I’m still here; I’ve just gotten really busy. Christmas stuff, mostly. And now I’m too tired to wsrite much.
Some Colorado ruling, huh?
When I first heard that Trump had been found disqualified to run for POTUS in Colorado, I assumed the SCOTUS would reverse this pretty quickly. And they might. But the fun part is going to see what kind of hoops the justices will have to jump through to reverse it. Adam Serwer:
The Colorado court weighed all of this in arriving at its decision. “We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the justices in the majority wrote. “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
In framing the stakes this way, the Colorado court is calling the bluff of the U.S. Supreme Court’s originalists, forcing its conservative justices to choose between their purported legal philosophy and the partisan interests of the party with which they identify. The ruling itself seems written with a consciously originalist interpretation, with an eye toward legitimizing its conclusions to the justices who will ultimately be compelled to deal with the case.
The Colorado justices wrote a very originalist/textualist decision, and even cited an earlier Bret Kavanaugh decision as a precedent. So if the court nixies this it’s going to have to reject originalism.
This could be fun.
IMO, the Supremes will leave the door open in the first iteration of deciding if Trump is disqualified by the 14th Section 3. I don't think they will affirm the decision in a way that would disqualify Trump outside of Colorado. I think there's a good chance that the Supremes will elect not to dispute the findings of fact. (From what I read, it's a steep climb to reverse the findings of fact – not impossible – but it's not something done lightly. For what REASONS would the Supremes reverse TWO Colorado courts that agreed Trump participated in an insurrection?) So one option is an affirmation of the Colorado decision, binding ONLY in CO. Other states may follow suit. (Pun intended.)
Or they might dance their way out in a two-step.
The problem for the Supremes is that if they allow the Colorado decision to stand for Colorado, they may have to decide next year if the 14th disqualifies Trump from being sworn in as POTUS. WHEN does the court have to decide? After the Primary? After the General? I'm pretty sure the Supremes don't want this hot potato – if Trump lost the Primary, that would get them off the hook. Or can they structure the first decision about CO in a way that thrusts the burden on the jury in the criminal trial?
Jack Smith will have Trump in front of a jury in DC next year. If the Supremes say this year that the level of evidence in CO did not quite prove Donald Trump committed insurrection and then next year a jury in DC next year convicts Trump, then the Supremes have shifted the burden to the jury, indirectly.
With that in mind, I do not think the Supremes will find that Trump did NOT commit insurrection, but they might find that in the absence of a court setting and the decision of a jury. the findings of the J6 committee are potentially biased. (I disagree. The lower court in CO looked at the evidence and testimony gathered by the J6 Committee. They saw the facts.)
But I can see the Supremes setting Trump up to be disqualified by a jury. The Supremes have to affirm the overall integrity of the judicial system and the US Constitution. They can't arbitrarily dismiss the 14th as no longer binding. If a jury convicts, then the Supremes might declare that the Constitution is self-executing. Trump is out. But they don't Trump's blood on their hands.
The question that the Supreme Court has to answer is was J6 an insurrection or wasn't it? I know it is obvious to most normal people that it was, but to settle that question from the Supreme Court will take the wind out of the sails of Trump's defenders. I hear Alan Dershorwitz out there claiming that the 14th amendment is an archaic amendment intended to only deal with confederates after the civil war. But the reality is that the 14th says those who engage in insurrection are disqualified from holding public office. No time periods specified, no specific actions or involvement required to qualify for engagement.
I'm hearing there are a dozen states kicking around the idea of disqualifying Trump, but need clarification as to whether the Supreme Court will uphold Colorado's ruling that J6 and Trump's participation in it was an insurrection.
Re: Alan Dershorwitz "claiming that the 14th amendment is an archaic amendment intended to only deal with confederates after the civil war"; well then I guess he would also claim the 2nd amendment was only intended to apply to muzzloading flintlock rifles and pistols, and perhaps a bit archaic, right? "Your honor, I cannot be found guilty of speeding because I was not driving a Model T Ford!". Aren't all laws pretty much a response to something? Would the highly esteemed Harvard law professor and author agree with that?
Well said. Making up "reasons" seem his specialty. Your answers are well done. Perhaps we can get a few connected journalists to expand on your very well done replies.
Dershowitz defended Epstein the first time around when he got the sweetheart deal later determined to be illegal. He's a sleazy defender of the rich. Whether he has a deep-seated belief in the inherent superiority of the aristocracy or whether he's a whore for money is for God to decide. I suspect he's a true believer in American aristocrats because he makes comments to defend them for free.
Either ruling by the creator bodes ill for Dershowitz in the afterlife. I have a sort list of people I think are beyond hope and he's on it.
Dershowitz is the only person to go to Pedophile Island and only end up with a massage from a frumpy old babushka. It sounds fishy to me. Dershowitz seems like the type of guy who doesn't do well when it comes to scoring with the chicks, so the idea that he would pass up a young tart being offered by Epstein for some old Soviet babushka kinda makes one wonder.
It reminds me of my brother when he became a shellback. He was charged in Neptune's court with going fishing with two oversexed girls, and just fished.
"Dershowitz is the only person to go to Pedophile Island and only end up with a massage from a frumpy old babushka"
He also claimed he never took his pants off, or was that Rudy? I can't keep the slime straight anymore?
It was Dershowitz. Rudy was the one caught on camera with his hand down his pants in anticipation of having a romp session with Borat's 15 year old daughter. He claimed he was just tucking in his shirt, but the video showed he was about to whip out his johnson. Lascivious old Rudy!
Does Dershowitz believe in the superiority of the rich, or is he a whore for money? This is an example of the crook-or-fool dilemma. Is is a crook, whoring for money, or a fool, believing in the superiority of the rich?
It doesn't matter. Everyone lies to a crook, so they become fools, and fools lie to themselves, so they become crooks. The two meet in the middle.
The bottom line is that each state has to certify its election results. That means certain people have to make decisions in each state. One of those decisions is who is eligible to be on the ballot. Put yourself in their place. How could you put Trump's name on a ballot when one state has its Supreme Court ruling that he is ineligible because the United States Constitution states clearly that he is not because he fomented an insurrection. If he is deemed ineligible in Colorado, how can you attest to your state's election results without some ruling at least of equal weight that contends he is? You best not put his name on the ballot lest you queer the election. You need a decision. You are a total fool if you would make that decision on your own. We the citizens need fair elections, and no election is fair if ineligible people have been allowed on the ballot, especially when such a decision will probably significantly effect the results. That is the case here.
The fourteenth amendment's intent seems to keep insurrectionists (who are sworn officials) from ever seeking public office again. Trump obviously behaved that way and there are consequences*. If you don't like that, you can try to change the constitution. It is hard but not impossible. We did repeal prohibition you know.
*Not my judgement but the judgement of the Colorado Supreme Court after due process and the input of many lawyers and review of the evidence and applicable laws.
You don't have a right to run for office in this country, you must show eligibility and follow rules to get on the ballot. Trump had the opportunity to do this in Colorado but failed to do so. He will play persecuted. He would much rather be the one persecuting. He promises to do that on day one. If he wanted that, he should not have disqualified himself by conducting an insurrection*. But he did.
I don't think the Colorado decision will have much, if any, weight outside Colorado.
Election officials in other states have no obligation to pay the slightest mind to what Colorado did. The Colorado ruling is not binding on any other state.
And it's certainly not binding on any federal court anywhere.
No. it is not binding on other states or at the federal level. It is the highest-level court judgement available today about whether Trump is disqualified himself from running for office because he conducted an insurrection. My contention is that no election official of any state should have confidence in listing him on a ballot without at least considering him as possibly ineligible to run if they are to conduct a fair election.
Let us say a state supreme court had reviewed legal data and determined a presidential candidate was not a natural born citizen of the country, Would you, as a state official in charge of elections, not be deemed negligent putting such a person on your state's ballot? Before you did you best CYOA with at least a ruling from your state court on the matter don't you think?
I think the court made the right decision, they found he participated in insurrection so if they follow the constitution then Stump can't run for federal office. SCOTUS will almost certainly toss the decision handing Stump a massive PR win. I don't see how it affects the general election as Smith hasn't charged Stump with inciting insurrection, he's been charged with with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. So once this goes away in Colorado it's over, I think? It might put additional pressure on SCOTUS to be cautious about overturning everything assuming Smith gets a conviction or two or three or four, who knows. I'll give Stump this: he's a lowlife piece of shit scumbag but they guy doesn't quit!
Also Rudy has filed bankruptcy, who saw that coming?
"Also Rudy has filed bankruptcy, who saw that coming?" Uncledad
Kari Lake will be facing a jury for defamation regarding incendiary and unfounded claims filed in June by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. Kari claimed she won the election and accused Maricopa County officials of being part of a conspiracy she never remotely proved. The County Recorder found himself on the receiving end of death threats.
Donald Trump tried to pause the civil defamation trial scheduled to start Jan 15. That's another round of the rape trial/defamation suit. Trump doubled down on the defamation after he lost in NY. Trump's trying to delay so he can consider his options to appeal to the USSC after his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity was shot down. (Why Trump needs a delay to consider appeal options is not clear to me. Multiple instances of defamation of E. Jean Carrol happened AFTER Trump left office. The defense of presidential immunity is irrelevant in the E. Jean Carrol case.
It may be that Trump sees a potential line of litigants forming to sue him for defamation before J6 and for damages related to J6. A jury nicked Rudy for nearly 150 million for telling lies about two election workers which drove them into hiding in fear for their lives. How many cops fought for their lives in defense of the Congress on J6? What's the going rate for damages like that – multiplied by the number of victims? You are right – only a handful have come forth but watch greed take over when/if liability is established and the going rate is ?? fifty million. (Y'all check my math. A hundred victims times 50 million per victim is 5 Billion.) Trump may have gotten a warning from Rudy's damages that Trump needs a get-out-of-jail free card that applies to civil suits. Only the USSC can provide it and I don't think they will.
The USSC did not intervene to save Trump after the 2020 election. Period. At all. Despite multiple appeals to get the USSC to side with Trump on election claims. There's zero grounds for the court to grant Trump lifetime immunity for torts or crimes committed while he was president. If a majority of the USSC loved Trump (and they don't), they could not grant Trump the immunity he seeks without granting it to Joe Biden. So they won't.
I want to say something sarcastic like this SCOTUS would rule for immunity, but only for republican presidents. That might even be too political for them though, who is to say. Such a ruling would, however, increase the power of the executive branch and radically change the balance of power in the country. SCOTUS would risk its own relevance. That it probably will not do. It is an existential issue.
"The USSC did not intervene to save Trump after the 2020 election. Period. At all. Despite multiple appeals to get the USSC to side with Trump on election claims"
Agreed they knew better to overturn what was an obvious win for Biden but I'm not sure they'll do anything that prevents Stump from running again, it’s going to be the old "let the voters decide" mantra. Even if Stump goes down for the J6 trial those charges don't prevent him from running again. Will the Supremes let his delay strategy play out? I think they might. There's a big difference between overturning the results of an election and allowing a con man exhaust every legal avenue before an election? Who fucking knows?
6 of the 9 Justices will feel compelled to agree to all three of these propositions:
1. Donald Trump is an insurrectionist.
2. No insurrectionist may be on the ballot.
3. Donald Trump may be on the ballot.
I think it likely that the Supreme Court will assent to this trilemma, even though it is inconsistent. But how will they dance around the inconsistency?