You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2023.
“The legislature did not write into the law an exception for complexity or difficult natures of interpretation,” Bellows said. “They didn’t say enforce all of the constitutional qualifications except for the ones that are difficult or complex.”
Again, it’s not like any of the MAGA majority of the Republican Party is actually going to argue the law here. Trump is popular and so the law shouldn’t apply to him. It’s all a Democratic conspiracy – even the five Republicans who filed the lawsuit in Colorado. She looked at the law of her state, and the 14th Amendment. She determined that, according to her authority, he doesn’t qualify.
If you want to get a true sense of the weakness of the legal argument against Trump’s disqualification, just read the three separate dissents on the Colorado Supreme Court. They’re all over the map. But by every reasonable definition, he led an insurrection. There’s no getting around it. Mitch McConnell doesn’t control the narrative now. He’s in the real world now.
SCOTUS will probably overturn this, because they are partisan, and because they are afraid of the political fallout of such an exclusion because there are tens of millions of Americans who support what he did – whether or not they acknowledge it as an insurrection.
“Bellows’s decision this week to eject Trump — on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection, violating the 14th Amendment — intensified an already roaring legal debate over his eligibility to run for the presidency and added pressure on the Supreme Court to adjudicate the matter.
Speaking with POLITICO, Bellows, a Democrat, cast her ruling as a matter of fulfilling her basic responsibilities as the state’s chief election official: “I do not have the discretion to choose, or decline to do, my duty,” she said.”
Let’s remember that it was a coalition of conservative parties which voted with the Nazis to pass the Enabling Act of 1933. The Communist Party having been banned and its leaders arrested, the Socialists were the only party to vote against it, and some of them were in hiding after Hitler sent the dogs after them following the false flag Reichstag fire.
But there were some conservatives who joined the socialists in resistance. Far and few. But there were some, and they were arrested or driven out of the country like any other dissenters.
The author of this piece (Liz Cheney, the Antifascist Conservative) used to be a Maoist. I do appreciate Liz Cheney’s anti-fascism, but I saw her in a recent interview where she argued that Trump is a mere “aberration.” But Trump is really just a symptom of the Republican Party’s politics of entitlement and grievance, which I consider to have begun with the “Moral Majority” in the 1980s; and on into the ascent of hate radio in the 190s culminating in Fox; and manifested in events like the Brooks Brothers Riot and the Tea Parties. Trump just tapped into the stream. That being said, and setting aside for her support for torture which she hasn’t yet revoked, she does deserve credit for being an anti-fascist conservative. A rare breed.
Found the interview with Colbert.
Asked about term limits and his run for a 4th term, of course he made it all about himself and his qualifications. But does he support or oppose term limits in general? That was the essence of David’s question.
I wonder what made one of the Republican officials release this now? A staffer maybe?
I’ve skimmed through the decision, which including the three dissents is over 200 pages. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision simply because the majority is made up of ideologues. But think they’re going to struggle with a solid reason given that the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is pretty unambiguous.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
There is the argument the President isn’t specifically mentioned is an interesting point intellectually, but nobody’s taking that one seriously. It came up in a lower court, but none of the dissenters even brought it up.
The other argument is that state law doesn’t have the jurisdiction to deal with this federal question, especially since we are choosing electors rather than a President. But the case law is clear that in modern elections the electors are basically proxies for the candidate, so the candidate’s qualifications are relevant.
There is the argument that some states have laws which can exclude a presidential candidate and others don’t, so the fact that he may be on ballots in fewer than 50 states might lead to “chaos.” That was the primary point of one of the dissenters. But there are always candidates who don’t qualify on all 50 states. So far no “chaos.”
There is the argument that for a primary it’s a selection process for political parties which are private entities, but that argument has failed in many contexts, including the changes to primaries in California.
The strongest argument is based upon In re Griffin, an 1869 SCOTUS case which basically ruled that absent implementation legislation by Congress, Section 3 basically remains dormant and unenforceable. This would be a profound statement if true, as numerous people have been removed from office over that past century or so premised on its enforceability. But the 14th Amendment does state that Congress may pass some implementation legislation for all of the provisions. Some consider the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act to be examples of implementation legislation for the Equal Protections clause, but equal protection had been deemed protected long before these acts, as well as the Privileges and Immunities clause. Still, it’s a Supreme Court decision and SCOTUS can probably rely on it even if it’s an anachronism employed by the gutless SCOTUS of the time.
They could also base it on the assumption that there has to be an insurrection criminal conviction before the section is employed, but if you’re a strict constructionist that just shouldn’t fly because the 14th doesn’t say that. And I think the SCOTUS majority will avoid any decision about what constitutes an insurrection like the plague.
Getting back to McConnell and Thune – they are being extremely cautious, precisely because they don’t know how this is going to play out. They don’t want to attack a decision that may be upheld by SCOTUS. Not until it’s been set aside. And the Trump family is enraged.
https://youtu.be/_uX-BRGQoV4?si=Avhg4R9NWHMrINFB
Addendum: Ouch!
Is she correct that the subpoena was issued giving Hunter Biden the option of a private or public testimony? If so, then he complied and they will have to issue a new subpoena requiring only private testimony. But having sent the first one, and the goalposts having been moved – the courts may find the subpoena unenforceable as purely arbitrary. The Republicans may have screwed themselves here.
I can’t find any media coverage of the issue other than right wing media saying that she’s “defending Hunter Biden.” Everything else is a week old. Is the subpoena available anywhere online?
A former Sohum resident wrote a nice piece about a prior Circumambulation. If you ever want to take part (4 times per year), here’s the information.
Sohum Parlance II 
Recent Comments