Had he voted to convict on the second impeachment, half his caucus would've joined him. Trump would stand convicted by the Senate. A simple majority vote of both chambers--back when Dems controlled the House--would then have forever barred Trump from ever serving again.
As for SCOTUS, there must be a dozen ways they can skirt the issue. Fifty years ago, Nixon's own 3 appointees ruled against him in the 8-0 decision (Rehnquist recused himself). This Court will show no such courage.
P.S. I agree with your assessment about the trial court judge. Would YOU want to be the judge to kick this guy off the ballot?
PS McConnell also refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Senate for a vote 10 months, I believe it was before the presidential election of 2016. And yet, when an opening on SCOTUS occured closer to the 2020 election, look at the hypocrisy as Coney-Barrett was promptly okayed! Not even a feeble attempt to hide the unfairness!
I’m not sure why, but the platform is going a bit haywire and inserting all kinds of extra words and letters into the piece today. Apologies for the multiple weird errors. They definitely were not there when we proofed this and I hit send!
I agree with Jay that this might not be the way to keep trump from being president; as much as I agree he is unfit for ANY office. If SCOTUS agrees with Colorado, that won't affect the MAGA cultists; even if it's a 9-0 vote they will simply say the conservative justices are RINO's. Fascism needs a complete and utter defeat at the polls.
Man, this is some explanation. I'm going to read it again to make sure I get it. What would we do without you! I was thrilled to hear the news, yet quickly was brought back to earth by people reminding me this SCOTUS has been bought and paid for... they'll likely rule in Trumps favor. Question: If SCOTUS does rule in Trumps favor, will this be the end of other states attempts to get him off their ballots? As always, Jay, it can never be said enough how much we appreciate you. ✌️
Been waiting for your rundown on this, as I have little patience for the mainstream media's inadequate coverage. Thanks.
"The dissenters argued that Colorado’s election law failed to provide Trump with adequate due process for adjudicating the question."
I wish I didn't think this, but it seems from a point of law to be something the plaintiffs won't be able to overcome with SCOTUS.
I wonder, though, if, assuming SCOTUS rules against Colorado, they'll leave an opening that states that if he's convicted for any of his many, many crimes, the question is therefore adjudicated.
They are going to throw it against jurisprudential flypaper and issue a lot of point and counterpoint and states rights and originalism and throat-clearing and...squirrel....and oh, look at the time....and is anyone gonna pony up another luxury fishing trip and avoidant passive-aggressive malarkey ....
Or, maybe not.
Maybe a cosmic defenestratinv event obviates the need for the decision other than as a theoretical exercise.
Ultimately we need to defeat Trump at the ballot box but glad to see the courts are forcing him to fight for every inch. IMO the court probably should rule that there needs to be some unified standard to disqualify him not a hodgepodge of state lawsuits which could bring chaos. But it would be fun to see a court where he appointed three of the justices rule he’s disqualified.
The entire nation is being held hostage by a single madman but our disastrous national weakness is that what passes for law 'round these parts protects the madman and not the rest of us. All arguments about how Trump isn't the real problem – it's the nazis, stupid – miss the point: there is ONE NAZI IN PARTICULAR who is at issue right here right now. The genuine fascisti – corporatists, their mouthpieces in the press and the pulpits, the brown-shirt wannabes, and the millions of minions – are and will continue to do harm to the country, but only Queensman will get the votes they need in 2024.
I have mixed feelings about this anyway. I am just not sure keeping him off the ballot would be a good move, even if the SC upheld it. Far better would be a sound trouncing at the ballot box. But that sadly, is looking distinctly iffy.
He hasn't already had that? Listen to him speak. He sounds like he's got a pickled brain. Can't keep two sentences in logical order. His cult doesn't care. It's one of the most curious mass psychosis phenomenon in world history. That's not hyperbole.
First, trump isn't filing anything. His lawyers are because he doesn't know shit about the law....nor does he care. Two, his lawyers will split hairs and split hairs and split hairs just to gum up the works because they know damn well he's in the wrong and they're afraid of him. I hope they get paid well for kissing his ass.
When we lawyers say “Trump filed” we of course mean his lawyers. Defendants don’t do any of the actual legal filings themselves, even when they a lot about the law. But it is customary to attribute the filing directly to the party.
There are, as we know, some very wealthy conservatives who do not support Trump. I wonder if they will try to influence the Supreme Court to use this opportunity to eliminate Trump from the ballot ....
A "due process" claim by tRump falls back upon the "self-executing" interpretation of §3, where the former would appear to "trump" the latter, and as you suggest, may carry the day at SCOTUS. Kinda sorta dodging the main issue - is he an insurrectionist, thereby disqualifying himself? However the Court rules, I believe it won't be wholly clarifying, especially the question/definition of "insurrection" committed by a federal *officer*. Sure, there was the Jan6 Ellipse speech, but that was hardly conclusive as, say, firing on Fort Sumter. Look forward to how the Court adjudicates the appeal, as it makes for juicy constitutional law.
Well, an "originalist" or "strict constructionist" interpretation would argue against anything short of armed rebellion as qualifying acts of *insurrection*, IMHO.
SC Smith didn't want to wade through 1st Amendment weeds on protected speech, and neither will SCOTUS. They will either take the due-process argument, or nix "self-executing" re: § 3, IMHO.
I still blame McConnell.
Had he voted to convict on the second impeachment, half his caucus would've joined him. Trump would stand convicted by the Senate. A simple majority vote of both chambers--back when Dems controlled the House--would then have forever barred Trump from ever serving again.
As for SCOTUS, there must be a dozen ways they can skirt the issue. Fifty years ago, Nixon's own 3 appointees ruled against him in the 8-0 decision (Rehnquist recused himself). This Court will show no such courage.
P.S. I agree with your assessment about the trial court judge. Would YOU want to be the judge to kick this guy off the ballot?
PS McConnell also refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Senate for a vote 10 months, I believe it was before the presidential election of 2016. And yet, when an opening on SCOTUS occured closer to the 2020 election, look at the hypocrisy as Coney-Barrett was promptly okayed! Not even a feeble attempt to hide the unfairness!
I was going to make the same points. You have said it better. I totally agree.
There is a very warm place reserved for McConnell in the hell realm. May he soon find it.
Given his recent health issues with senior brain farts and purple hands from non circulating blood, he’s one foot there now.
Nah, those are just because he's got 2 horcruxes made. 5 more until he becomes Voldemort!
I was predicting Mitch wouldn't see NYE. I may have to amend that prediction.
People like Trump and McConnell live off of the misery that they create.
The worst was his blocking Obama's SC pick. That was big.
Yes. Rehnquist recused himself b/c he was employed by Nixon's DOJ.
I’m not sure why, but the platform is going a bit haywire and inserting all kinds of extra words and letters into the piece today. Apologies for the multiple weird errors. They definitely were not there when we proofed this and I hit send!
Or. Someone spiked your egg nog!
I agree with Jay that this might not be the way to keep trump from being president; as much as I agree he is unfit for ANY office. If SCOTUS agrees with Colorado, that won't affect the MAGA cultists; even if it's a 9-0 vote they will simply say the conservative justices are RINO's. Fascism needs a complete and utter defeat at the polls.
tRump WAS defeated at the polls in 2020. He refused to accept the outcome. What about this upcoming election? Will that be different?
It will have to be overwhelming. I believe it will be.
Man, this is some explanation. I'm going to read it again to make sure I get it. What would we do without you! I was thrilled to hear the news, yet quickly was brought back to earth by people reminding me this SCOTUS has been bought and paid for... they'll likely rule in Trumps favor. Question: If SCOTUS does rule in Trumps favor, will this be the end of other states attempts to get him off their ballots? As always, Jay, it can never be said enough how much we appreciate you. ✌️
It really depends on how they rule. If they say that in this case there wasn’t adequate due process, perhaps they’ll have to tell us what would be?
If abortion is a states' rights issue, so is this.
My question also.
Been waiting for your rundown on this, as I have little patience for the mainstream media's inadequate coverage. Thanks.
"The dissenters argued that Colorado’s election law failed to provide Trump with adequate due process for adjudicating the question."
I wish I didn't think this, but it seems from a point of law to be something the plaintiffs won't be able to overcome with SCOTUS.
I wonder, though, if, assuming SCOTUS rules against Colorado, they'll leave an opening that states that if he's convicted for any of his many, many crimes, the question is therefore adjudicated.
There’s still wiggle room, though. Conspiring to obstruct / defraud the U.S. is not *exactly* the same crime as insurrection, so we’ll have to see.
Oh, that's a good point. Unfortunately.
They are going to throw it against jurisprudential flypaper and issue a lot of point and counterpoint and states rights and originalism and throat-clearing and...squirrel....and oh, look at the time....and is anyone gonna pony up another luxury fishing trip and avoidant passive-aggressive malarkey ....
Or, maybe not.
Maybe a cosmic defenestratinv event obviates the need for the decision other than as a theoretical exercise.
Squirrel.
"Cosmic defenestrative event" is going into my mental book of phrases!
😅
Cosmic defenestration event!! How can I work that into my Christmas letter?!?
Love the image of “cosmic defenestration”.
Ultimately we need to defeat Trump at the ballot box but glad to see the courts are forcing him to fight for every inch. IMO the court probably should rule that there needs to be some unified standard to disqualify him not a hodgepodge of state lawsuits which could bring chaos. But it would be fun to see a court where he appointed three of the justices rule he’s disqualified.
There are many attacks upon his quest to regain the presidency. This is but one.
The entire nation is being held hostage by a single madman but our disastrous national weakness is that what passes for law 'round these parts protects the madman and not the rest of us. All arguments about how Trump isn't the real problem – it's the nazis, stupid – miss the point: there is ONE NAZI IN PARTICULAR who is at issue right here right now. The genuine fascisti – corporatists, their mouthpieces in the press and the pulpits, the brown-shirt wannabes, and the millions of minions – are and will continue to do harm to the country, but only Queensman will get the votes they need in 2024.
I have mixed feelings about this anyway. I am just not sure keeping him off the ballot would be a good move, even if the SC upheld it. Far better would be a sound trouncing at the ballot box. But that sadly, is looking distinctly iffy.
I just keep praying for a stroke to take him off the ballot, a nice one in the speech center, rendering him mute.
He hasn't already had that? Listen to him speak. He sounds like he's got a pickled brain. Can't keep two sentences in logical order. His cult doesn't care. It's one of the most curious mass psychosis phenomenon in world history. That's not hyperbole.
Charles, I wholeheartedly agree. It defies logic. 🤦♀️
Poetic justice for sure!
Colorado could put his name on the ballot; but redact it. Problem solved.
Ha!
First, trump isn't filing anything. His lawyers are because he doesn't know shit about the law....nor does he care. Two, his lawyers will split hairs and split hairs and split hairs just to gum up the works because they know damn well he's in the wrong and they're afraid of him. I hope they get paid well for kissing his ass.
When we lawyers say “Trump filed” we of course mean his lawyers. Defendants don’t do any of the actual legal filings themselves, even when they a lot about the law. But it is customary to attribute the filing directly to the party.
Sometimes they don't get paid at all! That's one of the risks you take as a Trump "vendor."
Yay Colorado, for having the chutzpah to do the right thing. (and I'm not even Jewish.)
There are, as we know, some very wealthy conservatives who do not support Trump. I wonder if they will try to influence the Supreme Court to use this opportunity to eliminate Trump from the ballot ....
Judge Luttig comes to mind.
Thank you, Jay. Best breakdown of the Colorado/
SCOTUS ruling coming I've
read. Very thorough.
Well, my choice of state residency has been validated as a good one!
I figured that the trial judge made her split decision as a way to set up the appeal to the Colorado State Supreme Court.
Now, all the “state’s rights” people will be running to the federal court. Irony on steroids.
If you enjoy a rant (with expletives), you can read today’s Jeff Teidrich’s Substack.
Hear hear!! Great explanation, Jeff! Thank you!
A "due process" claim by tRump falls back upon the "self-executing" interpretation of §3, where the former would appear to "trump" the latter, and as you suggest, may carry the day at SCOTUS. Kinda sorta dodging the main issue - is he an insurrectionist, thereby disqualifying himself? However the Court rules, I believe it won't be wholly clarifying, especially the question/definition of "insurrection" committed by a federal *officer*. Sure, there was the Jan6 Ellipse speech, but that was hardly conclusive as, say, firing on Fort Sumter. Look forward to how the Court adjudicates the appeal, as it makes for juicy constitutional law.
I tend to agree.
I was wondering if the acts that define "insurrection" include the fake electors scheme or only the events of Jan 6.
Well, an "originalist" or "strict constructionist" interpretation would argue against anything short of armed rebellion as qualifying acts of *insurrection*, IMHO.
How can tRump’s 1/6 “speech” and all of the actions around it not be “conclusive”? Does insurrection HAVE to be a military coup?
SC Smith didn't want to wade through 1st Amendment weeds on protected speech, and neither will SCOTUS. They will either take the due-process argument, or nix "self-executing" re: § 3, IMHO.
Due process?!
That conman has been investigated for YEARS at this point over numerous issues in numerous states and by the Feds.
Do we each and everyone of us have to do our own investigation?
It’s all there.
Speech that incites others counts as insurrection according to case law, I think. The Jan 6 speech fits pretty well, seems to me.