Or...or we could just trash the Electoral College - a holdover from when we still had witchcraft trials in this country - and a whole lot of this stops mattering on a state level because it's just who wins the popular vote.
I read about it somewhere. They call it democracy. I want to try!
The Electoral College is an enlightened system by which we give livestock the right to vote in red states. We figured most of the livestock had about the same mental acuity as their keepers and figured "Eh, why not?"
This may explain why sheep, snakes, and chickens keep getting elected.
While I wholeheartedly agree, the problem is that the Electoral College can only be eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment, which is virtually impossible at this point in the nation’s history. The last true Amendment to pass was the 26th, standardizing the national voting age at 18. It was passed and ratified in 1971. Yes, there is a 27th Amendment which codified that any bill that raises Congressional salaries can only take effect after the next Congress is elected and seated. It was ratified and certified in 1992, but it was proposed in 1789, making it an exception. In today's politics there is virtually no amendment that could be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Certainly not the elimination of the EC.
The National Interstate Popular Vote Compact would, in effect, nullify the Electoral College by allowing the popular vote to elect the President. They just need the number of electoral votes to reach 270. It’s getting closer , but that number has not yet been reached.
Sure, but there is virtually no chance of getting there. Yes, it would be easier than the three-quarters of states to ratify an amendment, but not by much.
I would like nothing more, but it would require all of the remaining blue states and several red states, which will never be ratified because it will weaken their influence.
As I have said on this site before, this was never going to remove the orange one from the ballot. Indeed it should not be the way he is defeated; the cult leader and it's members have to be voted out. He. Must. Be. Defeated. Even if he becomes a convicted felon, he will still run and he still must be defeated at the polls. His defeat will not cut the rot out of the political process, but it will be a good start.
Side note: the scotus majority worries about chaos in allowing the states to decide for themselves, but are okay with the chaos the Dobbs decision created when it returned the decision about a woman's right to choose to the states.
That's because we lacked imagination, or nightmare visions; depending on how you look at it. I don't know many people who thought he was coming back from that defeat. Others will try to follow, and they will need to be defeated as well. Yes, it will be exhausting.
Not just to abolish or at least circumvent the electoral college, by the interstate compact, but also to simply abolish the 60 votes filibuster cudgel.
Then the Republican stranglehold over the Senate magically disappears. That is the true McConnell legacy, and it is not sacrosanct. Now that Manchin and Sinema are on their way out, the last willing stooges preventing progress will be gone.
It is true that a trifecta of republican President, house, and senate are scary. But self sabotaging by clinging to the 60 votes filibuster cudgel is exactly what McConnell wanted.
We can expand the Supreme Court. We must.
We can also expand Congress, both the House and the Senate. We can make DC and Puerto Rico states. Because DC has more population than two states and Puerto Rico has more population than 20 states, and they more than deserve to become full fledged states. It’s only racism and the fact that DC is so blue, that has constrained DC forever. People vote, not land mass.
Good points, and especially expand Congress, which hasn't been expanded since 1913 (when there was a very, very heavy rural population) and is capped by law, if I remember right, so that would have to be changed by Congress.
That we cannot do - U.S. Constitution, Article I, sec. 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State..." Another thing that would take a Constitutional amendment, which ain't happening.
It doesn't meet the needs of the people, and was never meant to. It is meant to give representation to the STATES. The House is supposed to meet the needs of the people.
If Joe Biden wins in 2024 and expands the Supreme Court by adding four new Supreme Court Judges (tipping the numbers to 7-6 Democrat-nominated judges), what's to stop 2032 President Ivanka Trump from adding four more conservative judges? Or fourteen?
Yep. This is why Biden (and plenty of others) has no enthusiasm for this idea. Absent a Constitutional amendment setting the number of justices, whether to the number of districts or some other method, there is no end to the possible mischief available here. SCOTUS is already looking about as nuts as we can take, I think. There are some people who think nine is too many, and others who think 19 might not be enough.
We always planned for him to be on the ballot, so I’m glad no one banked on it. I’m glad his folks had to waste so much time and resources on it. It’s truly pathetic to see them celebrate he stayed on the ballot. Sad. It was surely the wrong decision. Also—it doesn’t mean he didn’t incite the insurrection. He absolutely did. Great post!
I agree...his speechifying is getting more random, much less coherent (not that it ever was actually coherent) and hi is having significant trouble finding and pronouncing words. How anyone--including his worshipers--can sit there and listen to him LIE and lie, and lie and lie some more & maunder on for an hour or more and not upchuck is quite remarkable.
Aphasia leading to dementia is a thing, and we've seen several instances of aphasia from him recently. Think Bruce Willis, and (apparently) Wendy Williams. Personally, I think we are witnessing on a nearly daily basis a series of TIAs, also know as mini-strokes. Hopefully the transition to babbling drooler happens BEFORE the election. I can't see any other candidate the MAGAts could put forward that would get all of his votes.
"His insane cult" includes those who wrote Project 2025. I haven't finished reading it yet, just the table of contents and the first page or two. The fact that candidates from the same party are rarely elected consecutively keeps me up at night. What are the chances that we can elect a democratic president in 2028 (assuming that Biden is re-elected)?
Same here............I loathed Dubya, but was careful not to wish evil things to happen to him. Trump? Have at him, Satan. (although, it appears that even Satan doesn't seem to want him down there messing up Hell)
Jay, as always, I continue to be impressed by your analyses of various issues concerning mammoth events that could affect our political future, most importantly the looming presidential elections. I found myself inadvertently comparing your discussion of this Supreme Court’s decision with the reporting by the various media yesterday. I was struck by the difference between the two, basically you versus them. The media continues to be haphazard in their reporting, in a hurry to get first dibs on clicks I assume. For example, “unanimous”; “turn down the heat…”. I really appreciate knowing which judge took a particular position so that I could avoid generalizing the whole Court as rotten and self serving.
Thank you for the work that you do…it is very responsible and much appreciated.
It takes time and patience to explain our complex system, two things that the media don’t believe most audiences have. But I’ve found that many people are yearning for more in-depth discussions, and I’m glad they are finding it here and in similar fora.
This court decision was about the only time I've dug a little deep into one of the various legal cases that have been cropping up instead of saying, "Screw it, I'll wait for Jay!" I was just too curious this time, and Jay's take was exactly like I anticipated. Jay has saved me hours of reading time, for realz.
"Further, the opinion’s limitation on states to qualify federal officials is consistent with the general idea that individual states generally don’t have a right to interfere with the operations of the federal government. (I hope you’re listening, Texas.)"
Herein lies the problem for me. The Supreme Court's Federalist Society wing has been beating the drums of originalism for as long as I can remember. But this decision, especially the second part, which dictates a remedy, flies in the face of it, which exposes their hypocrisy and bias. Will they, for example, stop Texas from interfering with the border? I think we can bet that at least three of them won't.
Very, very grateful for this excellent explanation and for all of you in this community who have made such intelligent points. We simply have to vote. And when we have a democratic majority, let’s make education a top priority. ✌️💙
The Supreme Court has allowed Trump to stay on the ballot. But that is not necessarily the end of the matter, because Democrats could still prevent Trump from becoming president, even if he seemingly has more electoral votes than Biden. How is that possible, you ask? If the Democrats win control of Congress, then they can object to Trump ballots being counted on the grounds that he is an insurrectionist ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. If their objection is sustained by a majority vote, then Trump loses and Biden is reelected.
But, you ask, didn’t the Supreme Court just say Congress had to pass legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment? Yes, but that part of their opinion was merely dicta, unnecessary to their holding and, therefore, not controlling. And in any event Democrats have no reason to let the Supreme Court’s election interference bind them, especially when the Constitution gives them every right to object to electoral votes.
Thom Hartmann wrote in his news letter a few days ago that one of his concerns was Mike Johnson would refuse to seat the Democrats into office prior to the counting and confirming of the electoral votes. I read Hakeem Jefferies had told Mike Johnson the Democrats would not vote to oust him if he included money for Ukraine in his bills. Johnson wrote the legal brief in the law suit to overturn President Biden's election win. I think I would prefer they vote to oust him if it is brought to a vote and try to replace him with someone less loyal to overturning election wins. .
The first order of business of a new congress is the election of the speaker. If the Democrats win the most seats, Johnson will not be elected and will have no role in seating new members.
But wasn't Nancy Pelosi in charge on Jan 6 (TFFG blamed her for not calling Nat'l Guard)? Or was that because the Rs couldn't get their shit together to elect a Speaker
Assuming we win a majority they also have to get seated, and we need to be alert for attempted highjinks from the MAGA wing, who don’t seem disposed to go quietly.
Exactly this. I read an article yesterday about their PLAN to do exactly this. Johnson and others will claim voter fraud again and refuse to seat Congressional seat winners.
And it gets worse. By casting the process into disarray, they will seek relief in the courts etc something treasonous yada yada and tRump is elected by way of Congress.
"Johnson and others will claim voter fraud again and refuse to seat Congressional seat winners"
THEY CAN'T.
This has been repeatedly debunked here. If the new House is majority Democrat, Mike Johnson et. al. will have no power to do this, as the new Congress is sworn in by the newly elected Speaker - who would, in this instance, be a gentleman by the name of Hakeem Jeffries, as the Speaker will be elected by the new majority. The majority party caucuses and elects the Speaker (the clusterf**k of the last one was an aberration), who will then swear in the members of the House.
Well, yet again it's the case of the far-right Court majority rewriting the Constitution to get a preferred result: tRump effectively will never be blocked from holding office as an oath-breaking insurrectionist. And why not "amend" §3 while they have your attention. There literally is NO bounds to the Court's majority in confecting "new" approaches to "textualism" or "originalism", it's what they do, and we the public are stuck with it.
Thank you, Jay. We are exactly where we were Sunday before this expectedly tortured SCOTUS ruling: Getting out the BLUE vote. We need to keep clear heads and energized hearts to return President Biden to the WH and to replace every single R insurrectionist congressperson and senator (lower cased on purpose).
My thoughts exactly. The Electoral College needs to go. Let the popular vote decide. (Yes. I know. Requires a constitutional amendment.) Better yet, give the question to this Court and let it engage in its pretzel reasoning and find a way. 🙄
Just a thought, remarkable to me that no one mentions the over 800,000 people who lost their lives from Covid when 45 knew in December that a monumental virus was on its way! Why isnt this fact part of the narrative, among all the other crimes 45 committed?
From the Court’s written decision - “arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration.”
This would appear to hold harmless any federal judge or magistrate that swears a federal elected official or House Speaker or Vice President that swears a member of congress in from prosecution or impeachment on the grounds of a direct violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Up and until that portion of the opinion I could postulate the slim chance of TFG or other insurrectionist remaining on a ballot but being invalidated by refusal of oath administration. But no more. Five of the six Injustices, already known to be anti-voter rights, have gone out of the way to destroy even more of the 14th amendment.
Does this insulate all the insurrectionist R congresspersons and senators from their actions leading up to and during J6? I believe there were more than 140 of them who would (dis)qualify?
My understanding from Jay’s newsletter is, at least for now unless Congress passes specific legislation as the Court is saying is required by Section 5, the answer is a “Yes”. Under the current Congressional make-up Jay concludes and I’d agree, that ain’t going to happen.
For now, the approximately 140 are in the clear.
My comment addressed for what I’d hope would be the difference between standing for election (the Court said states could not exclude for federal elections) and the elected individual being sworn in to hold office. For the latter, my take on the sentence quoted from the opinion of the five, as Jay quoted, is once elected the individual can be sworn in. The swearing in judge/official won’t be violating Section 3 (therefore unable to act as a backstop) and holding office doesn’t violate Section 3, all absent specific defining legislation from Congress.
The whole thing seems completely wrong and warped to me.
The wording of Section 3 “shall not” is self enacting, it should not need Congressional legislation.
I am all for getting rid of the Electoral College, as per the comments below. I am unsympathetic to the argument that disallowing Trump in Colorado would have caused chaos/ floodgates. what do we have right now? an oath-breaking insurrectionist with 91 felony accounts running, and no clear path by which any of the criminal cases will be brought before the election. a guy who is the very definition of polarization and not following the rule of law. if that isn't chaos, I don't know what is. The High Court is corrupt and intellectually bankrupt.
Or...or we could just trash the Electoral College - a holdover from when we still had witchcraft trials in this country - and a whole lot of this stops mattering on a state level because it's just who wins the popular vote.
I read about it somewhere. They call it democracy. I want to try!
Yes, if indeed “the President . . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation”, why then are the votes weighed differently by the Electoral College?
The Electoral College is an enlightened system by which we give livestock the right to vote in red states. We figured most of the livestock had about the same mental acuity as their keepers and figured "Eh, why not?"
This may explain why sheep, snakes, and chickens keep getting elected.
This is the BEST explanation ever!
Haha thanks. Been using it for years.
While I wholeheartedly agree, the problem is that the Electoral College can only be eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment, which is virtually impossible at this point in the nation’s history. The last true Amendment to pass was the 26th, standardizing the national voting age at 18. It was passed and ratified in 1971. Yes, there is a 27th Amendment which codified that any bill that raises Congressional salaries can only take effect after the next Congress is elected and seated. It was ratified and certified in 1992, but it was proposed in 1789, making it an exception. In today's politics there is virtually no amendment that could be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Certainly not the elimination of the EC.
The National Interstate Popular Vote Compact would, in effect, nullify the Electoral College by allowing the popular vote to elect the President. They just need the number of electoral votes to reach 270. It’s getting closer , but that number has not yet been reached.
I wonder if this Court would uphold it as constitutional
I think this court can barely uphold it's underwear.
Thank you for that guffaw. Good shot!
Doubtful this court would. Maybe a differently comprised court?
Sure, but there is virtually no chance of getting there. Yes, it would be easier than the three-quarters of states to ratify an amendment, but not by much.
There are several states still working on the legislation, I believe it will come to fruition eventually.
I hope so, Sharon.
🙏🏼
I would like nothing more, but it would require all of the remaining blue states and several red states, which will never be ratified because it will weaken their influence.
As I have said on this site before, this was never going to remove the orange one from the ballot. Indeed it should not be the way he is defeated; the cult leader and it's members have to be voted out. He. Must. Be. Defeated. Even if he becomes a convicted felon, he will still run and he still must be defeated at the polls. His defeat will not cut the rot out of the political process, but it will be a good start.
Side note: the scotus majority worries about chaos in allowing the states to decide for themselves, but are okay with the chaos the Dobbs decision created when it returned the decision about a woman's right to choose to the states.
Women are expendable per this Catholic Male Court. We'll just see about that come November!
Hypocrites! The majority of SCOTUS are all hypocrites, especially the ones appointed by the seditionist, who should be in prison.
Jessica Valenti made that "side note" point in her blog, too.
We did the "defeating him at the ballots will defeat him forever" bit in 2020. I don't recall that working out very well.
Beating him temporarily beats back the fascism the rich want. Until the next election. Prepare for exhaustion.
That's because we lacked imagination, or nightmare visions; depending on how you look at it. I don't know many people who thought he was coming back from that defeat. Others will try to follow, and they will need to be defeated as well. Yes, it will be exhausting.
Straight up Voldemort shit with this one.
Not just to abolish or at least circumvent the electoral college, by the interstate compact, but also to simply abolish the 60 votes filibuster cudgel.
Then the Republican stranglehold over the Senate magically disappears. That is the true McConnell legacy, and it is not sacrosanct. Now that Manchin and Sinema are on their way out, the last willing stooges preventing progress will be gone.
It is true that a trifecta of republican President, house, and senate are scary. But self sabotaging by clinging to the 60 votes filibuster cudgel is exactly what McConnell wanted.
We can expand the Supreme Court. We must.
We can also expand Congress, both the House and the Senate. We can make DC and Puerto Rico states. Because DC has more population than two states and Puerto Rico has more population than 20 states, and they more than deserve to become full fledged states. It’s only racism and the fact that DC is so blue, that has constrained DC forever. People vote, not land mass.
Exactly! Time to clean out the institutional corruption that the GQP has been using to implement minority rule for decades. . .
Yes to everything.
Good points, and especially expand Congress, which hasn't been expanded since 1913 (when there was a very, very heavy rural population) and is capped by law, if I remember right, so that would have to be changed by Congress.
We should change the senate system too. Wyoming has the same representation as California. How does that meet the needs of The People?
That we cannot do - U.S. Constitution, Article I, sec. 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State..." Another thing that would take a Constitutional amendment, which ain't happening.
It doesn't meet the needs of the people, and was never meant to. It is meant to give representation to the STATES. The House is supposed to meet the needs of the people.
Didn’t PR voted a few years ago against joining the Union?
If Joe Biden wins in 2024 and expands the Supreme Court by adding four new Supreme Court Judges (tipping the numbers to 7-6 Democrat-nominated judges), what's to stop 2032 President Ivanka Trump from adding four more conservative judges? Or fourteen?
Keep it at the same number as there are District Courts.
Like Donald Trump would stick to that if he thought more judges would be better for him.
Yep. This is why Biden (and plenty of others) has no enthusiasm for this idea. Absent a Constitutional amendment setting the number of justices, whether to the number of districts or some other method, there is no end to the possible mischief available here. SCOTUS is already looking about as nuts as we can take, I think. There are some people who think nine is too many, and others who think 19 might not be enough.
We always planned for him to be on the ballot, so I’m glad no one banked on it. I’m glad his folks had to waste so much time and resources on it. It’s truly pathetic to see them celebrate he stayed on the ballot. Sad. It was surely the wrong decision. Also—it doesn’t mean he didn’t incite the insurrection. He absolutely did. Great post!
"It’s truly pathetic to see them celebrate he stayed on the ballot."
Quoting without comment! :-)
I agree...his speechifying is getting more random, much less coherent (not that it ever was actually coherent) and hi is having significant trouble finding and pronouncing words. How anyone--including his worshipers--can sit there and listen to him LIE and lie, and lie and lie some more & maunder on for an hour or more and not upchuck is quite remarkable.
Aphasia leading to dementia is a thing, and we've seen several instances of aphasia from him recently. Think Bruce Willis, and (apparently) Wendy Williams. Personally, I think we are witnessing on a nearly daily basis a series of TIAs, also know as mini-strokes. Hopefully the transition to babbling drooler happens BEFORE the election. I can't see any other candidate the MAGAts could put forward that would get all of his votes.
I've been on Team Debilitating Stroke for quite some time now.....
"His insane cult" includes those who wrote Project 2025. I haven't finished reading it yet, just the table of contents and the first page or two. The fact that candidates from the same party are rarely elected consecutively keeps me up at night. What are the chances that we can elect a democratic president in 2028 (assuming that Biden is re-elected)?
Same here............I loathed Dubya, but was careful not to wish evil things to happen to him. Trump? Have at him, Satan. (although, it appears that even Satan doesn't seem to want him down there messing up Hell)
Jay, as always, I continue to be impressed by your analyses of various issues concerning mammoth events that could affect our political future, most importantly the looming presidential elections. I found myself inadvertently comparing your discussion of this Supreme Court’s decision with the reporting by the various media yesterday. I was struck by the difference between the two, basically you versus them. The media continues to be haphazard in their reporting, in a hurry to get first dibs on clicks I assume. For example, “unanimous”; “turn down the heat…”. I really appreciate knowing which judge took a particular position so that I could avoid generalizing the whole Court as rotten and self serving.
Thank you for the work that you do…it is very responsible and much appreciated.
It takes time and patience to explain our complex system, two things that the media don’t believe most audiences have. But I’ve found that many people are yearning for more in-depth discussions, and I’m glad they are finding it here and in similar fora.
This court decision was about the only time I've dug a little deep into one of the various legal cases that have been cropping up instead of saying, "Screw it, I'll wait for Jay!" I was just too curious this time, and Jay's take was exactly like I anticipated. Jay has saved me hours of reading time, for realz.
"Further, the opinion’s limitation on states to qualify federal officials is consistent with the general idea that individual states generally don’t have a right to interfere with the operations of the federal government. (I hope you’re listening, Texas.)"
Herein lies the problem for me. The Supreme Court's Federalist Society wing has been beating the drums of originalism for as long as I can remember. But this decision, especially the second part, which dictates a remedy, flies in the face of it, which exposes their hypocrisy and bias. Will they, for example, stop Texas from interfering with the border? I think we can bet that at least three of them won't.
They do seem to choose originalism only when it suits them. Which of course exposes their scheme.
Very, very grateful for this excellent explanation and for all of you in this community who have made such intelligent points. We simply have to vote. And when we have a democratic majority, let’s make education a top priority. ✌️💙
The Supreme Court has allowed Trump to stay on the ballot. But that is not necessarily the end of the matter, because Democrats could still prevent Trump from becoming president, even if he seemingly has more electoral votes than Biden. How is that possible, you ask? If the Democrats win control of Congress, then they can object to Trump ballots being counted on the grounds that he is an insurrectionist ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. If their objection is sustained by a majority vote, then Trump loses and Biden is reelected.
But, you ask, didn’t the Supreme Court just say Congress had to pass legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment? Yes, but that part of their opinion was merely dicta, unnecessary to their holding and, therefore, not controlling. And in any event Democrats have no reason to let the Supreme Court’s election interference bind them, especially when the Constitution gives them every right to object to electoral votes.
Thom Hartmann wrote in his news letter a few days ago that one of his concerns was Mike Johnson would refuse to seat the Democrats into office prior to the counting and confirming of the electoral votes. I read Hakeem Jefferies had told Mike Johnson the Democrats would not vote to oust him if he included money for Ukraine in his bills. Johnson wrote the legal brief in the law suit to overturn President Biden's election win. I think I would prefer they vote to oust him if it is brought to a vote and try to replace him with someone less loyal to overturning election wins. .
The next Congress will be the one that counts the votes. If the Democrats take control of the House, Johnson will be out of power.
Newly elected members are seated on Jan 3, electoral votes counted on Jan 6. Mikey could refuse to seat the new Ds, so this concern seems real
The first order of business of a new congress is the election of the speaker. If the Democrats win the most seats, Johnson will not be elected and will have no role in seating new members.
But wasn't Nancy Pelosi in charge on Jan 6 (TFFG blamed her for not calling Nat'l Guard)? Or was that because the Rs couldn't get their shit together to elect a Speaker
Assuming we win a majority they also have to get seated, and we need to be alert for attempted highjinks from the MAGA wing, who don’t seem disposed to go quietly.
Exactly this. I read an article yesterday about their PLAN to do exactly this. Johnson and others will claim voter fraud again and refuse to seat Congressional seat winners.
And it gets worse. By casting the process into disarray, they will seek relief in the courts etc something treasonous yada yada and tRump is elected by way of Congress.
Sorry I forget the details…I’ll send a link 😅
"Johnson and others will claim voter fraud again and refuse to seat Congressional seat winners"
THEY CAN'T.
This has been repeatedly debunked here. If the new House is majority Democrat, Mike Johnson et. al. will have no power to do this, as the new Congress is sworn in by the newly elected Speaker - who would, in this instance, be a gentleman by the name of Hakeem Jeffries, as the Speaker will be elected by the new majority. The majority party caucuses and elects the Speaker (the clusterf**k of the last one was an aberration), who will then swear in the members of the House.
Well, yet again it's the case of the far-right Court majority rewriting the Constitution to get a preferred result: tRump effectively will never be blocked from holding office as an oath-breaking insurrectionist. And why not "amend" §3 while they have your attention. There literally is NO bounds to the Court's majority in confecting "new" approaches to "textualism" or "originalism", it's what they do, and we the public are stuck with it.
Originalism is what they say it is. Fairly original take, so I'll give them credit for that.
Are we stuck with them?
How can we get Thomas to step down?
Can we add judges?
Can we remove judges ? Ever?
I’d like know if there is any path to curtailing this court
1) Pretty much.
2) Hahahaha - we can't - and he won't short of the grave.
3) Possibly, with full control of Congress.
4) Impeachment. That's it.
5) Time. Only time will change this Court in any way at all.
Rep. Jamie Raskin “working on” bill responding to Trump ballot ruling
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/04/jamie-raskin-trump-ballot-ruling-supreme-court
Congressman Raskin knows his stuff. For 25 years he was a Constitutional Law Professor at American University Washington College of Law.
Although retired Republican Judge J. Michael Luttig and legal scholar/Havard Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe say that 14-3 is self executing!
Thank you, Jay. We are exactly where we were Sunday before this expectedly tortured SCOTUS ruling: Getting out the BLUE vote. We need to keep clear heads and energized hearts to return President Biden to the WH and to replace every single R insurrectionist congressperson and senator (lower cased on purpose).
My thoughts exactly. The Electoral College needs to go. Let the popular vote decide. (Yes. I know. Requires a constitutional amendment.) Better yet, give the question to this Court and let it engage in its pretzel reasoning and find a way. 🙄
Just a thought, remarkable to me that no one mentions the over 800,000 people who lost their lives from Covid when 45 knew in December that a monumental virus was on its way! Why isnt this fact part of the narrative, among all the other crimes 45 committed?
We did a piece on Covid amnesia in The Big Picture. Check it out!
From the Court’s written decision - “arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration.”
This would appear to hold harmless any federal judge or magistrate that swears a federal elected official or House Speaker or Vice President that swears a member of congress in from prosecution or impeachment on the grounds of a direct violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Up and until that portion of the opinion I could postulate the slim chance of TFG or other insurrectionist remaining on a ballot but being invalidated by refusal of oath administration. But no more. Five of the six Injustices, already known to be anti-voter rights, have gone out of the way to destroy even more of the 14th amendment.
Does this insulate all the insurrectionist R congresspersons and senators from their actions leading up to and during J6? I believe there were more than 140 of them who would (dis)qualify?
My understanding from Jay’s newsletter is, at least for now unless Congress passes specific legislation as the Court is saying is required by Section 5, the answer is a “Yes”. Under the current Congressional make-up Jay concludes and I’d agree, that ain’t going to happen.
For now, the approximately 140 are in the clear.
My comment addressed for what I’d hope would be the difference between standing for election (the Court said states could not exclude for federal elections) and the elected individual being sworn in to hold office. For the latter, my take on the sentence quoted from the opinion of the five, as Jay quoted, is once elected the individual can be sworn in. The swearing in judge/official won’t be violating Section 3 (therefore unable to act as a backstop) and holding office doesn’t violate Section 3, all absent specific defining legislation from Congress.
The whole thing seems completely wrong and warped to me.
The wording of Section 3 “shall not” is self enacting, it should not need Congressional legislation.
Yea what about this?
I am all for getting rid of the Electoral College, as per the comments below. I am unsympathetic to the argument that disallowing Trump in Colorado would have caused chaos/ floodgates. what do we have right now? an oath-breaking insurrectionist with 91 felony accounts running, and no clear path by which any of the criminal cases will be brought before the election. a guy who is the very definition of polarization and not following the rule of law. if that isn't chaos, I don't know what is. The High Court is corrupt and intellectually bankrupt.
It sounds like, once again, a decision was made fearing what *might* happen if they rule the other way.