Item One, Maine’s decision that Trump is ineligible to run for POTUS. The Hill reports that right-wing radio host Larry Elder (I’d never heard of him) predicts the Maine decision will “set the country on fire.” Except it won’t. Trump’s thugs will send threats to the Maine Secretary of State, who probably will need extra security for a while. But that’s all that’s going to happen.
Presidential election polls notwithstanding, IMO Trump and his MAGA movement are not beloved by most Americans. I’m betting that the true MAGA, fanatical believers are maybe a quarter of the adult population. Trump’s current “favorability” is at 42 percent, but I’m betting a chunk of that 42 percent doesn’t feel strongly enough about Trump to go out and riot for him. These are low-information voters who aren’t paying that much attention and just habitually vote for Republicans.
And when the country is not set on fire, someone should look up this Larry Elder guy and point that out.
The Election Law Blog thinks that the Maine decision will make it more likely that the SCOTUS will review the issue. I have a hard time believing the majority will support the Colorado and Maine decisions, but how they disagree is going to be interesting by itself. I bet John Roberts even now is trying to think up a way to keep Trump on ballots without negating the text of the 14th Amendment. Good luck with that.
Item Two, new reporting on the fake electors scheme. CNN —
Two days before the January 6 insurrection, the Trump campaign’s plan to use fake electors to block President-elect Joe Biden from taking office faced a potentially crippling hiccup: The fake elector certificates from two critical battleground states were stuck in the mail.
So, Trump campaign operatives scrambled to fly copies of the phony certificates from Michigan and Wisconsin to the nation’s capital, relying on a haphazard chain of couriers, as well as help from two Republicans in Congress, to try to get the documents to then-Vice President Mike Pence while he presided over the Electoral College certification.
The operatives even considered chartering a jet to ensure the files reached Washington, DC, in time for the January 6, 2021, proceeding, according to emails and recordings obtained by CNN.
These people are so busted. If only we had an uncorrupted judiciary now. Trump would be in jail already.
Item Three, Nikki Haley’s history problem. I wasn’t surprised that she whiffed on a question about the cause of the Civil War. I am surprised that the event at least got a little traction in the news. Whether it hurts her campaign is still to be seen. Her “clarification” didn’t help her any, I don’t think.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has launched four billboards in Iowa attacking Republican presidential candidates for their “anti-history record” as they spend the weekend campaigning in the Hawkeye state.
The billboards, which will be in Dubuque and Cedar Rapids, come as Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley faces criticism over her remarks at a town hall event in New Hampshire in which she failed to mention slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
The former South Carolina governor suggested the cause of the war was “basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.” She later claimed the voter who asked her the question was a “Democrat plant.”
The ads the DNC is launching target Haley for her comments, as well as the records of her fellow GOP candidates Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Trump. The three currently top the GOP primary field in the state, according to Decision Desk HQ and The Hill’s aggregation of polls.
I agree, and note that four billboards is a small expense as campaign expenses go.
Larry Elder is a black, right-wing, west coast radio host, he ran against Newsom for governor of CA a year or two ago.
Lucian Truscott provides context for Nikki Haley's remarks,
She's a frightening tool.
re the Maine decision. It's a welcome seconding of the Colorado decision and will complicate matters for the Supreme Court. It's anybody's guess what they'll do.
Part Two: News of my death have been – again! – greatly exaggerated.
I was in the hospital for 6 weeks, and then rehab for a week-and-a-half. Endless diarrhea, dehydration, and near kidney failure several times.
In other words, I was the for a host for a host of other very unpleasant medical issues.
And as the host, I had to pay attention to my (unwanted) guests, and as a result, did not have the time or energy to read, let alone comment.
OY!!!
On the plus side, I've lost about 100 pounds since November of last year.
Doctors told me the cause was probably due to a bad reaction to the chemotherapy I started. So, needless to say, later this month I'll be looking to my Oncologist for her to give me some less lethal options for handling my cancer.
I'm finally back home at my assisted dying… uhm… assisted living facility.
YAY!!!!!
I finally felt good enough to comment, and, being familiar with Larry Elder, I was going to write a bit about him. But moonbat did a much better job than I'd have done.
I missed all y'all!
Hopefully, no more hospitals for a long, long time.
I WISH EVERYONE A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! – and I hope everyone had a great holiday season!
HURAH! Best news this year. Welcome back. We were all concerned.
Sounds like a double-sized helping of No Fun. Glad you’re still here.
I really thought you crossed over to the other side, and I'm delighted this isn't so. We need your humor, grit, anger, and moxie to make it through 2024. Party like it's 2022 – is my motto – the year when the red wave failed to materialize.
Look into raw foods and juicing. I've known several people who beat cancer this way. Losing 100 # is a lot, I don't know if this means you're emaciated, or more or less normal in weight.
Glad you decided to stick around for awhile.
Glad to see you made it through, Gulag.
Ditto to all above, good to read your comments again!
GULAG! Oh, joy! Having you back is the best Christmas present yet!
Upvote all the previous remarks and welcome back, Happy New year!
Glad you've managed to stay on the right side of the grass, again! Good luck with your recovery, cancer sucks!
IMO, the USSC has to consider the possibility that Trump will be convicted in DC and/or GA before the election. Though Trump was no charged with insurrection directly, both cases will seek to establish (and I think they will prevail) that Trump was the leader of a conspiracy to steal the election by fraud. (Fake electors.) Maha in this post adds the most recent page to that scheme.
If I was gonna guess (and you know I will) the USSC will set Trump up to be reinstated on the ballot in Maine and Colorado because Trump has not had his day in court on the issue. (I know what the 14th says. They "originalists" will pluck a condition out of thin air or someplace less sanitary.
Think about it. If the USSC "rescues" Trump because in court Trump will have the opportunity to expose the conspiracy as lies being spun by out-of-control prosecutors. Or not. The burden is on the prosecution to prove Trump tried to steal the election. If the USSC denies Trump delays, Trump sinks or swims before November depending on the verdict(s) in the trials he faces. If Trump fails to convince a jury that the evidence is all fake, the USSC, upon the delivery of a guilty verdict, pulls Trump's plug. Depending on the date, the GOP will either promote the VP pick to the top spot or scramble to select a contender regardless of the outcome of the primaries.
If I'm wrong, the USSC will help Trump delay. If I'm right, the High Court will fairly openly declare that Trump's fate is in the hands of regular citizens selected at random to weigh the evidence introduced in a fair trial. If the justices say, in better words than these, that Trump is entitled to a speedy trial whether he wants one or not, that signal to the lower courts will authorize them to blow off frivolous attempts to delay. (I don't think the USSC will go that far, but it would be delicious.)
Nikki gives an interesting clue to the mind of an insurrectionist. She (and they) are opposed to slavery but they are still pissed that an outside force descended on the Confederacy and required an end to their way of life. The contradiction never sinks in. They reject slavery but nobody outside the Confederacy had the moral authority to crush their despotic way of life. This is the current mindset of the modern conservative. "Nobody is the boss of me." is why they love Trump.
The Trump Trials are the epic test of whether a segment of society can exempt themselves from whichever rules in that society they find offensive.
I think the next 30 days may reveal if the USSC will rally to protect Trump or hold Trump to the same legal standards as the peasants.
Good to hear you're back among the living Gulag.
You folks are making me blush!
But thank you for all the nice things you wrote about little ol' me (literally: littler ol' me 😉 )
It's like hearing your own eulogy (before it's too late to appreciate it 🙂 )
I'm glad to still be around, here with all my commenting friends, at maha's joint*, where I feel free to drop my word-turds**!
*By " joint," I mean a shared – but unique – space.
**I much prefer "word-turds," to the kind comin' out my butt for the last three months.
I always knew I was full of sh*t, but didn't realize my supply was almost limitless!
Finally, we will see how many Ks are used to properly spell Haley's first name.
Good your back.
Ron Desantis (Motto: Don't call me governor because I can't govern) tepidly, yet hypocritically called out Haley while making it florida policy to whitewash (pun intended) history at higher education facilities under his control. (See "slaves learned useful skills while being slaves "et al", ergo whites deserve their gratitude "etc.")
Such cluelessness and tone deafness.
South Carolina and Florida: Join the club of "States of the past and always will be".
Oh, those Russians, they meddle and meddle. The Washington Post reported documents indicating Russian meddling in the upcoming elections in France. If they are meddling in France, you can bet they are meddling here. It is quite evident that they have agents in this country they control and a plan for them to execute. The scary part of the plan in France involves ex-generals and a potential military takeover option. What did happen to that binder of classified material floating around the Trump White House? You would think there is a need to get to the bottom of that story.
Sometimes everything seems like that NiKKKi Haley saga, it is all about what is not said. Chris Christi went to bat for her and vouched for her as not a racist. Since that toll booth stunt, his credibility is suspect though. Not too many people seek him out as a character reference. One republican for sure doesn't.
SCOTUS will feel compelled to affirm all three of these propositions:
1. That Trump is an insurrectionist.
2. That no insurrectionist may be on the ballot.
3. That Trump may be on the ballot.
Unfortunately, these three statements cannot all be true. I wonder how they will resolve the trilemma.
The simple solution is to rule that January 6th was an insurrection and throw it back to the states to decide how to handle that knowledge according to the Constitution. As is their right and responsibility.
The States and the voting public will take care of the rest. It's been established beyond clear what Trump role in the insurrection is. His diehard MAGA base won't be able to put him back into office.
Swami:
For the Court to agree with Colorado about the facts would clarify matters; but making the 14th amendment, section 3, subject to state discretion is a bit too decentralized for a supreme federal court.
Besides, if a candidate isn't qualified, then no ballot should contain that candidate's name.
And if, God forbid, Trump got elected, and went to be sworn in: that would then be a federal matter, and A14s3 in full force, or none.
For the Court to agree with Colorado about the facts would clarify matters;
That's my point.It would eliminate all of the bullshit arguments and excuses; legitmate protest claims,immunity defense claims, pledges of pardons for Trump from potential candidates. It would be a definative understanding for everybody to know exactly what the issue is. Let the States and the voters battle it out before the election takes place with the knowledge that whatever they decide they will know what the constitutionality of having Trump on the ballot will be. The Supreme Court won't have to come out and say how they would rule. It give them the opportunity to sidestep the question. Jan 6th was an insurrection and there needs to be a final word that that's what it was.
Just to clarify… Lindsey Graham Defends Trump’s Jan. 6 Actions: ‘He Didn’t Break Into the Capitol’ (msn.com)
Do you have to break into the Capitol to foment an insurrection?
No man is so blind as he who refuses to see.
Lindsey has some sort of a kink for Trump. It could be he's attracted to the bad boy type of guy. He sees in Trump the thing he wishes he could be.
"He didn't break into the Capitol", right, also – Charles Manson didn't kill anybody.
The structures of most state constitutions aren't built around enforcing the 14th in the federal constitution. The states have the power to run their elections. The federal government defines the qualifications for federal office but not the mechanism for enforcing the 14th. So far, only two states have successfully undertaken the process to completion and removal.
The sticking point seems to be three-fold. 1) Am I the jurisdiction, the right court or state official to decide? 2) If yes to #1, was Jan 6 an insurrection? 3) If yes to #1 and #2, did Trump participate and/or give aid and comfort to the insurrectionists? MAGA kooks are willing to kill anyone who answers in the affirmative to all questions and has the authority to pull Trump's plug. So it's not surprising that many courts and state officials punt on #1 and federal officials defer to the states' responsibility to run their own shows.
But now two states have decided and it's going to the federal level for sure. The filtering process at the federal level is also, first – jurisdiction. Does the state have the authority to remove a candidate based on qualifications? (Gorsech decided "yes'" in a federal case a decade ago. His wording was cited in the CO decision. States have made the decision before and been upheld – I don't see that changing.) The next question at the federal level is whether CO was in error in the finding of facts.
That's a land mine the court is standing on fully. If there is an error in the facts, the USSC has to specify what. If there is not an error in the facts, the USSC can let the decision stand in CO. There's no obligation on the USSC to make the disqualification national. Other states might find the courage and integrity to join CO with a federal precident. The question would hang without an answer… what happens if Trump wins? Who would bring the disqualification to the USSC, when and how?
If the USSC sustains CO and leaves it hanging, they are telling the GOP that their leading candidate can be disqualified if he wins. The court would be saying, we're not backing Trump. Are you sure you want to do this? IMO, the USSC would prefer the problem goes away. If the GOP turns away from Trump, the justices are spared the full wrath of MAGA.
Hoping the problem will go away is not far-fetched. About 25% of Republicans say they will abandon Trump if he's convicted of a felony. I think that number is low but if Trump is convicted in the DC J6 trial, he's toast. Likewise the GA trial – either one will introduce FACTS and testimony that's devastating to Trump. IMO, the numerical majority of voters do not accept or understand that Trump launched a sophisticated conspiracy to steal the election which hit the nation on J6. The DC trial and the GA trial will change that because people enjoy the drama of a trial. They will watch. What happened will finally become real. The OJ Simpson trial times 100.
After that, Trump will be disqualified AND unelectable.
The Democrat who said, "I'd rather be us than them in 2024." got it right.
Cogent post, as usual, Doug. I want to pick up on one piece of what you said: "The federal government defines the qualifications for federal office but not the mechanism for enforcing the 14th."
I've been pondering the enforcement mechanism (and also a linguistic detail in the text of the 14th). And I'd like to hear your thoughts. Here goes:
1) Exactly what is the enforcement mechanism? Article III Sec. 1 establishes SCOTUS as the supreme judicial power; Sec. II give some clarity to the scope of the SCOTUS' domain. But the Constitution does not specify an enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS decisions (unless I failed to find it). In the vernacular we use the phrases "the law of the land" and "rule of law". We also tend to consider the following conditions to be the "law of the land":
a) Any law passed by Congress and signed into law by the POTUS (but subject to judicial review by the judicial branch under certain circumstances). b) The rulings of any federal court (again subject to review). c) All rulings of the SCOTUS (not subject to review). I went through this analysis because IMO the enforcement of any SCOTUS ruling (or order) is the responsibility of the DOJ, because SCOTUS actions are the law of the land. My guess is that if any party simply ignores a SCOTUS ruling or order it could be deemed contempt of court subjecting the party to possible imprisonment. And I think the enforcement of contempt of court is a DOJ process. Also, I've concluded that in the case of any officer of the United states being adjudicated by the judicial branch to be disqualified (e.g. a US Senator), that it would be a DOJ process to effect the immediate removal of that person from that office. I doubt there is precedent for this but IANAL and have done no research on that.
And all of this leads to part two.
2) The text of the 14th includes "No person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…"
It says nothing about ballot access, which is administered at the state level. It simply says that certain people cannot hold office, period. It is not a criminal statute. Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig have described it as "self-executing", meaning that there is no process other than a determination of disqualification (i.e. no provision for a jury trial and due process). So the "determination of disqualification" can go up through the levels of the judicial system all the way to SCOTUS, but with the understanding that it is not a criminal proceeding; it is simply Constitutional review. Once a determination has been made and survived all possible appeals, it is "law of the land" and it becomes a DOJ duty to enforce it.
But because of the plain text of the 14th, it simply means that DOJ has a duty to ensure that no disqualified person is sworn in to office; and that any disqualified person currently holding an office is immediately removed from that office… (I think in terms of a large US corporation frog-marching a mid level manager out of the building for stealing company intellectual assets and starting up a small competitor business… security guards enter the manager's office, announce the situation (you're fired) and give the person some small amount of supervised time to gather personal items (not company property) and then they escort the person out of the building (their badge has been surrendered so that they can't get back in).
So here's number 3: If all of the above is pretty close to the way things are, then IMO the SCOTUS, whose power is based in the Constitution, (and in theory who should be opposed to the establishment of a power structure inimical to the Constitution) should sense a duty to at least do the minimum: Accept the case ASAP and quickly release a narrow order (not a ruling on the case). The order would be that in any election process in any state (primary or general), every voter shall be informed that there is a pending SCOTUS case which could possibly disqualify the person in question, so that the electorate is informed. The order would also explain that when the SCOTUS rules on this case of disqualification, that the electorate must be informed of the outcome.
Thoughts, please…
Where and when the 14th is "supposed" to be enforced is undefined. Others have been kicked (disqualified) before the election – eight for being part of the Confederacy, two for participating in J6. Criminal conviction not required.
If the USSC is guided by precedent, an examination of the facts that pertain to the accusation of "engaged in insurrection" or " given aid and comfort" to those who did. Trump's attorneys provided input into both the CO and ME decisions. Trump can't accurately say he didn't present his side. Which leads me to think the USSC won't reverse CO or (if it hits their docket) Maine.
But I don't think anyone in Maine or Colorado has requested the USSC to extend their ruling to all 50 states. I think (hope) the decision paves the way (depending on how it's worded) for any other state to pull Trump's name in the primary and the general. IF the USSC does not reverse the Colorado Supreme Court, that opens the door to further and final federal adjudication someplace down the road.
Yes, a rational person might expect that the USSC is obliged to rule on that issue (total federal disqualification) when they are handed the Colorado case. I don't think there's ANY reason to expect the USSC to extend the impact of the Colorado decision beyond CO, except that the decision gives other states a green light.
I'm not sure disqualification in the primary matters but if Trump gets his name pulled in GA (for example) that could be game over for Trump in November because there was no scenario in the states that Trump challenged in 2020 that didn't require a win in GA.
If the jury in the J6 DC trial finds Trump guilty, the USSC would find Trump disqualified under the 14th (I think.) Likewise the GA RICO case. Neither case directly charges Trump with insurrection but the witnesses, testimony, and evidence is all about multiple aspects of a scheme to keep Trump in power after he lost. If they prove that to the satisfaction of a jury, I think the Supremes will publicly pull Trump's plug.
The reverse, from Trump's perspective, is the same. If the Supremes want to crown the first American king, they have to stop all the prosecutions by granting Trump total immunity. Even if the Supremes hold up the DC trial, I don't think they can touch the GA case and GA would have an open calendar. IMO, if Trump is convicted in GA, the Sec of State in GA would be entitled to pull Trump in the general election. And it's entirely conceivable that would be game over.
The best-case scenario for the GOP is if Trump is permanently ineligible early enough in the election for voters to rally 'round a new fascist with popular appeal. The problem is this transition needed to begin about three years ago. Because the GOP didn't reject Trump after J6, he owns the GOP Trump's defeat in 2024 dooms the party to a civil war where the GOP is at war with itself.
IMO, the GOP is grappling with two horrible options. Either they retain Trump with his commitment to end the Republic as it is OR Trump loses and the GOP shatters like a wine glass hitting the floor.
A New Year's thought. In two weeks, the E. Jean Carroll rape damages trial goes to trial and very shortly after, to the jury to decide damages. I think the same expert witness who testified against Rudy will be testifying against Trump. The damages may be in the same range as the 148 million they laid on Rudy. A month? later, the judge in NY will lay the damages on Trump in NY. A special master has been watching Trump's finances in NY – that money is there and the court has the power to make sure the money doesn't go anywhere during appeals. That also suggests that the cash won't be available to Trump in 2024. Not for lawyers. Not for rallies. I'm not predicting bankruptcy but this hurts Trump in the wallet.