Since then I’ve seen various reports that members of Congress who kowtow to Trump in public say quite different things in private. Recent leaks from inside say that GOP officials all know that Trump lost but they’re terrified of him. So I do question their motives for playing along with him.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  201. Davethulhu — Thomas and Alito are saying (a) they believe the court is constitutionally required to take the case whenever a state tries to sue another state and (b) they would not grant the preliminary injunction Texas is requesting (implying that they think the court should take the case and decide against Texas)

    this is effectively a 7-2 loss for Texas on procedure and a 9-0 loss on the merits.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  202. Thanks aphrael.

    Davethulhu (431e91)

  203. …an election won by a historic blowout landslide…

    ROFLMAOPIP

    https://thelistwire.usatoday.com/lists/the-10-biggest-landslides-in-presidential-election-history/

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  204. So what’s the Orange’s next move?

    Other than asking his cultists to prove their loyalty with another tithe, of course.

    In his recent tweets he has started dropping dark hints about danger if he doesn’t get his way.

    Dave (1bb933)

  205. @199. Interesting Trump appointees apparently refused to publicly dissent.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  206. Once Trump is gone and somebody unscrupulous AND intelligent (a Putin type, like Cotton, for instance) takes over, I think we’re screwed.

    Cotton? Try President For Life Kamala Harris. If not, why not?

    nk (1d9030)

  207. yeah, if we had been able to get a blowout landslide, this wouldn’t be happening.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  208. 205.So what’s the Orange’s next move?

    Rent more space in your head; win Georgia; serve up smoked Hunter Ham and Eggs for Fox & Friends every breakfast; Hunter Ham sandwiches for lunch w/The Five and Hunter Ham Hash for din-din w/Big Mick Hannity.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  209. The way I read it was that Alito and Thomas would have allowed the case to be filed, for Constitutional reasons, but emphasized they would grant no other relief.
    This is a categoric loss for Trump and Paxton and all the other Enemies of Democracy, as expected.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  210. Good for SCOTUS.

    Then, monday the electors vote.

    Also, there were news reports that the WH counsel is telling the administration to prioritize the transition.

    whembly (c30c83)

  211. Sidney Powell’s sooper-seekret “Military Intelligence specialist” (code name: Spyder!) was actually an Army truck mechanic who washed out of an entry-level Military Intelligence course after seven months. Fifteen years ago.

    Dave (1bb933)

  212. Paul, at 212 — that’s also how I read it. They’re going out of their way to signal that they think the case has no merit and they’re only saying the court should take it for structural procedural reasons.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  213. @178 and @172 Ah, thank you, a bug waiting for a mod to squash, then. I will be patient and wait for squashage in that case.

    Nic (896fdf)

  214. Yeah, to say it another way: Original jurisdiction means sitting as a trial court. Generally, you don’t need permission to file a lawsuit in a trial court. You just file it. Then the court can still dismiss it. For lack of standing or other reason.

    It’s the other way for appellate jurisdiction. Except for (mostly criminal) appeals as a matter of right, you generally need to petition for leave to appeal or for a grant of certiorari.

    Thomas and Alito are just being old-fashioned that way.

    nk (1d9030)

  215. When the EC votes are counted, the House Republicans who backed the lawsuit will object but there will be this sound from Senators. The same thing happened when VP Gore performed the same ceremony.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  216. Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) has sent a letter to Pelosi and the Dem House leadership pointing out that the 14th Amendment bars all 128 GOP seditionists from service in Congress:

    The courageous Reconstruction Congress implanted into our governing documents safeguards to cleanse from our government ranks any traitors and others who would seek to destroy the Union. To that end, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates that:

    Section 3.
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof…

    […]

    Consequently, I call on you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these constitutional violations this Congress and, if possible, refuse to seat in 117th Congress any members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.

    Dave (1bb933)

  217. The Chairman of the Texas GOP calls for secession:

    “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

    How’d that work out for y’all last time, pardner?

    Dave (1bb933)

  218. chairman of TX republican party now openly calling for secession. https://twitter.com/ltwombly93/status/1337554758555607043/photo/1

    aphrael (4c4719)

  219. That being Allen West, by the way – a man I once admired.

    Dave (1bb933)

  220. I have that feeling a lot now, aphrael.

    DRJ (aede82)

  221. The TX GOP and Allen West just soiled themselves, intellectually and morally.

    “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  222. Note to self: Read comments upthread quicker.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  223. My comment 222 should be addressed to Dave, not aphrael.

    DRJ (aede82)

  224. Alito and Thomas have made the same statement on other cases in year’s past when the Court did not accept an original jurisdiction case. Read absolutely nothing into it except a consistent stance on procedure.

    I wish they had taken it because I would really like to have seen Thomas write a no-holds-barred rebuke to these folks.

    In any event, anyone who calls this 7-2, or says that Thomas or Alito was with them is either lying or stupid, probably both.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  225. chairman of TX republican party now openly calling for secession

    I think the statute of limitations on sedition is more than 40 days.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  226. @218: I think this has to be an actual act, not a metaphorical one. Something like supporting secession, or assisting armed resistance to lawful authority.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  227. votes from the State in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.

    Not counted. Not replaced by the other guy’s slate however. Get rid of enough of Biden’s votes and it becomes a contingent election. But you cannot get Trump any extra votes this way.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  228. For fun, or indigestion, go look at the comments on Instapundit. Only a thousand or two, all predictable. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/419713/#respond

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  229. On a “deplorable” message board that I visit (for entertainment purposes only), which is full of slavish Trump supporters (it’s practically a requirement to join), believing every conspiracy theory he tweets about, the talk is of the Insurrection Act, martial law, succession, and giving up on voting (I endorse that last idea).

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  230. I hate to say this, I really do, but if Texas decided to secede I don’t foresee many, if any, of the other States trying very hard to prevent it, and definitely not by force. (Ducks)

    nk (1d9030)

  231. Isn’t it kind of overdue, anyway? It’s been 155 years since it last changed its (sixth) flag, when before it seemed like it was getting a new one every five or ten years. (Runs)

    nk (1d9030)

  232. I just learned that TX can subdivide into five states but cannot secede, per TX v. White and how they were readmitted to the Union, but I defer to the TX experts here to tell my wrong.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  233. 232 / 233, i wouldn’t take that threat lightly, too much Tech is headed there in recent days, particular of useful things and not of social fluff.

    urbanleftbehind (3def45)

  234. Meanwhile, two House races continue: IA 2nd, where the Republican leads by 6 votes with all the votes in, and NY-22 where the Republican leads by 12 votes, but it now sits in the courts as numerous screw-ups and misplaced, military. provisional, etc, ballots are adjudicated for provenance.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  235. I just learned that TX can subdivide into five states but cannot secede, per TX v. White and how they were readmitted to the Union, but I defer to the TX experts here to tell my wrong.

    South Texas plus 4 red states.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  236. Until 3 of 4, presumably anchored by Houston, DFW and Austin, go the way of Georgia and Arizona.

    urbanleftbehind (2641dd)

  237. Erick Erickson has been losing patience with Trump devotees, and for good reason.

    A fish has no idea it is wet. A sentient fish would have no idea it is wet. From conception, a fish is surrounded by water. It has no concept of wet.

    I have lost my patience and been fairly irascible of late with people who I have realized do not know they are wet. When all you consume is the media that tells you what you want to hear and all your friends believe the same thing you believe, what is true does not matter. What you believe is true is all that matters.

    The other night, an acquaintance was bothered that I was not bothered about Dominion Voting Systems operating its election servers in Germany. I told him they don’t. But he fully believed and was convinced they did have servers there because the President’s lawyers had said so and it had been echoed across conservative media.

    It just isn’t true and he really had no idea.

    Many friends of mine have been outraged about my views on this election, the lack of good evidence of theft, etc. They cannot understand how a guy who stayed in his basement and generated no crowds could have gotten over 81 million votes for the presidency. What they don’t understand is how many Americans were exhausted by or simply did not like Donald Trump.

    It is easier for them to believe the election was stolen than that Biden really won because all the media they consume and their circle of friends believe the same thing.

    And now the Texas lawsuit has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The President’s own three appointees to the Supreme Court rejected the suit. Even Justices Alito and Thomas were cold to it and only thought the Supreme Court was obligated to hear a case of original jurisdiction. But even they wanted to decline to give Texas any of the remedies Texas sought.

    Nine Justices rejected the remedies Texas sought and a bunch of conservative congressmen, attorneys general, and talking heads assured conservatives the case had merit and the Supreme Court would take it.

    It never had merit. It was obvious the Court would reject it. However, a bunch of conservative media chose to give it legitimacy.

    I am truly disappointed with my own side for the hucksterism, lies, and denial of reality. Too many friends have no knowledge they are wet. They cannot appreciate the real world around them and live now in a fantasy land of grievance, theft of elections, and mythology. Principles have been abandoned and all that remains is coveting power and keeping power.

    Erickson endorsed and voted for Trump.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  238. it was funny a few years ago when conservatives were pushing to split up california and if you looked at election results their proposed split would have created two deep blue states and one purple-blue state.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  239. Trump Pursues Appointing Special Counsel to Probe Election, Hunter Biden
    ……..
    White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has told people that the president is interested in pursuing a special counsel to investigate election fraud and wants to act quickly, one of the people said.

    Senior White House officials have also discussed the possibility of pursuing a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, expressing frustration over Attorney General William Barr’s handling of investigations into Mr. Biden’s business and financial dealings and concern that the incoming administration of Joe Biden could seek to shut down any probes into Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, an administration official said.
    ………
    Under Justice Department regulations, the appointment of a special counsel would have to be made by the attorney general. A special counsel is appointed to pursue investigations with a level of independence not subject to day-to-day supervision by agency officials and is only removed by the attorney general for misconduct or a conflict of interest.

    Associates of Mr. Barr said he is unlikely to name anyone to such a post, particularly after he appointed another prosecutor in October as special counsel to continue his examination of the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2016 Russia investigation. He disclosed that appointment earlier this month, saying he had kept it quiet for more than a month to avoid influencing the November election.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  240. @242-
    There’s nothing like a sore loser.

    Rip Murdock (5b4ca4)

  241. A fish has no idea it is wet.

    In this case they have no idea that they are swimming in sh1t.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  242. I repeat: it is not too late to impeach Trump. Charge: seditious conspiracy.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  243. What Trump has done since the election is worse than the sum total of everything he did before the election.

    norcal (670733)

  244. Have we ever had a special counsel investigate a private citizen? Hunter Biden isn’t currently involved in government and seems unlikely to be involved in government.

    Nic (896fdf)

  245. Indeed. He is covering himself in shame, ending careers, destroying trust, and basically playing Sampson-in-the-temple with the country.

    Even if they DID cheat, you don’t do this.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  246. Nic, if they can, I have some neighbors who need a special counsel up their arse.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  247. If I were working now in the Trump WH, I’d be wracking my brain how I could get fired by Trump, so I could at lest have that going for me.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  248. If I were working now in the Trump WH, I’d be wracking my brain how I could get fired by Trump, so I could at lest have that going for me.

    I’m sure you’ll think of something.

    Dave (1bb933)

  249. Don’t make me spill the beans, Dave.

    nk (1d9030)

  250. Patterico nails it. As does Allahpundit.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  251. Disclaimer: My link @252 (it might be 251 to you) should in no way be construed as a suggestion that our commenter Dave is either John S. Bell or Martinus J. G. Veltman.

    nk (1d9030)

  252. Heh.

    The guy in the chair with the cigar is Martinus (“Tini”) Veltman, one of the pioneers of quantum field theory, for which he and his student (possibly the younger guy in the photo, but not sure) won the Nobel Prize in 1999.

    About ten years after that photo was taken, he was recruited to Michigan, and I took a course in Group Theory from him in grad school.

    You would have gotten along great with him nk, he had a wicked, iconoclastic sense of humor, and zero tolerance for bullsh*t.

    Despite being a big shot, when we occasionally crossed paths later in my career, he was always very friendly and happy to chat.

    The equations on the blackboard are the relativistic field theory of electromagnetism, by the way…

    Dave (1bb933)

  253. Ah, ok, the other guy is Bell – another very famous guy, but one I never met.

    Dave (1bb933)

  254. As I recall, Veltman’s first words to me (remember, in a graduate physics course) were to ask if I played on Michigan’s football team (“Are you footballer?” in his very heavy Dutch accent…)

    He was a real character.

    Dave (1bb933)

  255. This is not your beautiful house.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  256. I can’t seem to face up to the facts
    I’m tense and nervous and I can’t relax
    I can’t sleep – bed’s on fire
    Don’t touch me, I’m a real live wire

    Psycho killer!
    Qu’est-ce que c’est?

    Dave (1bb933)

  257. I also agree with Allahpundit at lurker’s link that supporting this lawsuit is immoral:

    The members of Congress who endorsed Texas’s suit are morally unfit to hold office in the United States but moral disqualification and legal disqualification are two different things. Filing a lawsuit, however contemptible, isn’t “insurrection.”

    He followed with this, with which I also agree:

    Although I do think Pascrell would have been on stronger footing if he had focused specifically on GOP reps from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia who signed on to Texas’s complaint. If those representatives have no faith in the integrity of the ballots in their home states because Biden won, there’s no reason why Congress should have faith in the integrity of each of those representatives’ victories. Voters vote for president and for the House on the same ballot, after all. If these people believe that the electoral process in their home states was unconstitutional, they have no grounds to object if the House decides that their own victories can’t properly be recognized.

    So why seat them?

    Texas has problems, too, as evidenced by the opportunistic Paxton and the Trump populists who want to take over the Texas GOP. I doubt the secession talk will go anywhere but the next two years will be a political battle.

    DRJ (aede82)

  258. With Trump, we have forgotten why morality matters. Law is the outer limit that governs our behavior. Morality is what makes us human.

    DRJ (aede82)

  259. This is probably old news by now and most likely linked above, but Allahpundit has a lot of updates.

    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/12/11/breaking-scotus-tosses-texas-suit/

    Anyway, to clarify the issue of Texas seceding. Texas doesn’t have to secede. It is the only state that did not apply to Congress for statehood; it was an Independent Republic that agreed to join the United States in the Annexation Treaty of 1845.

    Look, the 13 original United States were former British colonies, right? After the Declaration of Independence, the Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and finally the ratification of the Constitution (which constructs the democratic republic of separate and equal powers, with checks and balances), and the Bill of Rights (which protects the people in their rights: freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and property, freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and so on), the United States became a nation.

    At first, it was limited to the east coast. But as immigration increased and men and women migrated westward, forming towns, farms and ranches, territories, each territory had to apply to Congress for statehood. Once granted, secession was not an option. That was one (one) of the reasons for the Civil War–after a territory applies to Congress for and is granted statehood, it cannot leave the Union.

    That is not the story for Texas. There is a big difference between British colonialization and Spanish conquest. Spain set up a three-tiered society, centrally in Mexico. The conquistadors who sent gold and jewels back to Spain, were given land grants and became ladinos. The soldiers who didn’t send gold and jewels back to Spain, but instead remained behind and inter-married with the locals, became mestizos. The locals, or indigenous tribes, became pueblos.

    Do you know how much of Mexico the ladinos own to this day? 40 families, and they’re pure Spanish. They imported their wives from Spain! The mestizos didn’t, nor did the pueblos. Thus, they are second and third class citizens.

    The ladinos got land grands for large swaths of the southwest. Texas (or Tejas) was a state in Mexico at the time. Do you have any idea what started the Texas Revolution? The ladinos in Mexico were not developing roads and schools, hospitals; in other words they were not developing the land, building towns, as I suspect that’s what they were doing elsewhere.

    So the Texans (Anglos) and the Texians (Latinos) revolted, and we won. The Mexican ladinos who supported Santa Ana, lost their land grants. The Texian ladinos who supported Houston, kept theirs.

    And that’s the end of the story. Texas has always been an Anglo-Latino community. We get along just fine together. There is no animosity between us. We both want what we both want: to get married, buy a house, raise a family, send our children to school. Who doesn’t want that?

    It is not a sentiment unique to Anglos. It is, however, the racist sentiment that is destructive to America.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  260. Texas can reform the Independent Republic at any time. It’s in the Annexation Treaty agreed to and signed by Congress.

    I’m not advocating for secession, but Texas has the absolute right to reform the Independent Republic, at any time. It’s in the Annexation Treaty. No other state has that right.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  261. It is the only state that did not apply to Congress for statehood; it was an Independent Republic that agreed to join the United States in the Annexation Treaty of 1845.

    You’ve said this on a number of occasions, but as I’ve pointed out before, it’s incorrect. There was no “Annexation Treaty of 1845.”

    The timeline was:

    March 1845: Congress passes a joint resolution (not a Treaty) offering to admit Texas as a state under specified conditions, including acceptance of the joint resolution and ratification of a state constitution. This joint resolution included the possibility of creating up to four additional states from the territory of the Republic of Texas. These states would “be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution,” meaning Congress would have to approve and no special privileges are being granted.

    July 1845: A Texas convention drafts the constitution, and an annexation ordinance accepting the terms of the joint resolution.

    October 1845: Texas voters overwhelmingly approve the constitution and annexation ordinance.

    December 1845: Congress, noting that the terms offered by the joint resolution in March have been accepted, and the conditions satisfied, passes a second joint resolution admitting Texas as a state.

    The joint resolution admitting Texas says, in part:

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Texas shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.

    Note: “An equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever”.

    Both pieces of US legislation are joint resolutions passed by the House and Senate. A treaty would be submitted by the president to the Senate (only) for approval. But there was no treaty.

    Dave (1bb933)

  262. Texas can reform the Independent Republic at any time. It’s in the Annexation Treaty agreed to and signed by Congress.

    This is incorrect.

    You can read the relevant documents in the links I provided.

    There was no Annexation Treaty, and no language in the two Joint Resolutions, or the Texas Ordinance of Annexation (which does little more than repeat the first Joint Resolution verbatim and say “we agree”), that even remotely resembles what you describe.

    Dave (1bb933)

  263. Not seating Congressmen for what they say within the accepted limits of free speech would not only be a blunder, but it would make any actions of the House illegitimate until those seats were refilled.

    Haven’t we learned anything from the Reid filibusters? Abusing the rules for short-term partisan gain is destabilizing for the institution and prompts a cycle of retaliation. Not that it would take that long — secession would be the response in a number of states where people already think the 2020 election was stolen.

    Besides, they cannot do it:

    In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker of the House could not exclude a duly-elected candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the House’s Constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its own members was post facto and could only be exercised via expulsion after a 2/3rd affirmative vote.

    In other words, the House and Senate have no discretion when deciding whether to seat a candidate who has been duly elected under state law, but may take steps to expel that member after they have been sworn-in.

    The Court decided that the constitutional rights of the voters and the states takes precedence over the rights of Congress until the candidate is sworn-in as a member. Although this case involved the House of Representatives, there is no indication the Court would view a candidate duly elected to the Senate any differently.

    https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2017/12/when-can-congress-refuse-to-seat-a-dulyelected-can

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  264. What does the history of Texas’ first admission matter? They seceded and they were readmitted later under different terms. I guess they could call that readmission void due to the duress of armed occupation, but I doubt that the readmission terms contained any further secession options.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  265. The Texas state government “Narrative History of Texas Annexation” begins with the following statement:

    Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the first election following independence in 1836. However, throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States was ratified by both nations.

    (emphasis added)

    Dave (1bb933)

  266. OTOH, I believe that Alan West may be guilty of sedition for calling for secession.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  267. Yup. That myth of a Confederation of the United States of America and the Republic of Texas, is a tall tale. Texas v. White (1869) put the seal on it, for people who prefer Supreme Court opinions. Texas is a State, like any other State, and it is impossible for it to secede no matter what.

    As for it being made into five States, any State can be made into five States with its consent and an Act of Congress. Rhode Island can be made into five States.

    nk (1d9030)

  268. What does the history of Texas’ first admission matter? They seceded and they were readmitted later under different terms.

    Nope. We cross-posted. Read Texas v. White. Texas never seceded, it just behave badly for a bit, and given a spanking and a time out, but it always remained part of the family.

    nk (1d9030)

  269. They seceded and they were readmitted later under different terms.

    This is also incorrect. Neither Texas, nor any other state, ever left the Union.

    For a period of time, legitimate state governments ceased to operate, and the rebellious states forfeited their representation in congress.

    After lawful governments were reconstructed, the states’ *representatives* were re-admitted to congress.

    But no *state* was ever re-admitted, because no state ever actually seceded.

    Dave (1bb933)

  270. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for providing additional context!

    Dave (1bb933)

  271. Rip Murdock, at 242: while I have no respect for Trump’s *motives* here and think that on some level it’s nothing more than resentful payback, fundamentally I have no problem with appointing a special counsel here. It’s an appropriate use of the office, and an honest special counsel investigation into the election might cool temperatures (in the best case) and is unlikely to make the situation worse (in the worst case). Plus, if evidence of malfeasance is found, it gives us the opportunity to correct it before the next election.

    Kevin M, at 266: while i agree that abusing the rules for short-term partisan gain is destabilizing and prompts a cycle of retaliation, allowing this assault on democracy to go unpunished will simply invite it to continue in future elections. There must be *some* mechanism for redress to drive home the point that this behavior was intolerable. Got any other ideas for how we can do that?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  272. Rebellion ceased in 1865, and military government was in place for several years. In nearly all accounts I read, the 1870 admission of TX is called “readmission” and required a new constitution and a vote of Congress. The status of Texas beforehand seems immaterial, and the idea that US states may secede under any circumstances has only been tested once, and failed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  273. There must be *some* mechanism for redress to drive home the point that this behavior was intolerable. Got any other ideas for how we can do that?

    Certainly: the ballot box.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  274. The only mechanism we have for addressing non-criminal behavior in politics is the vote of the people. We do not have (and do not want) the kind of oversight of politics that some countries have, such as Iran.

    As far as Congress is concerned they cannot refuse to seat any member (although they can choose which member to seat if there is a close election, as may be the case in NY-22). Once seated though, a member may be expelled by a 2/3rds vote; something that isn’t likely here.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  275. aphrael,

    If you accept these Republicans at their word, they genuinely believe that numerous fraudulent votes were accepted, and that the election’s outcome was ALREADY overturned as a result. They think they are trying to RESTORE the voters’ choice and that those in power, who corrupted the vote, are the ones beyond the pale.

    I don’t agree with that, but I cannot for a fact say they are wrong (I think it unlikely), and I certainly cannot say they don’t believe it. They have no proof, of course, but that does not mean they must be wrong.

    As such, I cannot fault them for their beliefs any more than I can call for the expulsion of crazy deranged and/or stupid people who think that socialism will work if it’s is really tried (which, btw, attacks other principles the nation holds).

    So. They lose. If their voters are upset they will make that clear soon enough. And much of that will depend on what Biden does, as voter’s opinions are fickle.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  276. In Iowa’s 2nd CD, Rita Hart (D) finished several hundred votes behind Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) after the first canvass. A subsequent recount and other adjustments left Miller-Meeks (R) 6 votes ahead. This victory was certified by the bipartisan IA Board of Canvas.

    Hart is now asking Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority in the House to overturn the certified vote count and seat her instead.

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2020/12/12/iowa-2nd-congressional-district-election-rita-hart-challenge-error-editorial/3875981001/

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  277. One Texas House member explains his support for the lawsuit:

    “The Constitution has always been the cornerstone of our great republic. Article II undeniably gives state legislatures the sole authority to establish election laws, and that principle must never be compromised. While there are other complaints being considered by the courts, that was the focus of our concern in the amicus brief that I co-signed.

    “Regardless of the outcome of this election, we must go to whatever lengths to ensure we uphold and protect the Constitution, rule of law, and the integrity of our electoral process. If we ever fail to do so, it will be the demise of our great country.

    DRJ (aede82)

  278. Some internet conservatives (like this) seem to have decided there must have been fraud because how else do you explain a “sad shell of a man who at his best was a low-grade hack ” like Biden winning? The answer is that Trump is worse. Binary choice.

    DRJ (aede82)

  279. 257. Dave (1bb933) — 12/12/2020 @ 7:58 am

    As I recall, Veltman’s first words to me (remember, in a graduate physics course) were to ask if I played on Michigan’s football team (“Are you footballer?” in his very heavy Dutch accent…)

    Niels Bohr was a famous football (soccer) player.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  280. 218,

    When the EC votes are counted, the House Republicans who backed the lawsuit will object but there will be this sound from Senators.

    When the House Republican object to the Elctoral vote (and argue that that vote should be taken by states, and that a majority of the Electoral votes cast and not of 538 should be all that is needed to elect a president)

    the following sound track should be more appropriate

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsFGcPujqKE (it’s only 3 minutes long here)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gAJE6HFQo0 Start at 3:50 or 4:23

    (in both cases skip the commercial and in the second go to a point a bit into the music)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fboul05pdu0 Start at 1:23

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  281. 279. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/12/2020 @ 1:18 pm

    In Iowa’s 2nd CD, Rita Hart (D) finished several hundred votes behind Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) after the first canvass. A subsequent recount and other adjustments left Miller-Meeks (R) 6 votes ahead. This victory was certified by the bipartisan IA Board of Canvas.

    Hart is now asking Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority in the House to overturn the certified vote count and seat her instead.

    It’s unfair to hold different elections at the same time. It could expose people as hypocrites.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  282. I don’t feel sorry for anything that happens to a Republican this season, Sammy. Politically, to be clear. No slice of the power pie for them, they don’t deserve it, and they cannot be trusted with it.

    As far as this particular race is concerned, one less vote in the House to swing the election to Trump on January 6 is a good thing. Flip that seat, Madam Speaker!

    nk (1d9030)

  283. Now we have a precedent that states don’t have standing to question how other states run things.

    DRJ (aede82)

  284. That is good, right?

    DRJ (aede82)

  285. How to run their elections. In court. It’s come up before in the context of Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1,

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

    and the Court said that was a political question too.

    nk (1d9030)

  286. But that would be an action by the federal government against a State, right? The only State vs State claims that would have standing would be border disputes, water claims, and the like.

    DRJ (aede82)

  287. I don’t feel sorry for anything that happens to a Republican this season, Sammy. Politically, to be clear. No slice of the power pie for them, they don’t deserve it, and they cannot be trusted with it.

    As far as this particular race is concerned, one less vote in the House to swing the election to Trump on January 6 is a good thing. Flip that seat, Madam Speaker!

    nk (1d9030) — 12/12/2020 @ 6:18 pm

    So now you fully support leftism and all that entails? Must feel good to live in Chicago then.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  288. The only State vs State claims that would have standing would be border disputes, water claims, and the like.

    That we know of for sure. A quick Google showed a lot of those. And when a couple of adjacent states sued Colorado for legalizing marijuana, they got the same short shrift that Paxton got now. Who knows? Maybe Massachusetts with its tough gun laws will succeed in a suit against Vermont for having none?

    nk (1d9030)

  289. I doubt it, unless Roberts has another liberal moment. Otherwise, this is a good precedent to me.

    DRJ (aede82)

  290. As far as this particular race is concerned, one less vote in the House to swing the election to Trump on January 6 is a good thing. Flip that seat, Madam Speaker!

    So, to lessen the danger of a Congressional overturn of the presidential election, you countenance a Congressional overturn of a different federal election. Nice to know that your principles are so conditional.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  291. How to run their elections.

    Except for gerrymanders, racial disparity, size of electoral districts, additional qualifications imposed and a few other things, that is.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  292. Now we have a precedent that states don’t have standing to question how other states run things.

    Which is pretty implicit here, given the Electoral College and the reasons for it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  293. But yes, state vs state is pretty limited. And wrt the Electoral College it’s hard to imagine a claim that would fly. TRUMP might have a claim against a state’s vote-counting, but I think he has to sue in that state’s courts.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  294. Still, I wish the SC had taken the case so they could ram it down their throats. As it is, there are all kinds of inane rationales about how the Court wasn’t clear.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  295. So, to lessen the danger of a Congressional overturn of the presidential election, you countenance a Congressional overturn of a different federal election. Nice to know that your principles are so conditional.

    Necessity knows no principle. Trump needs to go.

    nk (1d9030)

  296. Absent some legitimate reason to set aside the certified result, I can’t agree with overturning a Congressional election any more than I can a presidential election.

    It is not just Trump and his gerbils that need to go, but also their corrupt and un-American way of doing things.

    Dave (1bb933)

  297. Vae victis, Mr. Dave.

    nk (1d9030)

  298. OTOH, I believe that Alan West may be guilty of sedition for calling for secession.
    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/12/2020 @ 11:26 am

    Doubt it. I’m unfamiliar with the case law, but the text of the statute requires use or advocacy of force or violence.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  299. Advocating secession is synonymous with advocating violence.

    Dave (1bb933)

  300. Doubt it. I’m unfamiliar with the case law, but the text of the statute requires use or advocacy of force or violence.

    I’d have to look at the post-Civil War treason cases. Sedition is essentially advocating treason.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  301. Absent some legitimate reason to set aside the certified result

    NY-22, which is 12 votes apart with several court cases about some votes, has not yet been certified. Were that to persist, it would be decided by Congress.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  302. Advocating secession is synonymous with advocating violence.

    Tantamount, perhaps, but not identical. You would have to suggest resisting federal authority to hold, or defend, the secession vote.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  303. I can’t accept that peacefully discussing secession is criminal. Telling folks to get their guns ready and start forcing the feds out, sure, that’s criminal, but just a politician or writer discussing whether these two factions are better going in different directions? That’s political speech.

    I’m not saying a lot of folks aren’t going far beyond lawful speech, but I don’t think we should make it wrong to talk about (nor wrong to bring election claims to courts of law).

    Dustin (4237e0)

  304. I don’t believe West’s remarks are criminal either.

    But absent a constitutional amendment (which is explicitly not what West advocated), a call for secession is a call for civil war.

    Dave (1bb933)

  305. Ross Douthat made an interesting point in the New York Times today that I don’t think anybody articulated:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/opinion/sunday/trump-texas-election-lawsuit.html

    When it comes to Donald Trump’s efforts to claim victory in the 2020 presidential election, there are two Republican Parties. One G.O.P. has behaved entirely normally, certifying elections, rejecting frivolous claims and conspiratorial lawsuits, declining to indulge the conceit that state legislatures might substitute their votes for the electoral outcome.

    The other G.O.P. is…insisting that the election was stolen, implying that the normal party’s officials are potentially complicit and championing all manner of outlandish claims and strategies — culminating in the lawsuit led by the attorney general of Texas…

    …The Republicans behaving normally are the ones who have actual political and legal roles in the electoral process and its judicial aftermath, from secretaries of state and governors in states like Georgia and Arizona to Trump’s judicial appointees. The Republicans behaving radically are doing so in the knowledge — or at least the strong assumption — that their behavior is performative, an act of storytelling rather than lawmaking, a posture rather than a political act…. Republicans who signed up for the fantasy have been protected from their folly, once again, by Republicans with actual responsibility

    He notes that Brian Kemp and Bill Barr are both prominent members of the first group, and nobody had them pegged as NeverTrumpers. Or Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts. (I think he mentions John Roberts instead of Samuel Alito)

    I think what it is, when faced with real consequences they pay attention to their oath of office, and as for judges, it matters that they have lifetime appointments so they are not even tempted.

    oss Douthat is just not 100% sure that fantasy will not eventually have consequences in the real world, although he doesn’t think any plausible successor to Donald Trump will be able to go as far he did, and Donald Trump himself doesn’t have the capacity to bring the real world into alignment with his imagination.

    [Steve Jobs wasn’t able to do that really, either, by the way -SF]

    Ross Douthat says there is precedent for what is going on now, except that in 2016 it was Hamilton electors who were going to overturn the election, and this time it’s state legislatures, but it didn’t penetrate the Democratic Party as much as this has penetrated the Republican Party this year.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)

  306. Either way, I’ve rapidly changed partisanship

    from GOP

    to GOP except for Trump and fans

    to no partisanship

    to opposing the GOP entirely

    Unlike the republican leaders, I actually like being an American. I like the idea of letting elections settle things because politics aren’t the most important thing here.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  307. 307. Dave (1bb933) — 12/13/2020 @ 9:10 am

    a call for secession is a call for civil war.

    Nobody is likely to listen to him, and even he didn’t call outright for that.

    He didn’t even explain what he meant.

    Sammy Finkelman (26a080)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4233 secs.