Patterico's Pontifications

3/4/2024

Supreme Court: Trump To Remain On Presidential Primary Ballot Nationwide, Section 3 Responsibility of Congress

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:28 am



[guest post by Dana]

[Pressed for time…a really quick post on today’s ruling]

The opinion that Trump cannot be disqualified by the Colorado Supreme Court was **unanimous:

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado 13 Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) Per Curiam Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

The justices were less concerned about Trump’s role in the insurrection, and instead repeatedly posed hypotheticals about “the effects of a ruling that would amount to a historic intervention in the American political system”:

They reiterated those lines of inquiry in the opinion, denying the states such vast authority over national elections that could theoretically be wielded even after a winner had been seated.

“The ‘patchwork’ that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States’ as a whole. But in a Presidential election ‘the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast’ – or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast – ‘for the various candidates in other States,’” they wrote.

“An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times,” they continued. “The disruption would be all the more acute – and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result – if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos – arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”

From the Court’s liberal justices:

“The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an ‘insurrection [and] rebellion’ to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.”

Our host discussed the matter of the 14th Amendment provision here:

…the default opinion of many…seems to be as follows:

Yes, it looks like the 14th Amendment, read properly, disqualifies Trump from being elected president. Legislative history shows members of Congress discussing the fact that it applies to the presidency. Arguments about the difference between the oath taken by the president and by Congressional members and executive officers are plainly silly, as the wording of the Article II oath covers supporting the Constitution. Section 3 is obviously self-executing as much as section 1 is, and the fact that it provides a way for Congress to “remove” a disability means the disability is there until removed. Trump engaged in insurrection, as the historical interpretations cover incitement as engagement. And it’s not a political question. But . . .

But it can’t be enforced, obviously, no matter what the law actually says, because that would make people Big Mad. And make the Court look bad. And so it’s important not only Section 3 not be enforced, but that the idea of its enforcement be resoundingly rejected in a manner that appears non-partisan.

I just think that’s a weird position: that yes, the law is clear, but it can’t be enforced because, well, of course it can’t! And yet a lot of smart people on both sides say this. Enough that I think it is fair to call it the default position of smart lawyers.

And so we know that the Court will twist themselves (and the law) into pretzels to do the “adult” thing that preserves their perceived institutional legitimacy and keeps people from being Big Mad and maybe rioting or worse. And if that means pretending the law is something other than it is, well, we all have to be adults!

I dissent. I think the law here is clear and should be applied, and the public reaction and the institutional concerns about the Court’s legitimacy be damned.

I know my view will never win the day. But it should.

–Dana

176 Responses to “Supreme Court: Trump To Remain On Presidential Primary Ballot Nationwide, Section 3 Responsibility of Congress”

  1. I guess the bottom line is: always trust content from Patterico.

    Dana (8e902f)

  2. The quality of the decision doesn’t sound good.

    Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos – arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”

    Section 3 of the 20th amendment, which envisions the possibility of a president turning out not to be qualified, does allow this, and it says that then, the vice-president elect shall become president:

    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-20

    If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Now note, a person is described as both the president-elect and as not having been qualified.

    And it impossible to altogether avoid the possibility of such chaos, as a presidential candidate could die (or become disabled)

    The fact of chaos should discourage anyone from wanting to disqualify a president-elect, so it should be reserved only for the most meritorious cases..

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  3. The Justices wanted to settle the issue — so they re-wrote Federal law to prevent the Justice Department or Congress from disqualifying Trump by fiat. (Congress could refuse to certify Trump as an insurrectionist on January 6). It isn’t good law, but it’s probably decent policy.

    I really did not like the liberal dissent to this ruling. If you cite the Bush v. Gore dissent, you have just advertised your partisanship.

    Appalled (721968)

  4. I think Section 5 allows Congress to specify and limit the way in which it would be determined that a candidate had “given aid or comfort to the enemies” (of the constitution, presumably meaning here serious and violent enemies) but failing that, there must be a determining authority, just like with any other structural provisions of the constitution..

    The reason for no state enforcement is the possibility of different decisions in different states. As Justice Kagan (I think) said in the oral arguments, the normal standard of review for a state court decision is whether it was clearly wrong – words to that effect – but that allows for different states to make different determinations of a single question or for the first state at bat to bind all the other sattes.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  5. Appalled (721968) — 3/4/2024 @ 10:22 am

    The Justices wanted to settle the issue — so they re-wrote Federal law to prevent the Justice Department or Congress from disqualifying Trump by fiat. (Congress could refuse to certify Trump as an insurrectionist on January 6). It isn’t good law, but it’s probably decent policy.

    Congress would first have to count the votes, and declare him president-elect, and then vote to rule him disqualified and then fail to remove the disability by a 2/3 vote. And then his vice president would become president (and Trump would make decisions in a back room, except for what his VP would not want to go along with)

    But I would not be too surprised to see Kamala Harris attempt to do what Mike Pence refused to do and not count the electoral votes which are cast both for president and vice president.

    We could see an attempt to rule that the vice presidential candidate also is disqualified (on ground maybe that promising pardons amounts to giving aid aid comfort to insurrectionists enemies of the constitution, but it would require members of Congress to be more partisan than merely disqualifying Trump would be, and so obtain fewer votes. Anyway Trump is concentrating on trying to obtain a Republican majority in the Senate even to the point of endorsing someone who contributed to Leticia James (in New York) and going against MAGA candidates (in Montana and Pennsylvania)

    Trump also, meanwhile, has floated the idea of disqualifying Biden under the 14th amendment, saying somewhat clumsily that failure to enforce the immigration laws amounts to insurrection against the United States.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-biden-gop-voters-border-migrants-1fc6624188f540f495e1087bee64318e

    GREENSBORO, North Carolina (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Saturday further escalated his immigration rhetoric and baselessly accused President Joe Biden of waging a “conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America” as he campaigned ahead of Super Tuesday’s primaries.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  6. Colo court: “Throw the orange scoundrel off the federal ballot!”
    Illinois traffic Judge: “me too!”
    Some people here: “Same! What other federal issues can states rule on?”

    Sensible people who had a good night’s sleep, other courts, election boards and the Big Court, 9-0 no less: “Back to School! A country of 330 million does not entrust that kind disruptive, defeasing and voter-suppression type of decision on a federal office to a former state traffic judge, or a state court, however august and majestic the [checks notes] Colo Supreme court might be.”

    The bottom line is: (1) we’re a republic, not an association of hothouse flowers voting ancient Greek style on whatever strikes our fancy; (2), always wait for the Big Court.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  7. Dana,

    It goes without saying that I agree with your post wholeheartedly. I’m thinking that the Court 1) did not want to rule on this itself and 2) did not want federal district courts entertaining challenges.

    The Senate failed to convict. That was where the institutions failed us. This Court could have picked up the issue. I don’t see the need for a new civil trial — there are plenty of facts on record — but it didn’t have to foreclose all enforcement the way it did.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  8. But I would not be too surprised to see Kamala Harris attempt to do what Mike Pence refused to do and not count the electoral votes which are cast both for president and vice president.

    The House version of the Electoral Count Reform Act had just such a challenge allowed under the proposed law: Members could object to counting votes if they were in favor of an insurrectionist or if the elector was an insurrectionist.

    This cause of action was removed in conference and the enacted law does not allow such a challenge. Only electoral votes not in regular order may be challenged.

    Now, this doesn’t mean that Harris would not try, but she’d not have the law behind her.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  9. Some people here

    No one here settled on “states can block a candidate.” It’s obvious chaos. The Court was 9-0 on that point. The additional issue that the Court resolved (5-4 and incorrectly, imho) is how the federal courts could proceed. They rule that no one had the power to enforce 14.3 unless Congress gave them the power, and at this point they have not.

    This has the odd result that a Constitutional provision is subordinate to federal law.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  10. Nothing about actually using the actual Insurrection Law? I know that was hotly debated hereabouts.

    Would actually convicting someone of Federal Insurrection be Congress having spoken?

    Ingot9455 (74de32)

  11. BTW, if you read Patterico’s post that Dana linked, you will see that I was initially on the other side of this. But some of the arguments made, and further research of those arguments, convinced me that my intial position was very wrong.

    Oddly, Rip was arguing then for the side I ended up on. So he can change his positions, too.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  12. Would actually convicting someone of Federal Insurrection be Congress having spoken?

    It is in the category of “sufficient, but not necessary.” The insurrection claim in 14.3 is not a criminal one, it’s a civil one. Most of the Civil War era disqualifications were not the result of criminal action. A criminal conviction would work, too, of course.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  13. States can block a presidential candidate from being a choice that people can vote for, and they do it all the time. It’s just that they have not done so for either the two major established party candidates – or no state has done so since 1960.

    Their power to do so rests on the Electors clause.

    But they cannot use simple ineligibility on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th amendment as a reason because they are in no position to state it as a fact.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  14. **Top Five Other Things SCOTUS Ruled On This Morning**

    5. For matters of top-level national security, “Pastrami” and “Corned Beef” are now official legally-defined terms

    4. FCC allowed to reconsider licensing of major broadcast outlets based on how much they overhype Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce coverage

    3. Due to truth-in-labeling laws and congressional corruption, Washington’s “mall” must now be called “The Legislative Swap Meet;” Also the Court will allow for electeds to install a self-checkout lane

    2. Republicans in Congress are in fact allowed to order CDC to investigate how Fetterman got so sane so quick

    1. Flamin’ Hot Cheetos may no longer be classified as “food”

    🙂

    qdpsteve again (ad19ec)

  15. In more klan news republican ku klux klansman leon mclanahan is running for governor in missouri. (DU)

    asset (091dad)

  16. The majority opinion of the 5 justices does not state correctly what the objections of the other 4 remaining justices are to the opinion. They say

    they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it.

    But their objection is that they don’t feel it is necessary to decide how a
    disqualification under Section 3 may be established, but only that a state proceeding cannot do it. It is not necessarily limited to a prior procedure established by Congress pursuant to Section 5.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

    [this case] does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

    Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson:

    In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment…. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further… They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.

    Now there are other means. When it comes to membership in Congress, it is established precedent that each House gets to determine the qualifications of its onw members.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  17. The opinion misses the fact that the disqualification only applies to holding the office, not to being nominated or elected to it. No person shall be… it says.

    You could get a similar result by saying that applying anything related to the process of election would require action by Congress. But a state may regulate elections for Congress subject t change by Congress, and make any rules whatsoever for presidential electors, with Congres only able to affect “the time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States”

    Yes, but they cannot purport to be deciding a question of federal law.

    Say that the 14th amendment disqualifies Donald J. Trump?

    No.

    Pass a law saying that no person who occupied the office of president, and ran for re-election and lost, while collecting over 1/3 of the total Electoral vote? (a condition which applies now only to Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump and would have applied to Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush) may be pledged to by a candidate for Elector?

    Yes.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  18. I think the majority of the Court did not want to give people ideas.

    But giving people hope, except that they are likely to pay a political price for attempting it, would be the way most to reconcile people to the result.

    Do so, but at your own political risk (for anyone to join in in even seriously floating it.)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  19. I thought the liberal concurrence was far better than the tortured per curiam. I can’t imagine any liberal or conservative Court/Justice requiring only Congress pass legislation before it could address an equal protection or due process violation under the 14th Amendment. Section 3 is just as much a part of the 14th Amendment.

    (I see the Chief’s fingerprints on this opinion — it reminds me of the similarly tortured ‘ObamaCare is a Tax’ case.)

    As for Barrett’s concurrence, she gives away the game:

    1. Politically charged issue during a volatike Presidential election, and

    2. Turn the national temperature down while decrying the other concurrence’s “stridency,” and

    3. Americans should “take home” that the Court was unanimous.

    Not right, just unanimous.

    DRJ (1a9553)

  20. Well, it was right, in its conclusion

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  21. Not really. Read Patterico’s comment in Dana’s post, Sammy.

    DRJ (1a9553)

  22. @15

    In more klan news republican ku klux klansman leon mclanahan is running for governor in missouri. (DU)

    asset (091dad) — 3/4/2024 @ 12:00 pm

    *waves*

    Missourian here…

    He has zero chance.

    Thanks for coming to my TED talks.

    whembly (5f7596)

  23. Here’s a simple Section 3 enforcement bit of legislation for Congress. Easy peasy.

    Whereas the US Supreme Court affirmed that the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment lies with the US Congress, and

    Whereas the US Congress agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court determination that Donald J. Trump engaged in an insurrection on 1/6/2021,

    Therefore, Donald J. Trump is forever banned from appearing on all presidential and vice presidential ballots, effective immediately.

    Signed,
    All members of Congress who give a shit about our democracy.

    Paul Montagu (d59090)

  24. When a legislative body fails to conclude an impeachment of an insurrectionist with a conviction, and the Supreme Court refuses to follow the Constitution to disqualify an insurrectionist from holding office, all due to fear of what the insurrectionist can summon his mob to do, you have a banana republic.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  25. @23

    When a legislative body fails to conclude an impeachment of an insurrectionist with a conviction, and the Supreme Court refuses to follow the Constitution to disqualify an insurrectionist from holding office, all due to fear of what the insurrectionist can summon his mob to do, you have a banana republic.

    norcal (3ba1ef) — 3/4/2024 @ 1:56 pm

    No. The banana republic is allowing 50 states disqualifying a federal candidate with not consistent standards.

    The banana republic is engaging in lawfare contortions, when the political process failed, ie impeachment.

    The word “insurrectionist™” has lost all traditional meaning and is being co-opted by “political figure I don’t like”.

    The outcome of this ruling is a 9-0 benchslap.

    How do you know that you’re a political hack?

    When you disagree with a 9-0 ruling.

    whembly (5f7596)

  26. It’s not the part all nine agreed on that I am disputing, whembly.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  27. There would be a modicum of symmetry if the USSC is per curiam on Trump’s absolute immunity nonsense.

    Paul Montagu (d59090)

  28. @26

    It’s not the part all nine agreed on that I am disputing, whembly.

    norcal (3ba1ef) — 3/4/2024 @ 2:09 pm

    Then what, exactly are you disputing.

    Because it seems like you’re really disappointed with this 9-0 ruling.

    whembly (5f7596)

  29. Signed,
    All members of Congress who give a shit about our democracy

    And therein lies the problem.

    Dana (8e902f)

  30. @27

    There would be a modicum of symmetry if the USSC is per curiam on Trump’s absolute immunity nonsense.

    Paul Montagu (d59090) — 3/4/2024 @ 2:12 pm

    I’m extremely eager to al of the opposite takes on the legitimacy of SCOTUS when they throw out Trump’s “absolute immunity” arguments.

    whembly (5f7596)

  31. Then what, exactly are you disputing.

    Because it seems like you’re really disappointed with this 9-0 ruling.

    whembly (5f7596) — 3/4/2024 @ 2:22 pm

    I am disputing the same thing the liberal justices had an issue with, to wit:

    Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.

    I agree with DRJ, who said, “I thought the liberal concurrence was far better than the tortured per curiam.”

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  32. All members of Congress who give a shit about our democracy

    And therein lies the problem.

    Dana (8e902f) — 3/4/2024 @ 2:22 pm

    They give a shit when Trump tells them to give a shit.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  33. I think the majority had a rock solid argument.

    Section 5 is not there as a word filler, its crucial.

    Many critics from the right are a little unhappy as they wanted SCOTUS to rule whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection for the purposes of 14.3.

    whembly (5f7596)

  34. Democracy 1
    Authoritarianism 0

    lloyd (6a427a)

  35. A silver lining:

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Monday knocking down Colorado’s move to remove Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot was a clear legal win for the former president, but the court also struck a blow to a central theme of Trump’s presidential campaign: that the American legal system is hopelessly corrupt, conflicted and rigged against him.
    ………
    Trump, predictably, praised Monday’s ruling.

    “It was a very important decision,” he said in Mar-a-Lago hours after it was announced, calling it “very well-crafted. And I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together.”

    He added, “I have great respect for the Supreme Court, and I want to just thank them for working so quickly and so diligently and so brilliantly.”
    ………
    The Trump playbook is well established. When legal proceedings don’t go his way, he lashes out at judges, prosecutors, court employees, witnesses and even potential juries. The Supreme Court, including the justices he nominated to the court, have been the target of Trump’s wrath when they have shown independence in the past.
    ………
    After Trump lashed out at one federal judge back in 2018 as an “Obama judge”, Chief Justice John Roberts took the highly unusual step of responding.

    “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said at the time. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

    Trump immediately hit back, tweeting, “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.”

    No such complaint came today when two Justices Trump would brand as “Obama judges” and one he would brand as a “Biden judge” joined the others in a ruling that pleased Trump but that full court believed was consistent with the Constitution.
    ##########

    I’m sure he will have the same sober reaction when the Supreme Court decides his immunity claims.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  36. Section 5 is crucial. It is the enforcement provision. To my knowledge, no court has ever applied Section 5 this way in other 14th Amendment cases.

    When has the court ever said it cannot address due process or equal protection violations if Congress hasn’t passed a law explaining how to remedy it?

    DRJ (4914ae)

  37. Roberts is fine with more riots, so long as they’re not in his chambers. The Court is timid at the moment when history requires courage. The nation and the rule of law will suffer as a result.

    Barry Jacobs (2b0ba8)

  38. DRJ,

    the Court was right.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  39. The court was right that Trump supporters would believe any other outcome was unfair. The court was not legally right.

    DRJ (b21aa3)

  40. The reasoning was not right. It was an outcome-based decision — exactly what Trump and his supporters complain about. Nice to be on the other side, right?

    DRJ (b21aa3)

  41. Just a reminder, every single lawfare attack to cripple Trump, steal his assets and jail him has made him stronger and more popular. But many of you just want to keep doing it over and over again hoping the next time will be different.

    Come up for air.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  42. When the Court spends more time weighing out hypotheticals about the impact a decision to (uphold Colorado) might have on our political system and the country, then that more than suggests the priority of the at least some of the justices.

    Dana (8e902f)

  43. 9. Kevin–The Big Court shrewdly barred what would have been all too predictable efforts to induce an unelected federal employee to make a similar ruling. Judge Tigar, the head of the FTC, or the Chief Judge of a NY bankruptcy court might have lept into interstices of a more porous ruling, and we’d face another ballot-strike to be litigated at the last minute. The Big Court sensibly and firmly closed the door. Congress can do it.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  44. It was clear as day and followed the law. I’m sorry that you disagree because you desired a different decision. It’s tough sometimes to accept that you are in the wrong. This is one of those times.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  45. I can explain my reasoning, NJRob. The court found a violation of equal protection in Brown vs Board of Education, holding it was discriminatory to have segregated schools and refuse to let black children attend public schools. It did not say Section 5 prohibited the holding because there was no Congressional legislation explaining how to enforce the holding. It simply held segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment.

    What is your reasoning for why the court was right, Rob?

    DRJ (c673a9)

  46. By the way, I was in public school during desegregation. I promise it was chaotic, to put it mildly, and that was true in virtually every town in America. There is no exception in the 14th Amendment for court decisions that might cause chaos.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  47. The majority would have us believe that we can’t disrupt a federal election during an election year just because of some Constitutional provision. That is an outcome-based decision — it is too disruptive, creates uncertainty, and would cause chaos and possibly violence.

    It would do all those things. Brown vs Board of Education did all those things and more. Dobbs did all that, too. That is not an excuse for refusing to follow the law.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  48. That’s a good point about how the Supreme Court enforced Section 14 in Brown vs Board of Education, DRJ.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  49. There is no class of people here DRJ. It is a made up action by a panicked group of people who believe they cannot defeat a candidate legally so they will do so by any means necessary.

    The law is clear. The Constitution is clear. You just don’t like the result so you are being petulant. It’s understandable. Emotion is a powerful action on the human condition. But it is not rational.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  50. And stop trying to relive your childhood. The world has changed. By trying to constantly relive your past you are encouraging the destruction of the future that you will not be here to suffer through the consequences.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  51. they cannot defeat a candidate legally so they will do so by any means necessary

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:28 pm

    That sounds like January 6th if you ask me.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  52. The decision was 9-0. Every leftist who wants to breathe new life into the Constitution through prenumbras and emanations disagreed with you as well as every conservative constitutional scholar on the Court.

    The rest is just wishcasting.

    Have a nice day.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  53. Emotion, not reason norcal. You are tilting at windmills.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  54. And stop trying to relive your childhood. The world has changed. By trying to constantly relive your past you are encouraging the destruction of the future that you will not be here to suffer through the consequences.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:30 pm

    What an outrageous and horrible thing to say.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  55. I think the court was right to rule 9-0 that individual states should not make the decision to disqualify a candidate for federal office on grounds of having engaged in insurrection (it said they’re free to do so for state offices and often did so after the Civil War). The rationale about a patchwork of decisions if individual states make these decisions based on, probably, different standards and evidentiary requirements seemed compelling to me. The five majority justices did go too far by saying that only Congress can enforce that through Sec. 5 legislation. That was unnecessary to the decision and gratuitous.

    But it would be a great idea if Congress would pass such a statute because then we wouldn’t have to quarrel over definitional issues. I personally don’t think Trump crossed the line from incitement to insurrection, but many reasonable people disagree, so it would be helpful to have the standard for these issues set out in a statute. You’d think there would be some state laws from the 1870 era that might serve as a starting point. They probably had to put some real thought into resolving just what constituted engaging in rebellion, ranging from the actions of the ringleaders on down to some 18-year-old who was conscripted into the Confederate army and deserted after six weeks and wanted to run for office years later. It shouldn’t be, but probably will be, hard to get a modern statute enacted that deals with all this stuff.

    Anyway, I don’t need the 14th Amendmen, or any “appropriate legislation” to find that Trump is disqualified from getting my vote.

    RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64)

  56. @23: Bill of Attainder, I think. They could impeach him again though.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  57. The Big Court shrewdly barred what would have been all too predictable efforts to induce an unelected federal employee to make a similar ruling.

    They could have just as reasonably said “this is the original jurisdiction of this court” and made a ruling (or punted to the DC Circuit court). It’s not like no one knows that Trump was behind an insurrection.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  58. The five majority justices did go too far by saying that only Congress can enforce that through Sec. 5 legislation. That was unnecessary to the decision and gratuitous.

    And also harmful.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  59. (DU)

    A symbol asset uses to denote utter nonsense.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  60. I’m extremely eager to al of the opposite takes on the legitimacy of SCOTUS when they throw out Trump’s “absolute immunity” arguments.

    Why? Do you think I take sides based on my politics? Have you seen my distaste for the 2 NY cases (although not for the righteous defamation case).

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  61. Norcal,

    you call it horrible, but trying to equate a leftist attempt to ban an opposing candidate from the ballot to the civil rights march of her youth is beyond horrible. It’s absurd.

    She’s an intelligent and rational woman. But she’s playing with fire with those words. It has no bearing on the case and the Court rightly smacked down the attempted lawfare. Any attempt to sully the Court should be resoundingly dismissed.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  62. RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:37 pm

    Siccing a mob on the Capitol, and then telling Mike Pence on the phone that the mob disagrees with Pence’s refusal to overturn the election results, qualifies as an attempted coup AND an insurrection to me, but I am not a lawyer.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  63. By the way, I was in public school during desegregation. I promise it was chaotic, to put it mildly

    Perhaps. My parents just moved to where the issue was moot. That was them, not me.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  64. And despite holding intensely and similarly critical opinions both of President Biden and of his predecessor, Americans have much more positive views of Donald J. Trump’s policies than they do of Mr. Biden’s, according to New York Times/Siena College polls.

    Overall, 40 percent of voters said Mr. Trump’s policies had helped them personally, compared with just 18 percent who say the same about Mr. Biden’s policies. . .

    Women are 20 percentage points more likely to say that Mr. Trump’s policies have helped them than Mr. Biden’s have, despite the fact that Mr. Trump installed Supreme Court justices who ultimately overturned the right to an abortion and that about two-thirds of women in America think that abortion should be legal in all or most instances.

    Here’s the real reason NeverTrump and the left are in a panic and wished to burn down the law to “save it.”

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  65. That’s a good point about how the Supreme Court enforced Section 14 in Brown vs Board of Education, DRJ.

    Thirteenth Amendment

    Section 1

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Some would say that the slaves could not be free until Congress passed a law implementing the freedom process.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  66. You honestly think my comment was about reliving my childhood? That is hilarious.

    DRJ (4914ae)

  67. By the way, Rob, I voted for Trump in 2016, and I seem to recall DRJ saying she did the same.

    It was only much later that I realized what a monster he is.

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  68. He’s a vain, arrogant l, narcissistic Man-child who loves everything to be about him.
    That’s not particularly unique in DC.

    But his polices are far better for the nation and her citizens than the left. Ultimately, that’s what matters.

    It’s not my fault NeverTrump stabbed themselves by attacking DeSantis. They could’ve had a rational, patriotic conservative, but instead they wanted to g back to weak and ineffectual policies that confirmed leftist gains on society.

    So Trump is the result.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  69. It’s not my fault NeverTrump stabbed themselves by attacking DeSantis.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/4/2024 @ 7:15 pm

    Is it attacking DeSantis to say that I disagree with his description of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a “territorial dispute”?

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  70. Just a reminder, every single lawfare attack to cripple Trump, steal his assets

    Lost me at “steal his assets”. Ridiculous and unserious.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  71. The cases involve the 14th Amendment, Rob. This case applied Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and Brown vs Board of Education involved Section 1. (Further, Dobbs, the abortion case, also involved the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of liberty, which the court said does not encompass an individual’s right to an abortion.)

    Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment. In this case, the court used Section 5 as a reason not to act. To my knowledge, no court has done that in any other 14th Amendment case.

    My comments tried to explain this.

    DRJ (4914ae)

  72. American courts arent supposed to decide based on how they feel or what people think is fair. They are supposed to follow the law. In this case, the law that is being applied is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

    I don’t think this decision was consistent with other 14th Amendment cases, buti understand why they did it. I think they did it to zvoid the appearance of being politicized.

    DRJ (4914ae)

  73. Now that I’ve thought about it a little, some points…

    1. I brought up months ago that there could be a 14th Amendment equal protection issue, because each state was deciding or not deciding that Trump was an insurrectionist, with each using their own criteria. I didn’t see the Equal Protection Clause issue specifically brought up, but perhaps they bypassed that argument by just concluding that it was an issue for Congress and not the states.

    2. There was a previous argument that the president is not an officer of the United States, and therefore exempt from Section 3, but the Supreme Court didn’t make a specific determination, yet they inferred in their decision that the president is a “federal officeholder”, because the CO Supreme Court ruled so, without contradiction from the USSC.

    3. Per George Conway, since the Supreme Court never addressed whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist, the Colorado determination that Trump “engaged in an insurrection” still stands, because it was not rescinded or reversed or canceled by the higher court.

    In effect, Trump is an adjudicated sexual abuser, liar, multi-offending fraudster, and now an insurrectionist.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  74. The decision was 9-0. Every leftist who wants to breathe new life into the Constitution through prenumbras and emanations disagreed with you as well as every conservative constitutional scholar on the Court.

    The rest is just wishcasting.

    Have a nice day.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:31 pm

    The decision was 9-0 on whether Colorado could disqualify Trump. The decision was 5-4 on what DRJ and others are discussing – the aspect of the decision that goes further to say that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can only be enforced after Congress passes specific legislation. Justice Barrett – one of the conservative constitutional scholars on the Court – sided with the liberal Justices on that point.

    I just thought I’d help correct the record in case any lurkers got confused. But please, don’t take the wrong lesson from this. The fact that you’re objectively wrong and don’t know what you’re talking about should in no way make you pause before accusing other people of being wrong and then mocking them for being emotional or reliving childhood trauma. It would be a terrible loss for this website if you stopped your invaluable trolling. So, please, please, do not reflect on this and decide that your comments would be better if you possessed things like a “conscience”, a “sense of shame”, “basic knowledge of the subject matter”, or even a rudimentary wit. That’s not your role here, and it’s not what Donald J. Trump would want.

    Turd Ferguson (461993)

  75. The decision was 9-0.

    It was a 9-0 decision that Colorado can’t disqualify Trump.

    Dana (8e902f)

  76. It was a 9-0 decision that Colorado can’t disqualify Trump.

    Dana (8e902f) — 3/4/2024 @ 7:47 pm

    There you go again. Making distinctions. 😛

    norcal (3ba1ef)

  77. https://nypost.com/2024/03/01/us-news/judges-improperly-enhanced-sentences-of-jan-6-rioters-appeals-court/

    In other Federal Court news, leftist prosecutors and judges abused their position to illegally harm disfavored individuals.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  78. Rob,

    If this is how the 14th Amendment law works, it would have been logical for the court in Brown vs Board of Education to say that Section 5 means that Congress had to act before the court could enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment where the decision would cause chaos and uncertainty. That case caused a lot of turmoil, as would a decision against Trump in this case. But I don’t think that is the purpose of Section 5.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  79. No she did not Turd. But you guys will keep grasping at straws as you have done for the past 8 years.

    It’s really sad how much people are willing to destroy the rule of law to get one person.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  80. But it is telling how many of you will run to support the left and their harmful actions just to get that man.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  81. The Court clearly disagrees with you DRJ.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  82. @51

    they cannot defeat a candidate legally so they will do so by any means necessary

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:28 pm

    That sounds like January 6th if you ask me.

    norcal (3ba1ef) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:30 pm

    Are you…??

    Are you arguing that the lawfare is synonymous to the riot at J6?

    Like, are you positing that such lawfare ought to be deems as insurrectiony?

    I honestly don’t think you’re making that case, but here I cannot find a different interpretation.

    whembly (c88dc4)

  83. To me, the court said a State cannot decide who can run for federal office, but States do that all the time. They require a candidate file an application by a specific due date, pay a filing fee, and sometimes file nominating petitions with a required number of signatures.

    After this decision, could any State refuse to let someone run for a federal office if they were too young or not natural born (if required), or can only the federal government enforce those requirements?

    DRJ (1a9553)

  84. You never explained your reasoning, Rob. I understand you like the result and agree with it, but can you explain the legal reason you approve?

    DRJ (1a9553)

  85. But I don’t think that is the purpose of Section 5.

    What is the purpose of Section 5?

    BuDuh (920697)

  86. @59 I get complaints and threats if I don’t give sources. (DU) is Democratic Underground which would be better named DNC public relations being DNC sycophants.

    asset (061d1f)

  87. @64 I am left and I am not in a panic. If trump wins what is left of the democratic establishment goes down with the titanic. AOC and the squad takes over the democratic party and demographics gives us the country.

    asset (061d1f)

  88. States are restricted by the XIV. In your telling you think the State making up a claim and using it to ban someone is on the same side as those suing to allow people to go to school freely. Instead it’s just the opposite. You are choosing to allow the state to ban people it doesn’t like. They would be on the side of allowing the BoE to ban anyone they choose.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  89. What is the purpose of Section 5?

    To enable Congress to pass legislation to enforce provisions that do not require said legislation for enforcement. For example, Congress passed section 1983, which helps people enforce their equal protection and due process rights, both of which are guaranteed by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. But nobody thinks that legislation is the only way to enforce equal protection or due process, or that those rights would be unenforceable without Congressional legislation.

    Patterico (a70500)

  90. @62

    RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:37 pm

    Siccing a mob on the Capitol, and then telling Mike Pence on the phone that the mob disagrees with Pence’s refusal to overturn the election results, qualifies as an attempted coup AND an insurrection to me, but I am not a lawyer.

    norcal (3ba1ef) — 3/4/2024 @ 6:54 pm

    You should take solace that you’re not a lawyer.

    The term “insurrection” was used as a political cudgel to extract a political price against Trump. It doesn’t make it true, especially when used hyperbolically.

    The most zealous of Trump opponents saw zero lanes to charge and convict Trump of “an attempted coup AND an insurrection”. Not in any impeachment process nor from the Special Counsel. Not even the J6 rioters faced a single insurrection charge.

    Ask yourself why that is.

    Furthermore, you and others continually regurgitate that the j6 riot was an insurrection undermines whatever credibility you think your arguments presents.

    You undermine it because you are wildly over-reacting by misapplying the riot as an insurrection.

    A true insurrection is a horrible thing, and it should be something that EVERYONE would recognize, no matter what is your political persuasion.

    Let me explain it in another way.

    Rape.

    Let’s say there’s a woman who is obviously trying to get away from an infatuated guy that won’t just take a “no”, that he reached out to her and simply hugged her for all the world to see. That’s it.

    Now, at the most the unwanted hugger could actually be charged with assault. If he had other nefarious designs, like copped a feel, battery could also be on the table.

    But, that’s not rape.

    Let’s say, that all her friends got coordinated and claimed she was raped by her hugger, even though it was obviously not true.

    That trivializes rape.

    That undermines the most inhuman thing you can do to a human, outside of murder. When other people sees the coordinated effort to label, while bad in itself, unwanted hugging as rape…the door is open for people to push back such characterizations. And when a rape victims sees that others are trivializing hugging-as-rape, it makes it harder for her to convince others that she was a real rape victim.

    The J6 riot was simply a protest that got out of hand and a small fraction of the crowd participated in a riot. This was not a coordinated effort to institute a coup and perpetuate an insurrection.

    Labeling the J6 riot as such, trivializes what a real coup/insurrection would be.

    The ONLY reason that the NeverTrumper, Democrats and the media (BIRM) labeled this as an insurrection, is to contort the arguments to have an option to DQ Trump via amendment 14.3. They failed on this measure, largely because there is ZERO consensus, or even a near consensus that J6 & other election challenging acts as an “insurrection”.

    whembly (c88dc4)

  91. My favorite line is the one where the concurring justices say they agree with the per curiam decision because our system of federalism is incompatible with a patchwork of different state laws.

    Ah yes, federalism, so very at odds with a patchwork of different state laws!

    It’s so ludicrous as to actually make me laugh aloud in disbelief.

    Patterico (a70500)

  92. Just a reminder that the Summer of Love was the proximate cause of Jan 6th.

    People foolishly saw a summer of rioting and destruction where people got away ‘scot free’ because the cause was favored and they thought they’d be treated equally.

    But society has always punished disfavored individuals and tortured the law to do so.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  93. Are you focusing on the outcomes, Rob, not the reasoning? The State based its claim on the provisions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It had a legal basis for taking Trump off the ballot.

    DRJ (4914ae)

  94. @92

    Just a reminder that the Summer of Love was the proximate cause of Jan 6th.

    People foolishly saw a summer of rioting and destruction where people got away ‘scot free’ because the cause was favored and they thought they’d be treated equally.

    But society has always punished disfavored individuals and tortured the law to do so.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/4/2024 @ 9:08 pm

    Not sure I’d agree with that my dude.

    Sure, we can point out that there seems to be asymmetrical applications here, but I seriously doubt those protestors had it in their back mind that if the rioters largely walked free in summer of love, that they’d be able to then.

    whembly (c88dc4)

  95. In effect, Trump is an adjudicated sexual abuser, liar, multi-offending fraudster, and now an insurrectionist.

    In Colorado.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  96. Thank you, Patterico.

    I see the same language as section 5 is in quite a few amendments.

    Is the idea along the lines of “this is the way it is, and if you don’t get with the program congress will come up with a remedy?”

    BuDuh (920697)

  97. @93

    Are you focusing on the outcomes, Rob, not the reasoning? The State based its claim on the provisions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It had a legal basis for taking Trump off the ballot.

    DRJ (4914ae) — 3/4/2024 @ 9:14 pm

    Missouri AG had a legal basis to kick off Biden from the ballot too.

    They were going to show that Biden’s open border policies is giving aid & comfort to our enemies…namely the cartels.

    Missouri is stacked with Republican judges, whom are just as partisan as their Colorado colleagues.

    I think SCOTUS saw the writing on the wall, and button this down this way.

    If you’re looking for someone to blame, look no further than the Colorado activist who pushed this case to SCOTUS.

    This is something that political activists need to wargame better, because courts only gets to do something when the controversy is in front of them. The anti-Trump activists rolled the dice… and came up snake-eyes.

    whembly (c88dc4)

  98. Ah yes, federalism, so very at odds with a patchwork of different state laws!

    Well, it would be bad form if it applied to, say, who is commander-in-chief. At least they wrote that one down.

    I could argue this either way (and probably have). Part of me wants to say that presidential elections are conducted in the states, so suck it up. But the argument that 14.3 federalized this bit isn’t unreasonable either, although I still don’t see why the federal courts could not do what Colorado did.

    I mean, a single district court judge struck down a bipartisan financial law today, so why can’t a federal court adjudicate whether Trump is an insurrectionist? The SC has all the magic legal beans here, but they refuse to use them.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  99. JVL does have some fair observations. For one, the USSC settled the CO case eight weeks after Trump filed his appeal, what about the timing of Trump’s idjit immunity case? This.

    By contrast, in the D.C. Circuit immunity case, Trump filed his appeal on February 12 and SCOTUS did not even agree to hear the case until February 28.

    And it won’t be argued until April 22. If you’re keeping score at home, that’s 10 weeks from the filing of appeal to the arguments. With no decision in sight.

    The decision may happen in June, but no guarantees.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  100. I see the same language as section 5 is in quite a few amendments.

    It’s really glaring in 13.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  101. People foolishly saw a summer of rioting and destruction where people got away ‘scot free’ because the cause was favored and they thought they’d be treated equally.

    Yeah, I remember when they held Woodstock inside the Capitol building while Congress was in session. How that got all that mud inside was a mystery, but the politicians were apparently used to mudslinging.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  102. Section 5 authorizes Congress to write enabling legislation but there is nothing requiring Congress to act, nor does it limit what the court can decide.

    DRJ (4914ae)

  103. Just a reminder that the Summer of Love was the proximate cause of Jan 6th.

    That’s stupid and ridiculous. The cause was one guy who invited cultists to show up on a certain day, with the tease that it would be “wild”.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  104. In Colorado.

    Was Trump a multi-offending fraudster in just New York? There were people all over across America who were defrauded by Trump’s “university”, despite the ruling being decided in a single state.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  105. It’s really glaring in 13.

    Check this out:
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/931/

    BuDuh (920697)

  106. @92 the chicago 8, kent state students. fred hampton. mark clark and now the atlanta cop city protesters would agree with you.

    asset (061d1f)

  107. I just thought I’d help correct the record in case any lurkers got confused.

    Hey!

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  108. “A true insurrection is a horrible thing, and it should be something that EVERYONE would recognize, no matter what is your political persuasion.”

    Well, let’s also accept that law professors, historians, and judges disagree on the conclusion….implying that there are reasonable arguments on both sides. It remains sad that the GOP base still feels compelled to nominate someone who would even toy with using violence and lies to disrupt the peaceful transfer of Presidential power. This should embarrass you, yet much of your free speech is directed at rationalizing it…..culminating with you voting for Trump in November.

    If J6 was not an insurrection, then did it have the potential to rise to becoming an insurrection? What elements would need to be added to the “riot” to make it an insurrection? Early, I’ve argued that it needed something like an assassination or perhaps the invocation of martial law. Had the “rioters” captured and hung Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence, would it shock our sensibilities enough to change the conclusion? If Michael Flynn’s suggestion to have the military collect voting machines had been ordered, would it feel more like an insurrection?

    Few people watching J6 were not shocked. Many were enraged, especially owing to the fact that Trump refused to do anything to call off the rioters until the conclusion was determined. Many people in Trump’s White House quit shortly after because of the totality of the event. Trump has never asked for forgivenenss for his roll or taken any responsibility for the mayhem that he stoked and then sat and watched as it boiled over. Yet there is no one here that argues his side on every matter more adamantly. You say you want him gone, but when push comes to shove, you rationalize ever action and inaction.

    Trump didn’t get charged with insurrection because intent is difficult to prove…whereas his other indictments are less so. Was the intent to have more violence and chaos? With small changes to circumstances could J6 have been much bloodier and shocking? The white nationalist groups did have (more?) guns off site. Were they prepared for escalation?

    I was not a fan of these 14A lawsuits precisely because of the legal chaos that they represented, but I certainly grew to appreciate that the underlying arguments were anything but frivolous. They were also destined to lose.

    We cannot have leaders that lie us into horrible situations. The GOP including its current leaders and media enablers are signaling that they want to reward every despicable act perpetrated by Trump. There’s no short cut when the people lose their moral center….but there’s also every reason to fight them tooth and nail. Trump must lose in 2024….

    AJ_Liberty (9cefdc)

  109. whembly at 97, https://patterico.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-trump-to-remain-on-presidential-primary-ballot-nationwide-section-3-responsibility-of-congress/#comment-2767816, gets it.

    Missouri AG had a legal basis to kick off Biden from the ballot too.

    They were going to show that Biden’s open border policies is giving aid & comfort to our enemies…namely the cartels.

    Missouri is stacked with Republican judges, whom are just as partisan as their Colorado colleagues.

    I think SCOTUS saw the writing on the wall, and button this down this way.

    Picture, if you will, 24 states knocking Trump off the ballot and 26 states knocking Biden off the ballot. Or, maybe, better not.

    And I also think that our system of federalism is incompatible with a patchwork of state laws, and nothing drives that point home more strongly than the Fourteenth Amendment unless it was the Civil War itself. We are not a Bundesrepublik or Confoederatio. We are a uniquely American system, tailor-made, custom-fitted, patched and mended, and still not yet comfortably broken in.

    nk (996d8f)

  110. The result may have been necessary but it wasn’t necessary to muddy up 14th Amendment law with dicta about how to enforce/implement Section 3. The concurrence was right about that.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  111. And it is profoundly disappointing that so many Americans don’t view trying to steal a Presidential election as a problem, whether or not we label it an insurrection.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  112. Is the idea along the lines of “this is the way it is, and if you don’t get with the program congress will come up with a remedy?

    I agree with DRJ when she said this:

    Section 5 authorizes Congress to write enabling legislation but there is nothing requiring Congress to act, nor does it limit what the court can decide.

    I believe the majority’s main concern was to prevent the Democrats from pulling a stunt on January 6 if Trump wins. The stunt would be objections to vote counting on the basis that it’s up to Congress to decide this. So SCOTUS says “yes but only through a law.” This also has the benefit of taking the courts out of it so SCOTUS never has to deal with this uncomfortable issue again/

    Nothing about the way the 14th Amendment was written compels this conclusion; on the contrary, Section 1 is enforced without enabling legislation all the time. They did it for stability and for institutional reasons. Not because it was the right legal decision. It wasn’t.

    But you can neutralize any future issues by saying Congress has to pass a law because Congress can’t pass a law about anything. They can’t even pass the greatest border bill in decades because Trump wants the border to remain a disaster to get him elected and Congressional Republicans not about to retire are all his bitches.

    Patterico (03c0fd)

  113. But I strayed off topic. Anyway that is what Section 5 is about.

    Patterico (7e54d1)

  114. Don’t think we have to worry about the next election being stolen. It looks like our American Navalny will win fair and square. Unless someone decides to show him what an actual American Navalny looks like. But I doubt it: our supplies of Novichok are running low.

    Patterico (7e54d1)

  115. @109

    Picture, if you will, 24 states knocking Trump off the ballot and 26 states knocking Biden off the ballot. Or, maybe, better not.

    And I also think that our system of federalism is incompatible with a patchwork of state laws, and nothing drives that point home more strongly than the Fourteenth Amendment unless it was the Civil War itself. We are not a Bundesrepublik or Confoederatio. We are a uniquely American system, tailor-made, custom-fitted, patched and mended, and still not yet comfortably broken in.

    nk (996d8f) — 3/5/2024 @ 5:16 am

    Yup. Agreed.

    whembly (5f7596)

  116. @108

    “A true insurrection is a horrible thing, and it should be something that EVERYONE would recognize, no matter what is your political persuasion.”

    Well, let’s also accept that law professors, historians, and judges disagree on the conclusion….implying that there are reasonable arguments on both sides.

    The fact that there’s so much debate should highlight how tenuous it is.

    The definition of Insurrection™ that is being applied in good faith must be as clear as the typical “meat and potato” crimes, such as bribery and murder.

    If you contort the definition in such a matter that opens the door for debate, that should be your first clue that it may simply be hyperbolic reaction to something that got you so outraged over.

    It remains sad that the GOP base still feels compelled to nominate someone who would even toy with using violence and lies to disrupt the peaceful transfer of Presidential power. This should embarrass you, yet much of your free speech is directed at rationalizing it…..culminating with you voting for Trump in November.

    It is sad.

    Especially as I view today’s Democrats as a Clear & Present Danger™, and there were other GOP candidates who would have had an easier chance in the general election.

    If J6 was not an insurrection, then did it have the potential to rise to becoming an insurrection? What elements would need to be added to the “riot” to make it an insurrection? Early, I’ve argued that it needed something like an assassination or perhaps the invocation of martial law. Had the “rioters” captured and hung Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence, would it shock our sensibilities enough to change the conclusion? If Michael Flynn’s suggestion to have the military collect voting machines had been ordered, would it feel more like an insurrection?

    It would have to be a coordinated and overt act of rebellion, with obvious plans to overthrow the government.

    The idea that J6 was that is laughable.

    Few people watching J6 were not shocked. Many were enraged, especially owing to the fact that Trump refused to do anything to call off the rioters until the conclusion was determined. Many people in Trump’s White House quit shortly after because of the totality of the event. Trump has never asked for forgivenenss for his roll or taken any responsibility for the mayhem that he stoked and then sat and watched as it boiled over.

    I was certainly shocked, and even advocated on this board that the political price Trump should’ve faced in the aftermath of J6 was impeachment for dereliction of duty. But, Democrats was more interested in exacting a political price to hang onto Republicans in general, and to wring it out for as long as politically possible.

    Yet there is no one here that argues his side on every matter more adamantly. You say you want him gone, but when push comes to shove, you rationalize ever action and inaction.

    Because I know what time of day it is.

    Do I wish the nomination had be secured by Haley or DeSantis or Christie or anyone else?

    Absolutely.

    But I lost that vote, and I’m stuck with Trump.

    What I won’t do, is to take the path of cowardice and do anything that gives Democrats a greater chance to win.

    Trump didn’t get charged with insurrection because intent is difficult to prove…whereas his other indictments are less so.

    So… doesn’t that give you any pause, at all, that folks still argues that J6 was insurrectiony?

    If you cannot prove it in court of law… why perpetuate then?

    Was the intent to have more violence and chaos? With small changes to circumstances could J6 have been much bloodier and shocking? The white nationalist groups did have (more?) guns off site. Were they prepared for escalation?

    There’s no evidence suggesting this.

    I was not a fan of these 14A lawsuits precisely because of the legal chaos that they represented, but I certainly grew to appreciate that the underlying arguments were anything but frivolous. They were also destined to lose.

    Agreed. The case can be said that SCOTUS overreached in some ways. But, again, I want to point out that when people try to advance novel legal arguments, when the courts face these controversies, they have to rule on it. And the outcome may be something that in 20/20 vision, had they know it would end up like this, they wouldn’t pursue it.

    In short: be careful what you wish for…

    We cannot have leaders that lie us into horrible situations. The GOP including its current leaders and media enablers are signaling that they want to reward every despicable act perpetrated by Trump. There’s no short cut when the people lose their moral center….but there’s also every reason to fight them tooth and nail. Trump must lose in 2024….

    AJ_Liberty (9cefdc) — 3/5/2024 @ 3:45 am

    I feel the same way about people who votes Democrats.

    whembly (5f7596)

  117. Missouri AG had a legal basis to kick off Biden from the ballot too.

    They were going to show that Biden’s open border policies is giving aid & comfort to our enemies…namely the cartels.

    LOL!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  118. @111

    And it is profoundly disappointing that so many Americans don’t view trying to steal a Presidential election as a problem, whether or not we label it an insurrection.

    DRJ (c673a9) — 3/5/2024 @ 7:35 am

    It is a problem.

    Good luck trying to address the problem when folks hyperbolically claims it’s insurrectiony. Because one side isn’t interested in addressing the problem… only that they extract a political cost in the most painful manner.

    whembly (5f7596)

  119. Steal an election by illegally changing laws in a state to get your votes by any means necessary? Stealing an election by refusing voter ID and to ensure there’s always doubt on the outcome? Stealing an election by having the opposing candidate who is currently favored by the majority of Americans banned from the ballot because you don’t want him to win?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  120. Missouri AG had a legal basis to kick off Biden from the ballot too.

    They were going to show that Biden’s open border policies is giving aid & comfort to our enemies…namely the cartels.

    I believe it was Jay Ashcroft, the Missouri Secretary of State, not the AG, who claimed that Biden engaged in an insurrection.

    Asked how he would disqualify Biden from the ballot for insurrection, Ashcroft said that he’s “let an invasion unstopped into our country from the border.” Vice President Kamala Harris, he added, “supported people that were rebelling against the U.S. government during the riots in 2020,” referring to racial justice protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  121. Ladies and Gents, if you read nothing else today, please consider this story:
    https://sashastone.substack.com/p/confessions-of-a-corrupt-liberal?utm_medium=web


    I’d be lying if I said it doesn’t matter how you vote. It does matter—especially this year. I am hoping the Democrats are voted out by such a humiliating landslide they never engage in this level of corruption again.

    But it would be foolish to shame supporters of RFK, Jr. or Dean Phillips or any other Third Party ticket. If they can win enough votes to humiliate the Democrats? I’m fully on board.

    As for me, I live in California. It’s not going to matter how I vote, but I’ve already decided it will be a protest vote, and for that, I must pull the lever for the guy who drives them the most insane. Voting doesn’t have to be noble or virtuous. Sometimes it can just be about revenge.

    whembly (5f7596)

  122. @120

    Missouri AG had a legal basis to kick off Biden from the ballot too.

    They were going to show that Biden’s open border policies is giving aid & comfort to our enemies…namely the cartels.

    I believe it was Jay Ashcroft, the Missouri Secretary of State, not the AG, who claimed that Biden engaged in an insurrection.

    Asked how he would disqualify Biden from the ballot for insurrection, Ashcroft said that he’s “let an invasion unstopped into our country from the border.” Vice President Kamala Harris, he added, “supported people that were rebelling against the U.S. government during the riots in 2020,” referring to racial justice protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/5/2024 @ 9:20 am

    Yup, both him and the AG listed out a litany of arguments to kick not only Biden off the ballot, but other prominent Democrats had CO ruling was left to stand.

    Their position was that CO made a mockery of the law, and believes that the only way to stop this from getting out of hand is to respond in kind. Eventually, hoping that a new MADD principle is established to prevent future shenanigans.

    whembly (5f7596)

  123. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/931/

    For a CRIMINAL prosecution, there must be a statute. But that does not mean that the two men had to stay and work even though the enslaver employer was not found guilty of a crime.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  124. Congress has to pass a law because Congress can’t pass a law about anything.

    As I said, “Doing nothing” is Congress’ superpower.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  125. The discussion is NOT about the 9-0 decision that states cannot enforce. That some want to paint their opponents as somehow wanting state enforcement is, to be nice, disingenuous. Less nice, it’s stupid twaddle.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  126. What people are upset about is the lying sack-of-sh1t Roberts’-level cowardice that argues that the 14th Amendment cannot be enforced if there is no federal law that is being violated. That’s a throwback to 1880 and decisions like Cruikshank, which said lynching black people was OK if there was no state law against it.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  127. In this episode of “What’s Fani Up To?”…
    https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/03/05/new-filing-in-fani-willis-case-witness-tampering-n3784097


    At any rate, Schaefer proposes to have the Cobb County prosecutor testify to the call as well as to Bradley’s knowledge of the affair, based on her conversations with Bradley in the summer of 2023. The latter sounds like hearsay, but McAfee might be inclined to allow it as a rebuttal and to corroborate the Bradley-Merchant texts. But if Yeager directly witnessed Willis instructing Bradley not to cooperate with attorneys on this matter, that’s not hearsay and it’s material to the rapidly multiplying “appearances” of impropriety around this case. There wouldn’t be any reason to keep it out, and Yeager’s status as a prosecutor will add credibility to her testimony … even in Fulton County, where credibility is wearing thin at the moment.

    That assumes that McAfee would be inclined to reopen the evidentiary phase of the hearing. Perhaps he might be inclined to do so, but he might also decide that he’s heard enough already to boot Fulton County from the case and get out with what’s left of his sanity. That won’t be the end of the matter, though. If Willis was trying to interfere with defense investigations and/or her boyfriend’s divorce, the Georgia State Bar and the state Attorney General’s office will take an interest in that no matter what McAfee decides, as well as the perjury that Willis and Wade have arguably committed in court. And McAfee has to know that, too.

    Update: A new filing in the case from another co-defendant asks to allow another witness as rebuttal to Bradley’s testimony (via Twitchy):

    “Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledgeofthe relationship between Mr. ‘Wade and district Attorney Willi, including details regarding the useof Ms. Robin Yeartie’s apartment such as Mi. Wade’s having a garage opener to the property” pic.twitter.com/xuVDp9SoFo

    — Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) March 5, 2024

    Again, this would normally be considered hearsay, but it would be used to rebut and impeach the witness rather than as a substantive proof of the relationship. McAfee may end up with a deluge of whistleblowers coming forward during this two-week consideration period. Maybe that’s what he expected, as a way to make his decision easier to defend.

    whembly (5f7596)

  128. The discussion is NOT about the 9-0 decision that states cannot enforce. That some want to paint their opponents as somehow wanting state enforcement is, to be nice, disingenuous. Less nice, it’s stupid twaddle.

    Kevin M (8676e4) — 3/5/2024 @ 9:59 am

    That’s clearly not true as shown by you and others pushing Luttig’s nonsense and others who said the States were “justifying removing Trump from the ballot.

    So you did disagree with the 9-0 decision.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  129. @125 If the court had ruled 9-0 in favor of Colorado, the “it’s only about section 5” folks would be doing backflips and high fives.

    lloyd (6a427a)

  130. #127

    I think the judge really wants to shut down this reality show at this point. To do that, he decides the Georgia standard is “appearance of impropriety”, which encompasses conduct Fani has admitted to. Or he decides the affair does not matter, no matter when it started, because there is nothing showing actual impropriety in the appointment of Wade.

    I would hope for the latter, because I think delay kills a righteous prosecution. I can see why the judge would go the other way at this point. It seems Willis’ office did not recognize the ambiguity in the impropriety standard in Georgia, and did not make the judge comfortable that appearance of impropriety was a way the judge might go.

    Appalled (c637da)

  131. whembly (5f7596) — 3/5/2024 @ 9:28 am

    Missouri performance art.

    Rip Murdock (cfd5ce)

  132. @131

    whembly (5f7596) — 3/5/2024 @ 9:28 am

    Missouri performance art.

    Rip Murdock (cfd5ce) — 3/5/2024 @ 11:54 am

    No more artistic than that Colorado case.

    That’s my point.

    whembly (5f7596)

  133. Appalled (c637da) — 3/5/2024 @ 11:34 am

    Never mind all that lying in court by sworn officers of the court, amirite?

    BuDuh (920697)

  134. @130

    #127

    I think the judge really wants to shut down this reality show at this point. To do that, he decides the Georgia standard is “appearance of impropriety”, which encompasses conduct Fani has admitted to. Or he decides the affair does not matter, no matter when it started, because there is nothing showing actual impropriety in the appointment of Wade.

    I would hope for the latter, because I think delay kills a righteous prosecution. I can see why the judge would go the other way at this point. It seems Willis’ office did not recognize the ambiguity in the impropriety standard in Georgia, and did not make the judge comfortable that appearance of impropriety was a way the judge might go.

    Appalled (c637da) — 3/5/2024 @ 11:34 am

    I hope it’s the former, if for nothing else to maintain and hold the high standards that Prosecutors must embrace… regardless of any merits of this case.

    For instance, our esteemed host is a career California prosecutor who has written his thoughts, and provided insight to his credibility. There’s absolutely zero ambiguity of his integrity to his profession. It would be impossible to impeach his credibility when he bring cases to the public.

    This Fani/Wade/Fulton Co. prosecution team has obliterated their own credibility. And even if this judge leans towards the latter as you hoped…there’s ample avenues for the defense to appeal any adverse ruling if this judge doesn’t kick Fani/Wade off the case.

    whembly (5f7596)

  135. OT: Kyrsten Sinema not running for re-election:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-kyrsten-sinema-announces-she-will-not-seek-re-election
    Kari Lake has zero chance of winning now, as she need Sinema to split the race 3ways.

    whembly (5f7596)

  136. Just to confirm BuDuh, the only lying would be the start date of the affair and whether they were doin’ the nasty at the time Wade was appointed. I don’t think that case has been made, by the way. I also know that the conduct Willis copped to would get you disciplined in any major corporation.

    Appalled (c637da)

  137. Some lying under oath is ok.

    BuDuh (920697)

  138. Kyrsten Sinema not running for re-election:

    The sane middle suffers another casualty.

    norcal (6447dd)

  139. That’s clearly not true as shown by you and others pushing Luttig’s nonsense and others who said the States were “justifying removing Trump from the ballot

    At no point, at least after the oral arguments, did I say that states could enforce. As I said, stupid twaddle.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  140. If the court had ruled 9-0 in favor of Colorado, the “it’s only about section 5” folks would be doing backflips and high fives.

    I am pretty sure that I was against that very early on, since it would make a mockery of due process. That doesn’t mean I would not want the FEDERAL courts to come to the same conclusions.

    This may be too subtle for some.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  141. NJRob,

    I think Trump meets the requirements of Section 3 in that he engaged in an insurrection, but I understand why and accept that the court decided against his removal from the ballot in Colorado.

    My comments have not addressed the unanimous decision. My comments are focused on the other per cutiam holdings (which were not necessary to the decision and are considered dicta) regarding Section 5.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  142. I don’t know if I would be doing backflips if the decision were 9-0 to remove. It depends on how the opinion was written.

    Trump isn’t the only federal official or candidate. The laws will live on beyond his time. I like laws that are the best we can write, not based on one outcome.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  143. Laws and opinions. Especially opinions because I tend to care about the courts.

    DRJ (c673a9)

  144. I don’t know if I would be doing backflips if the decision were 9-0 to remove. It depends on how the opinion was written.

    If the decision was 9-0 to overturn Colorado and ALSO 9-0 to disqualify as a federal court decision, I’d be ecstatic.

    If the decision was simply to uphold Colorado and allow each state to make up their own minds, I’d be more upset than I am now.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  145. Some lying under oath is ok.

    — Allen Weisselberg ?

    DRJ (c673a9)

  146. Some lying under oath is ok.

    “Lying about sex isn’t perjury”

    –B. Clinton

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  147. ?

    BuDuh (920697)

  148. Joe Biden has secretly flown hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Latin American airports to 43 U.S. cities.
    The unusual program, kept from the public, involved at least 320,000 illegal immigrants the administration admits are “inadmissible” immigrants, far more than previously reported.

    Biden is deserving of impeachment for this evil act. He spits on the rule of law.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  149. What insurrection.

    Where is the legal charge? What acts did he do that were insurrectionist? You didn’t like his novel ideas ro contest the election, but you have no problem with the novel way partisan leftists are using the law to try and disqualify/jail him.

    It’s animus.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  150. BuDuh,

    I donwonder if those on here that only get their news from leftist sources even ha e a clie how badly Fani and her lover have lied to the court. I wonder if they care.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  151. DRJ (c673a9) — 3/5/2024 @ 3:44 pm

    I like laws that are the best we can write, not based on one outcome.

    Hard cases make bad law

    – attributed to Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1904, who alluded to it in his opinion in Northern Securities Co. v. United States, but Wikipedia says the expression dates at least to 1837 when a judge, ruling in favor of a parent against the maintenance of her children, said, “We have heard that hard cases make bad law.”

    This was in the context of ruling against a sympathetic person.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  152. 136. Appalled (c637da) — 3/5/2024 @ 12:50 pm

    Just to confirm BuDuh, the only lying would be the start date of the affair and whether they were doin’ the nasty at the time Wade was appointed.

    But that seems to be conceded as important, and they didn’t admit it until forced to.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  153. There is no animus in my heart. I care about making laws that will work for us but also for our children and grandchildren. A “good” result that makes the system worse is a negative to me.

    I am through with this discussion. I would normally address other comments and issues but the venom NJRob has directed toward everything I say is not worth it.

    DRJ (b21aa3)

  154. But I want to make sure I have been clear.

    The court has made up a rule that Congress has to act before it can apply the law in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It has changed the law because it does not want to get involved in politics.

    You like the result because it means Trump us safely on the ballot. Not just now but probably for as long as he wants.

    I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with a court ot any official that decides to change or ignore the Constitution when they feel like it. It has happened before and will happen again, and I never like it.

    DRJ (b21aa3)

  155. Unless I missed it, you had no issue with the novel and unprecedented uses of the law to go after the favorite to be the next president.

    That is the issue.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  156. you didn’t like his novel ideas to contest the election,

    It’s incredible that someone is angry because he believes President Biden to be “spitting on the rule of law,” and yet refers to Trump’s fomenting an insurrection as nothing more than his “novel ideas to contest the election”. The dissonance here is stunning. The necessary self-deception involved to protect a proven (many times over) liar is sad. I don’t believe there is any reason to engage if one can’t even see the catastrophic outcome of Trump’s behaviors.

    Dana (8e902f)

  157. NJRob, hope you’ll take some friendly advice from a fellow empathetic conservative who’s sick of all the Biden apologia here and elsewhere.

    I agree that *nothing* would be worse this year than for Biden to be re-elected. It would literally be a horror show for this country.

    BUT. Can you understand why so many have 99.999% as much reluctance to return Trump to the WH? Many of his promises are of things he could and should have gotten done in his first term. He didn’t follow through, even with majorities in both houses of Congress.

    On top of that, many of his new promises are unbelievable. Being a dictator “for just one day”? Sounds like something Josef Stalin would promise to his buddies in the Politburo. He’s promoted abortion rights, some anti-2A positions, and has even been friendly to the child genderbenders as well. And can anyone claim with a straight face that he’ll be able to get *anything* done, given how much Dems have already pledged to continue to make both his public and private life a living hell?

    Finally there’s his behavior on J6. I personally don’t believe it qualifies as a full-court insurrection as the peaceful transfer of power from R to D was never in doubt, but that it *does* count as a large riot that should never have occurred. And Trump most definitely did NOT cover himself in glory that day. He waited to see what would happen, THEN tried to turn down the heat. A true leader would have demanded the participants stand down as soon as he found things were getting out of control.

    At this stage I’d greatly prefer either RFK or Nikki to get elected, and I don’t like either of ’em. I was and still am a huge DeSantis fan.

    If you want to defend the ideas behind Trump’s populism, the people who support him (many of whom do so very reluctantly), and the argument that Biden’s lawlessness is as bad or worse than Trump’s behavior, please continue to do so and I’m supportive. But Trump himself is so problematic, so mindbendingly egotistical, so much of an angry maniac IMHO, he’s unfit for the office again, just on that basis, and I think it’s a fool’s errand for you to support the man so much as the ideas.

    I don’t want anyone as emotionally unstable (Trump) or physically unstable (Biden) anywhere near the Oval Office, ever again.

    qdpsteve again (8679e2)

  158. Unless I missed it, you had no issue with the novel and unprecedented uses of the law to go after the favorite to be the next president.

    You missed almost everything that has been said.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  159. Thanks, DRJ. Clear, cogent and above-and-beyond patient.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  160. you didn’t like his novel ideas to contest the election,

    If the novel you’re talking about is The Godfather. I thought the movie was better.

    nk (31c0d5)

  161. I don’t want anyone as emotionally unstable (Trump) or physically unstable (Biden) anywhere near the Oval Office, ever again.

    I share these sentiments. I would gladly vote for Haley over Biden (though that choice appears unlikely), but there is no way I would ever cast my vote for an ethical and moral trainwreck like Trump. What to do? Throw my vote away on a minor party candidate? Not vote at all? Hold my nose and vote for Biden as the (slightly) less offensive of the two? How did we end up with a choice between two turd sandwiches?

    Roger (e9b12c)

  162. Throw my vote away on a minor party candidate?

    There are worse things. If you vote for someone you don’t like, you are telling them you like them and you should expect more of the same. Better to throw it away.

    But a vote for a minor party candidate is NOT “throwing it away.” It says one thing clearly to the major parties: “Do better.”

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  163. If the novel you’re talking about is The Godfather. I thought the movie was better.

    Even if it was “All the President’s Men”, the movie was better. What? There was no such novel? Who reads.

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  164. Question for the lawyers:

    What does Anderson v Trump say about states’ “Sore Loser” laws, with respect to Presidential candidates?

    Kevin M (8676e4)

  165. qdpsteve again (8679e2) — 3/5/2024 @ 7:55 pm

    I agree with almost everything you posted. I pushed DeSantis and told everyone I could he was the best choice of those available.

    The problem is a lot of the establishment isn’t conservative. They don’t want those policies. But there’s no going back to the squishy days of GHWB.

    NJRob (39799a)

  166. What insurrection.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/5/2024 @ 4:04 pm

    Call it whatever you want, but whipping up a mob to storm the Capitol, and then sitting back and watching for over three hours without doing anything to stop it, and telling Mike Pence that the mob disagrees with Pence’s refusal to overturn the election, is heinous and unprecedented.

    Such a person should never be near the levers of power again.

    It’s not that hard to see, unless one is being willfully blind.

    norcal (4ab285)

  167. Except he didn’t do that norcal. People were entering the capitol before his speech was concluded. He didn’t plan anything. He told people to march peacefully and patriotically.

    It’s almost like people have been so gaslit for so long they don’t remember what actually happened.

    They also don’t remember the “Summer of Love” where the left told us rioting was patriotic and justified.

    NJRob (39799a)

  168. NJRob (39799a) — 3/6/2024 @ 2:03 pm

    People were entering the capitol before his speech was concluded. He didn’t plan anything.

    Anything wrong. He planned to address the crowd. Cassidy Hutchinson, who may have turned into a liar later, in her book(she has
    Mark Meadows meeting with Tony Bobulinsky at a Trump rally in 2020! Her source has denied he told her that and she’s now being sued for libel) was quite clear on that.

    He told people to march peacefully and patriotically.

    That could constitute evidence that he had been warned that something could go wrong because the word “peacefully” was otherwise a gratuitous additional comment.

    It seems some people knew. Alex Jones was there at the Capitol with a bullhorn, accompanied by Alexander Ali, who had organized the protests, telling people not to go in the direction they were going but to go somewhere else where they could hear Trump speak — and all this videotaped by Kenneth Chesebro. (unindicted co-conspirator for the substitute electors scheme in Washington; indicted by Fani Willis in Atlanta – but not accused of being responsible for the storming of the Capitol.)

    It’s almost like people have been so gaslit for so long they don’t remember what actually happened.

    yes, but it started almost right away. In no way did Trump “incite” a mob by using the word “fight” in his speech. They also don’t remember the “Summer of Love” where the left told us rioting was patriotic and justified.

    Well, the left really told us that violating Covid protocols was justified — they tended to deny rioting.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  169. Error at the end in formatting blockquotes.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  170. telling Mike Pence that the mob disagrees with Pence’s refusal to overturn the election,

    At that point, Trump didn;t want to lose their support. He was referring anyway to the chants of “Hang Mike Pence” not to assaults on the police.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  171. qdpsteve again (8679e2) — 3/5/2024 @ 7:55 pm

    At this stage I’d greatly prefer either RFK or Nikki to get elected, and I don’t like either of ’em. I was and still am a huge DeSantis fan.

    Not RFK Jr!. He may be worse than both of them (at least for competence and judgement)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  172. DRJ (b21aa3) — 3/5/2024 @ 5:41 pm

    The court has made up a rule that Congress has to act before it can apply the law in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

    Although the court did not use this reason, that might be proper to say about anything dealing withthe process of election (before the votes are counted in Congress)

    I didn’t like the Court saying that applying Section 3 after an election was too late. It’s not and the VP elect becomes president.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  173. The idea that Congress has to act before the judiciary can enforce Constitutional provisions is absurd and goes against everything about Constitutional law since judicial review was acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison. Brown vs. Board of Education and other 14th Amendment cases have already been discussed, but just step back and think about what this means if we actually gave this credence as a legitimate legal doctrine instead of treating it as a one-off exception to reach a particular political outcome for this election.

    Do we have 2nd Amendment rights? Not unless Congress says we do! Let’s see what guns Chuck Schumer says we’re allowed to have. Fingers crossed!

    Freedom of speech and religion? Hmm, I guess we need Congress to pass a bill telling us what we’re allowed to say and which religions are ok to practice.

    Can a federal criminal statute or conduct by the federal government in a criminal proceeding ever be unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights? No, silly! Unless Congress passes new legislation that specifically says the government’s prior acts were unconstitutional, then the poor judiciary’s hands are tied.

    Was segregation unconstitutional? Only before enough politicians were persuaded to pass the Civil Rights Act! But it was constitutional before then. And it could be constitutional again if Congress repeals the Civil Rights Act.

    This whole theory is preposterous, and (I hope) it won’t be given credence in any other decision.

    Turd Ferguson (e9b228)

  174. Turd Ferguson (e9b228) — 3/6/2024 @ 3:23 pm

    The Supremes may have made the wise choice in avoiding enmity toward the Court and the widespread chaos likely to ensue if Trump had been disqualified, but not as a matter of law.

    It’s a shame the Supreme Court first has to “read the room” before issuing a decision, but here we are.

    Behold what Trump hath wrought.

    norcal (4ab285)

  175. Unless I missed it, you had no issue with the novel and unprecedented uses of the law to go after the favorite to be the next president.

    That is the issue.

    That is one issue, but it is easily answered.

    The 14th Amendment to the Constitutiln took effect in 1868, soon after the Civil War. There were serious, legitimate concerns that people might be elected as leaders who had been willing to undermine the laws that governed the country.

    Section 3 has been a rarely used Constitutional provision in modern times because we elected leaders that would not try to undermine the laws. Trump has done that, repeatedly, to the point we can argue about whether he is an insurrectionist. This was unprecedented in modern times because Trump is an exception.

    DRJ (60477e)

  176. I reject the idea that my vote can be “thrown away”. My vote is a reflection of my choice, and is owed to none.

    If I choose to vote for Trump, Biden, RFK Jr., or Cthulhu, or to withhold it altogether, it is a reflection of my choice. A refusal to respect that is a denial of the principals of democracy that so many claim to hold dear.

    Frankly, I find it absurd to treat a third party vote to be a waste when the two major candidates are of such poor quality. But to each his own.

    Kenneth P. (1f45e0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1391 secs.