Below is my column in The Messenger on the challenge facing the Supreme Court in the coming week over the electoral disqualification of former president Donald Trump in Colorado and Maine. The appeal in Maine has been filed and can now work its way up to the Court. Colorado is expected to file with the Court this week. If the Court does not act before Jan. 4th, Colorado could seek to moot any appeal and avoid review. It would then depend on the Maine litigation to bring the matter back to the Court.
Here is the column:
It is “a sad day for America and the Constitution when a court decides the outcome of an election.” Those words, condemning a 4-3 decision by state supreme court justices regarding a presidential election, undoubtedly spoke for millions of Americans.
However, it wasn’t a reference to the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent 4-3 decision to disqualify Donald Trump from running in the 2024 election. Instead, it was a statement by James Baker, then a spokesman for Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush, criticizing the Florida Supreme Court’s decision during the 2000 election.
Of course, the condemnations in 2000 would shift to the U.S. Supreme Court, when it stopped the recount ordered by the four Florida justices and effectively called the election for Bush. Then, it was the left condemning the U.S. justices as being, in the words of law professor Cass Sunstein, “illegitimate, undemocratic, and unprincipled.”
Even the justices appeared to lose some of their customary collegiality and civility in the moment. Then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously omitted the customary word “respectfully” before the phrase “I dissent” at the end of her opinion.
Now, the Supreme Court is being pulled into another election vortex by the Colorado decision and, potentially, by some of the cases in at least 15 other states. (Appeals of ballot decisions are pending in Arizona; ballot challenges are in process in Alaska, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. A Wisconsin challenge has been denied twice.)
Colorado and now Maine remain outliers after the Michigan Supreme Court rejected another disqualification effort in that state. Last Wednesday, the Colorado GOP appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to accept the case given the split among the states and the importance of the issue. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have criticized the decision by Maine’s secretary of state and urged that the courts overturn it. But the two states’ decisions — and the risk of others joining them — underscores the imperative need for the nation’s high court to decide the issue once and for all.
The Court is not an institution eager for this role. The ruling in Bush v. Gore produced one of the greatest institutional crises in the Court’s history, and the impact reverberated for decades. As someone covering the 2000 opinion as a CBS News legal analyst at the time, I was taken aback by how the motivations and even the integrity of the justices was challenged in reaching their decision. In the New Republic, for example, the majority was denounced and dismissed by Jeff Rosen as simply “four vain men and one vain woman.”
I am not the only one with vivid memories of that day. One justice from the 2000 majority still sits on the Court: Clarence Thomas. While many have called for him to recuse himself, he will likely vote with the rest of the Court if he follows past practices.
Three other justices have their own connections to Bush v. Gore.
Chief Justice John Roberts was then a Republican lawyer who helped present Bush’s case to the Florida Supreme Court and advised the Bush campaign on its U.S. Supreme Court challenge. President Bush later put Roberts on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Notably, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts said he believed that “the particular parameters in [Bush v. Gore] won’t” return to the court. He then said it would be “inappropriate” for him to comment further on such “very recent precedent.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also was an attorney on the Bush team in 2000 and played a role in the recounts and challenges out of Volusia County, Florida.
At the time, another rising star in Republican legal circles was getting her start as a young law firm associate. Amy Coney Barrett worked on the briefing for Bush v. Gore and went to Florida briefly during the recount litigation.
Roberts is correct that the “particular parameters” of Bush v. Gore are unlikely to return to the Court with its “hanging chads” and “butterfly ballots.” However, there are some echoes of that earlier fight in the coming battle over whether Trump can be barred from appearing in state presidential-election ballots.
Kavanaugh said in a CNN interview that the Court was primarily concerned about “the arbitrary, standard-less nature of the recount process in Florida.” There is likely to be a similar unease over the use of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and classification of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot as an “insurrection” by four Colorado state justices.
The Court’s member who would most want this cup to pass from his lips is, undoubtedly, Chief Justice Roberts. As a fierce institutionalist, Roberts is known to resist putting the Court in the middle of powerful political currents. Even on issues like abortion, Roberts stood alone in trying to eke out a compromise of preserving Roe v. Wade while upholding more stringent state abortion laws.
Although Roberts is not beyond joining sweeping decisions like the recent rejection of race criteria in college admissions, he tends to be an incrementalist who does not like the Court getting ahead of its skis in rendering final legal decisions on matters of ongoing political debates.
In that sense, everything about the Colorado case is likely to repel Roberts, but he may have little room to maneuver with the politically shortened calendar and the major impact of the state decision. While there is a potential mootness “exit ramp” from review of the Colorado decision, the Maine decision will eventually force the issue again for the Court after lower court reviews.
The greatest test for Roberts may not be simply to marshal a majority to overturn this ruling. Many of us view the 14th Amendment theory to be not just fundamentally flawed but incredibly dangerous. There are a host of elements in the Colorado decision that could easily result in a reversal — from the potential application of the provision to the office of the president, to the conclusory treatment of the Jan. 6 riot as a rebellion, to the casual dismissal of Trump’s free-speech rights.
Yet, Roberts has previously noted that one of the toughest jobs as chief justice comes with the effort to secure unanimous decisions in key cases. This is one of those cases.
The Colorado Supreme Court was wrong on the law, but the case raises the same institutional challenges as Bush v. Gore. Back in 2000, the Court fractured and left a bitter legacy for both the justices and the public. Faced with another controversial 4-3 decision by a state supreme court during a presidential election, Roberts will need to seek more than just a final decision. He will likely push hard for a unanimous decision, to have the Court speak in one voice to avoid the bitter fracturing of 2000.
It could prove to be the finest moment for the Roberts court if the chief justice succeeds and all of the justices can show Americans that they can set aside their own divisions to affirm core principles of the democratic process. They can speak as one, not just for the Court but for the country.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. He teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
“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 murder. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
If this were the 28th amendment, would a judge in CO or a SoS in Maine be allowed to determine if a Presidential candidate was “disqualified”?
I think not
18 USC 2383
18 USC 2382 codifies insurrection.
You may be thinking of 18 USC 595 which deals with election interference.
While that may not apply to the Colorado judges… #5 Judicial Canon does.
18 USC 595 applies to the lady in Maine.
No, sorry but its 2383. Look again.
The point was insurrection and rebellion are crimes. Just like murder.
Not to denigrate the points you make.
If this were the 28th amendment, would a judge in CO or a SoS in Maine be allowed to determine if a Presidential candidate was “disqualified”?
Assuming that you amended that to include the presidency among the offices from which murderers were to be disqualified, my answer is yes, why not? In the first instance, at least. Determining whether a candidate has committed a murder is exactly the same as determining whether he is 35 years old, or was born a US ctiizen, or has lived in the USA for 14 years.
The candidate could challenge it in court, just like any other administrative decision. But there would certainly not have to be a criminal conviction, since the standard for that is beyond reasonable doubt, while that is clearly not the standard for the disqualification clause.
The odd thing here, that I think nobody has yet noted, is that the framers and adopters of this amendment did NOT have ballots in mind, since those didn’t exist at the time. They were NOT thinking about someone being “excluded from the ballot”; they would not have understood that concept. The 14th amendment doesn’t disqualify anyone from appearing on a ballot; it disqualifies people from serving in certain offices, if they are elected to them. So if the presidency were one of those offices, the way they thought the amendment would work is that if some electors voted for a murderer those votes would not be counted.
“Determining whether a candidate has committed a murder is exactly the same as determining whether he is 35 years old, or was born a US ctiizen, or has lived in the USA for 14 years.”
Dumbest statement ever. Unless by “determining” you mean looking at a persons criminal record, just as you would their birth certificate.
“while that is clearly not the standard for the disqualification clause.”
Second dumbest statement ever. Just makin’ sh*t up.
“Shall have” sounds like beyond any doubt at all to me, so “clearly” is just a lefty tactic of shutting down dissent. Do better.
“if some electors voted for a murderer “
A person is not a murderer, until and unless they are convicted of murder by a jury of their peers. You may consider them a murderer, you may call them one, an idiot judge in CO may think they are, may even “find that they are. But the fact is they are NOT. No SoS or judge can change that fact.
“Determining whether a candidate has committed a murder . . .”
So you are conceding that *first* a candidate must be convicted of murder — via a *criminal* trial. Then, and only then, can an administrator make a decision about disqualifying that candidate, i.e., by referring to the documented record of a murder *conviction*.
Please say that’s what you’re arguing. The alternative is horrifying.
If that were what he was arguing, then he needs comprehension skills, because thats exactly what i was arguing. He seemed to be saying that its now incumbent on the person to prove they didnt commit murder, (uh da dup, they can just dispute it in court, uh huh) in order to hold office under my fictitious scenario.
Like i said, dumbest statement ever.
Your analogy is spot on. And I suspect you’re right about his argument.
Just in from North Carolina — Democrats announce that Joe Biden will be the only candidate appearing on their Presidential primary ballot!!! https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwJcbBGKphMbrdfQTtHbPkHJPB
When asked for his reaction, Mr. Democracy said: “With friends like this, I don’t need no g-d enemies.”
Because Aninny expressed his delight at seeing another pile from Svelass, here is a bonus, just for him.
“Just participating in an insurrection renders anyone ineligible to hold office. It’s not a crime. It just prevents anyone from being an officer of government.”
——-Svelass
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 .)
Being part of an insurrection referred to the armed participation in the Civil War.
If politicians are going to try to disqualify competitors like Trump, who urged his followers to peacefully make their voices heard, then Republicans could disqualify Democrats who urged the BLM riots, bailed out arsonists, looters, and rioters, any Democrat who called Trump an illegitimate president and refused to accept the results of the 2016 election, and so on.
It becomes arbitrary, a perfect weapon for those who feel afraid to face their political opponent in a debate or vote.
I guarantee that if Republicans banned Democrats from ballots for inciting the BLM riots, or the “insurrection” of the last several Democrat protests that occurred inside the Capitol building, then the media would be shrieking about a “Constitutional Crisis!”
Why are you uncomfortable leaving it to SCOTUS to determine?
Why did you take that from what she said??
Because she claimed “It becomes arbitrary,” despite a SCOTUS ruling not being arbitrary (no matter whether I agree with it or not); and she claimed “If politicians are going to try to disqualify competitors like Trump,” when the CO Supreme Court justices aren’t politicians, and when the issue is going to be decided by SCOTUS, not by politicians. You’re free to interpret it differently.
Because she wasnt talking about Scotus, so thats not really an interpretation, its more putting words in her mouth.
And if/when the issue is decided by SCOTUS, maybe you’ll come back and apologize if/when they rule its arbitrary and that politicians dont get to choose.
Again: the CO Supreme Court justices aren’t politicians. Nor are the people who filed suit.
And you’re the only one who mentioned them——again
Yes, because they’re the ones who disqualified Trump, so it’s quite relevant that they’re not politicians, since Karen’s argument was “If politicians are going to try to disqualify competitors like Trump, … then Republicans could disqualify Democrats.” And it corrects your false suggestion that SCOTUS may rule “that politicians dont get to choose,” when that’s irrelevant to the question posed in the petition for cert, since politicians aren’t the ones making the determination here, nor are politicians ever mentioned in the brief. I suspect that neither you nor Karen have read the petition for cert.
The Maine SoS is a politician.
So far, she is the only one who has had a say in Maine.
So…yea
I suspect you are another of those who, when confronted with truth, starts with the “you havent read it” bullsh*t.
Funny, i dont remember her mentioning cert either.
There is every possibility that scotus will only rule on the authority of these people to make the decision, and not the decision itself, so again, its only u making sh*t up.
As Turley noted, “The appeal in Maine has been filed and can now work its way up to the [Supreme] Court.” The ME SoS is a politician, but it clearly only starts with her in ME (because that’s how the ME legislature set it up), and then it goes to the courts.
And no, there’s isn’t “every possibility that scotus will only rule on the authority of these people to make the decision,” as that’s not the question before them. You’re the one who’s making sh*t up.
You cans say there is no question regarding the 14th with reapect to enforcement. You can also say the sky isnt blue. Just makin’ sh*t up
Huh, in fact, i dont see where she mentioned colorado at all.
So again, just you making sh*t up.
The column is about the case in CO. No doubt you’re one of the people who complains when people post off-topic comments.
No. Apparently that is you
Sigh.
Anon, it doesn’t matter.
There’s this thing called judicial canons.
When they act in a political manner, which they did. They violated the fifth canon.
Its not who filed the suit, but that their ruling is not based on evidentiary evidence but their political bias.
Evidentiary evidence??? Is this Svelaz?
Please show me that in a legal text that you “read”.
I never said anything about who filed the suit and neither did the OP.
The 5th cannon is violated daily in this country.
In her dissent of the recent AA ruling, SJB actually came right out and said that her feelings about a certain medical study trumps the Constitution.
They didn’t “act in a political manner,” they’re not politicians, and the CO Commission on Judicial Conduct has not suggested that they violated any judicial canons.
Lmao
Of course they are politicians. All policy makers and judges and DA;s are politicians.
The PROBLEM is that in a court the politics of a judge is supposed to take a back seat – on a bus in a different town.
The role of a judge is NOT to say – what outcome do I want. What outcome do I beleive is right, and how do I get to it.
The role of a judge is to read the law/constitution as written.
There is a long set of rules of statutory interpretation that direct how to do so.
Those rules exist so that – we HOPE that any two judges can apply them to the same law and same facts and always arrive at the same answer. So that legislatures in writing laws can know how courts will read them and therefor e write them to get the result they want.
We EXPECT that our founders will say “State” when they means the entire government aparatus of the state,
That they will say legislature when they only mean legislatuire.
That when they provide a list of positions that a law applies to , that the law applies to those positions and only those.
That when they say hold office – they means assume the powers of that office – not seek election to that office.
We EXPECT that the words that those who right our constitution use were picked CAREFULLY, and that they meant what they said – not more, not less.
We EXPECT that if they meant more – or less, they would have used different words.
Courts reading of laws and the constitution are NOT supposed to be games guessing whether those who crafted the law really meant something else. That those crafting the law accidentally chose the wrong words.
We EXPECT the courts to read the words of our laws and constitution narrowly with respect to government powers and broadly with respect to individual rights. Not as a matter of ideology. But because any other approach makes all law and constitution a matter of opinion subject to the whim of whoever is applying it at the moment.
I remember thinking at the time of the Florida election when there was the “hanging chads” situation that it was a set up because a newscaster — I think Dan Rather — had speculated the previous November something such as “what if there is a tie?” I thought that a tie was very unlikely and I thought when he said that “gee – they are going to cause a tie,” which seemed almost impossible. But then, they could easily have done that by recounting the chads. Who are they? Anyway my learning said that it was not within the authority of the Supreme Court to decide about a state election. But THIS SITUATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WITH AN INDIVIDUAL (of the opposite political party) NOT ALLOWING A CANDIDATE ON THE BALLET– not the same at all– simply NOT an equivalency in my opinion. Also wasn’t it NBC that announced that Gore had won and then in the middle of a broadcast changed the story to Bush and then all the other channels did the same? Hmmm? How long has the media been dealing dishonestly? HMMM? Didn’t Bush’s son-in-law have an executive position at NBC? Someone clarify if you remember! Thanks!
The problem is not discomfort regarding SCOTUS.
The problem is that we are CONSTANTLY dealing with this kind batshiff crazy legal nonsense from the left,
SCOTUS should not have to deal with this.
The courts should not have to deal with this.
There are atleast a dozen independent fatal legal problems with this – to prevail the left must overcome EVERY SINGLE ONE.
It is NOT supposed to be SCOTUS’s job to babysit the legal system protecting it from juvenile level left wing nut stupidity.
We have SCOTUS deciding issues that never should have gotten in the front door of a courthouse, much less before the US Supreme court.
Left wing lawyers are normalizing serious consideration of completely bizzare and insane claims.
@Karen,
You’re going to have to take a more narrow view.
Riots are not an insurrection.
However… ANTIFA attacking a Federal building in WI for example… that could be seen as an act of rebellion or insurrection. Firebombing a police station… if part of a larger action… maybe. But you would have to show that it was part of a concerted effort of a rebellion.
Now if the FBI did view ANTIFA as an organization… or collective… then you’d have a case.
But that’s a push.
And even here. Kamel Toe supported an organization which bailed out the insurrectionists. So to go after Kamel Toe, you would need to first show that there was an insurrection and charge one of the violent thugs under 18 USC 2383 first. Then you can go after her.
All you’re doing is making the argument against tossing Trump even stronger, not showing how you could actually do the same to pedo joe.
-G
Anonymous – the point – which I am certain is not lost on SCOTUS, and which is not even specific to A14S3 is that you MUST read the law and constitution narrowly – otherwise you WILL end up with a giant hair ball mess that is self contradictory and can easily be weaponized – by the right,. the left, anyone.
The point is NOT that Biden and many other democrats have ALSO engaged in insurrection or other things that could with the broadest interpretation be covered by the 14th amendment.
The Point is that if you allow this, we are just going to have democrats and republicans engaged is trying to weaponize the law against each other over political differences, using unconstitutionally broad readings of our law and constitution.
I think there are few republicans that WANT to remove Biden or anyone else from the ballot.
But they will be perfectly happy to retaliate in kind if SCOTUS incorrectly decides that the usch overly broad readings of the constitition are allowed.
Trump didn’t tell his fans to “peacefully make their voices heard”–he said “FIGHT LIKE HELL OR YOU’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A COUNTRY ANY MORE’, which followed weeks of endless lying about a “stolen election” and”Stop the Steal” tours calculated to rile people up. Then, there was the pressure campaign against Pence, trying to force him to refuse certified vote counts and the fake electors who falsified Electoral College documents. His fans showed up wearing military gear, they went on reconnaissance missions to plot how to best invade the Capitol, they had a cache of weapons stored in a Virginia hotel room, and they planned the invasion at meetings at the Willard Hotel.
Just WHAT were they supposed to be “protesting”? The fact that Trump lost a free and fair election? His loss was state-by-state–Congress wasn’t involved in his loss–so WHY go to the Capitol and WHY on Jan 6th, other than to try to stop Biden’s victory from being certified?
Democrats didn’t “incite BLM riots”, and those protests after George Floyd’s death had nothing whatsoever to do with the peaceful transfer of power. Jan 6th was Trump’s Last Stand — last gasp effort to try to keep the power he stole in the first place. His intent was to overturn the will of the American people who voted him out of office, and nothing else, and he didn’t care how many people got hurt or killed in the process. And, when that didn’t work, he stole classified documents, lied about declassifying them, lied about returning them and flashed them around to show off to female staffers. I remain baffled at how anyone can’t see him for what he is.
Actually Democrats DID incite the BLM and Antifa riots. Watch the fall of Minneapolis, Democrat Mayor and Democrat Governor lied about Floyd’s death and stoked the flames of racial violence, while an entire Democrat establishment piled on, Democrat congressional members with bull horns encouraging and calling for violence. Schumer inciting violence on the steps of the Supreme Court. Democrats, including Kommie Harris, running bail funds and raising legal funds, etc. Worst armed insurrection in our nation’s history, govt buildings all over the country destroyed, burned, and occupied. The armed takeover of large areas of major cities and 30 killed. Worst Part, No Accountability!
Trump actually did say “Peacefully and Patriotically” in his speech that day, It’s a fact and is on video. You may not have known because Left Wing Democrat media outlets edit that out part of the speech. Watch the full speech and he definitely says it.
You are baffled because you cant stop screeching long enough to listen, GIgi the liar.
Trump has now asked SCOTUS to grant cert and overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s 14A §3 decision to keep him off the ballot. Motion here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/e6242739-cfe1-4afd-a857-0a5a6fc4a928.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_2
In the defamation suit by E. Jean Carroll against Trump in NY, the 2n Circuit federal appeals court has denied Trump’s request for the full bench to hear his civil immunity appeal. That trial is supposed to start in a couple of weeks.
Did you see the bonkers nutcase make her case that rape is so sexy and exciting on CNN to the fag host ?
LOL
A TOTAL NUT CASE. It’s obviously her FANTASY that the big Don thumped her against her will.
Public Advisory – January 9, 2024 Oral Arguments in No. 23-3228, United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Argument Date & Time: Tuesday, January 9, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. …
The audio of the oral arguments will be live streamed on the Court’s YouTube channel. To minimize congestion on the Court’s website, the public is encouraged to go directly to the YouTube channel by using this link:
https://www.youtube.com/USCourtsCADC …
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intranet/home.nsf/Content/Announcement+-+Public+Advisory+20231222/$FILE/PublicAdvisory20231222.pdf
This is the oral arguments about Trump’s immunity motion in DC, for the J6 case.
EXCHANGE FURTHER DOWN
Shakdi Says:
January 3, 12:06 PM
Did Gloria “jewland” Nuland whisper another 20 billion in spending in moscow into your ear ? She admitted she failed last time she tried in 2014, maybe she has tried much since, and we don’t have her admission on the dirty costs and failures again, yet.
S. Meyer Says:
January 3, 2:12 PM
Shakdi, when do you ever get things right with that brain of yours anti-Semitism has devoured?
It is Victoria Nuland, not Gloria. She is not Jewish. Her mother is Christian, and I believe she went to a Christian school.
Anti-Semitism is like Syphilis, as both eat away at your brain.
Upstate Farmer Says:
January 3, 2:54 PM
Should Biden be removed from the ballot fro committing genocidal war crimes? We all know the Ukrainians and Russians had a peace agreement back in March of 2020, but Biden the Butcher said no to peace and yes to war.
Voting for Biden in 2024 is voting for more death, destruction and war.
…………………………………..
That’s Tom/ Estovir as puppets Shakdi and Upstate Farmer.
This exchange illustrates how Tom/Estovir uses puppets to manipulate these comment threads multiple times per day.
Cuckoo. Cuckoo.
But hey thanks for
Re-Posting that excellent discussion between two independent commenters for us to see.
It was a interesting discussion between two independent people.
uscode.house.gov
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §6 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §6, 35 Stat. 1089)
I could find not find in the Constitution or amendments (Article III or Amendment X1) cause to remove any person not conflicted of Treason or Sedition from running for any office of the United States.
A party may think they can change the meanings of words, but only a fool would try. It seems that the insane are now in charge of the many States Judiciary Asylums, preaching their beloved Utopian Nirvana of righteous illusions.
Typo ‘convicted’ many apologies!
These talking points are set on a daily basis and disseminated throughout the complicit so called media. Every person on the bench is there by legitimate processes.
Then people react.
The removal of a viable candidate from the ballot by the activists is interference of our normal election procedure. This will intensify and worsen as Election Day nears. Biden will be replaced at the convention. His policies are dangerous and harmful. He is incoherent and incompetent. In the meantime they are undertaking a scorched earth approach.
One can sense the panic. It is evident.
@E.M.
Indeed. and if a viable candidate is indeed removed from the ballot, that’s likely the last straw that will push people over the edge. a part of me thinks that is precisely what the Biden administration and the DNC are hoping for. Let that be a tinfoil fantasy, please, because no rational person could be that sick. .
PS – and forgive the typos, on lunch.
James,
“Let that be a tinfoil fantasy, please, because no rational person could be that sick.”
Based off our leftist friends comments over the past few days, yes, they are that sick.
In the past, I have advocated that a civil war must be avoided at all costs.
But based off recent events, it appears to me our leftist friends are doing everything in their power to push us to exactly that.
Invest in chickens, PMs, ammo and your own personal well being and health.
Here’s Tom/Estovir as Upstate Farmer replying to Tom/Estovir as James.
Several times per day Estovir’s puppets respond to each other to create bogus discussions.
Beahahahahha
Turdrunner. Several times a day laying another turd
James, The key word is rational. And unfortunately, there are those that are that sick and depraved. When one looks at the many moving parts, they seem irrational and they are. There is a sick plan afoot and when the pieces of the puzzle are put together, they all spell a force, power, person, persons, who have a plan to tear down western civilization, tear down this nation and put free people in subjugation. They simply cannot leave the world alone and enjoy their multibillion empires in peace. The one thing they fear is the truth and provable facts. They despise transparency and they seem to have a collective hatred for the system that made them filthy rich.
The one thing that keeps me sane is knowing that naked they came into the world and naked they shall return. None of their earthly gains can be taken with them and that rich or poor, we will all stand in judgement when we pass from this earth. The strong and young will grow old, frail and forgetful. What will they have gained? Self indulgence? Making people’s lives miserable? Feathering their nests while “serving the public?”
They will fade into the distance of ancient history and their miserable lives will be for nothing. We are one breath short of dying and one step short of falling. There will be a time of reckoning, but for now, fair minded people must push back and resist this insanity and the evil.
E.M.
Well said.
Yes, this is election interference of an unprecedented level. This is the kind of thing that leads to real violence, disenfranchising millions of voters with using and twisting Amendments to fit their narrative without due process or even rule of law. But that is what they mean when they chant, “By any means necessary!”
Destroy democracy to protect it, as long as it is their version. And the aftermath? Well, if it means a totalitarian rule, like Iran, then the end justifies the means.
I agree, the sense of panic is evident. Just look at the comments by our leftist friends. More fantasy than fact. Repeating the same narrative as if that were to make it true. All they have to do next is click their heels and they will be back home in KS.
Will Biden be replaced? There are a lot of people in his admin who have a vested interest in keeping their jobs, a job that they have done ever so poorly. I could easily see infighting between the Biden admin and the DNC establishment which we have already seen to a degree with some not committing to saying they will endorse the Biden re-election campaign.
Newsome sure looks like he is running, unofficially.
In the past we have heard the same ol rhetoric, “This election will be the most important one ever!” Or, “Our democracy is on the line!”
Trump got elected in 2016. Did any of the fear mongers claims come true?
Nope.
Up til COVID, the Trump admin did pretty dang well. Even a former Google CEO admitted the same when he got past the MSM hysteria. Quite a contrast to where we are today, under the Biden admin.
However, I will say, looking at the desperate actions taken by our leftists friends, keeping a candidate off the ballot like Iran does, the situation in the Mid-East, the economy, this time, This election will be the most important one ever!” just might be right.
I am honestly surprised at how long it is taking people to grasp the causes of the assorted failures we see.
I am also surprised at how rapid and consequential those failures have been.
Regardless, we are in the midst of a sea change and the tides are inarguably running against the left.
The question is not if things will change but how long can the left hold on to power.
With a few small exceptions this is not just in the US but globally.
Let us presume as an example that somehow Trump is not elected in 2024. Does anyone think this is over ?
Does anything think that another 4 years of Biden is not going to be atleast equally disasterous as the 3 years so far ?
I can not predict what more in the US can go wrong under 4 more years of Biden – but with certainty both the US and the world will get worse.
We are past peak woke. I do not know exactly what the sea change will bring. nor how rapidly the tide will go out.
I have Debated Svelaz, and others here regarding the 14th amendment,
But I do not think my arguments matter.
I do not know exactly what SCOTUS will do – they MIGHT grant cert and issue a TRO and sit on this until 2025 and declare it moot.
They might issue a weak technical opinion with 9-0 support thwarting this nonsense.
They might issue a strong opinion condemning this insanity.
They have litterally a dozen ways to dispose of this. It is impossible to guess what they will choose.
What is highly unlikely is that those on the left will get what they want.
Further, I am not entirely sure that what SCOTUS does matters. It appears this step was ANOTHER left wing nut mistake.
The more the left goes after Trump the higher his polling goes.
I am talking about Trump – but Trump is not the actual issue.
While Trump is an existential threat tot he left, the tide has turned. Whether this is the year the power of the woke left collapses, or next, or 2028, the writing is still on the wall.
I DO expect violence – but not violence from the right should Trump lose. But violence from the left when their inevitable loss of power occurs.
𝐓𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞: Key Dates
July 2024:
𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟓, 𝐭𝐨 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟖
Republican National Convention in Milwaukee
August 2024:
𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐀𝐮𝐠. 𝟏𝟗, 𝐭𝐨 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐀𝐮𝐠. 𝟐𝟐
Democratic National Convention in Chicago
—
𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
By: Madeleine Simon ~ 01/02/24
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4124784-key-dates-to-watch-in-the-2024-presidential-election/
Our Presidential election, State Electors convention, Congressional Certification and Inauguration take place on a rigid, fixed schedule. This is by design, knowing that if delay were an option, it will be used by incumbents who have lost re-election to hold onto power. The reason the Supreme Court intervened in 2000 to halt further recounts was to keep the Dec 16 convention of State Electors on schedule (it was handed down on 12/12/2000).
Because there is no slack in the schedule, it is essential that all questions and controversies about voting methods, places and times, authentication of ballots, the counting of ballots and interpretation of counts be settled IN ADVANCE of the start of voting.
As seen in 2000, settling disagreements post-election is very bad form, as then an unsettled conflict could cause ambiguity as to the result — and a Court could be seen as deciding the election.
That’s why it’s great that in 2024, major disagreements are still solvable in advance (although not on time for the primary votes).
OT
Hillary Clinton committed insurrection by claiming to have won “the popular vote.”
The popular vote? What popular vote, Hillary?
Hillary Clinton attempted to overturn the government by overturning its Constitution.
Alternatively, Hillary Clinton attempted to overturn the facts and the truth in the corrupt, feeble, and malleable minds of Democratic voters.
There is NO general national “popular vote” in the Constitution.
There are fifty state popular votes under the Constitution.
______________________________________________________________
“I’m an activist citizen and part of the resistance.”
“I think [the Electoral College] needs to be eliminated, I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”
“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”
“Remember, I did win by more than 3 million votes than my opponent. So, it’s like … really?”
“He should worry less about the election and my winning the popular vote…”
– Hillary Clinton
___________________
“The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately,” Hillary Clinton’s ally, Barbara Boxer, in support of Hillary Clinton’s attempted insurrection.
Jonathan: It’s hard to see that Chief Justice Roberts can avoid the “bitter fracturing of 2000” when the Court takes up DJT’s appeal of the Colorado SC decision. It will be 2000 again in spades! If the right-wing majority has its way and decides DJT can be on the ballot it will be another blow to our constitutional order.
As you mention, Justices Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett have conflicting allegiances. They were both deeply involved in the 2000 election contest–on the side of Bush. Can they be “impartial” in the pending case? Then we have Clarence Thomas who has not recused himself in cases where he had a direct conflict of interest–the fact that his wife was deeply involved in the 2021 fake elector scheme. Despite calls to recuse himself in the pending Colorado case he has thus far refused to do so. And we know where he stands. He is a firm DJT supporter.
Neil Gorsuch is another Justice with baggage. On page 32 of its decision the Colorado SC cited Gorsuch in his 2012 decision (Hassan v. Colorado) where he said it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office”. Will he be “impartial” in deciding the Colorado case? Or will he reject his own decision in Hassan?
If you read the entire 133 page decision of the Colorado SC it’s hard to find it “conclusory” as you allege. The Court based its decision on the district court’s extensive factual record, witness and expert testimony, a review of the state’s election code, the historical and clear meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, whether Jan 6 was a mere “riot” or an “insurrection” and your claim that keeping DJT off the ballot would violate his “free speech” rights. The Court held the state’s election code does not violate DJT’s “associational rights”: “To hold otherwise would permit political parties to disregard the requirements of the law and the Constitution whenever they decide, as a matter of ‘political expression’ or ‘political choice’, that those requirements do not apply” (at page 44).
I doubt Roberts is going to get a “unanimous decision”–for the Court to speak with “one” voice. It will no doubt be a “fractured” decision. If the right-wing majority gets its way they will give an “insurrectionist” the right to be on the ballot. Not something the Framers contemplated or those who wrote Section 3. It will be a repudiation of the “core principles of the Democratic process”!
Hassan was a foreigner. Trump was accused of participating in the hallucinations of a bunch of delusional Democrats and never-Trumpers.
Apples and oranges.
Dennis: thank you. What’s really sad here is that someone who is so profoundly unfit to serve as the leader of the free world, and not just because he instigated an insurrection when his ego couldn’t handle the truth that he had been rejected, but because of his endless lying, emotional instability, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, islamophobia, and just utter incompetence, has any chance of being elected to anything at all (other than maybe prison trusty). Just HOW MANY recounts did Trump get? HOW MANY did Al Gore get in Florida and WHY did Republicans get the recount stopped? Trump also got people to sign fake electoral college documents and sicced his fans on Pence because Pence refused to be bullied. Isn’t the outrageousness obvious?
Gigi the LIAR
Why dont you answer for yesterdays lie before you move on to the next?
Do u still think hunter biden was never a gov’t employee?
Yes, I believe that Hunter Biden was NOT a “government employee”–because he wasn’t. Members of the armed services are NOT “government employees”. Just more of your stretching facts to fit your narrative that someone who says something you don’t like is a liar.
Gigi the LIAR
What the fvck? I dont care if you “believe it” or not. I was in the Navy. My paycheck came from the US treasury. My W2 was issued by the US Dept of the Navy. My oath swore allegiance to the Constitution.
My pension STILL comes from the Department of Defense. Do you know what the department of defense is part of? Go on, you can say it. The goddam US government.
This is your problem. You somehow think you are entitled to your own reality. You’re not.
There is no stretching of the facts here except for you. Wtf even is that. Facts are facts. They cant be stretched. They can only be ignored by people like you, or substituted with your own “reality”.
All of a sudden, the military isn’t part of the government. Idiot.
Below is the cite for the officer oath for military service.
(Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
Hunter took the same oath, and violated it within days.
Below is a propaganda piece from your favorite White House, detailing how government employees INCLUDING SERVICEMEMBERS, wouldn’t get paid during the “extreme republican” shutdown.
Gigi the ultimate LIAR
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/09/26/extreme-republican-shutdown-would-force-troops-to-work-without-getting-paid-and-undermine-our-national-security/
Gigi, Is Trump fit ? It is an aphorism that anyone who wants to be president – or a politician generally is unfit for office. Trump is not particularly different.
That said – of the choices we have – Trump is certainly far more fit than Biden or Harris or most any possible democrat contender.
And the idiotic insurrection nonsense makes the tinfoil on your hat sparkle.
The civil war was an insurrection – it involved warships and artilery and armies with firearms.
Oct 7 was an insurrection – it involved rockets and grenades, and machine guns and actual assault weapons.
J6 was not even much of a “riot” – as we are learing it was LESS of a riot than the may attackes on the whitehouse,
Or almost any night in portland in 2020.
Keep holding your breath, stomping your feet and shouting insurrection, insurrection – it just makes you look foolish.
As to the “Truth”
The truth is that democrats bent the law, broke the law, warped the law, censored people, lied, engaged in massive ballot harvesting and STILL only pulled of the electon by 45.000 votes.
Hillary lost by 5 times that – threw a hissy fit, Tried – and to a small extent succeeded in getting electors to change their votes, staged a small riot in the capital – lest you forget, and then she Obama and biden staged a soft Coup against Trump
You do not have any moral ground to stand on.
People are increasingly appalled at what you have done to the country. We are expecting Trump to “clean house” on Jan 21, 2025.
There is not going to be massive concern so long as his conduct is no more egregious than yours has been.
Turn about is fair play.
All gore conducted a recount in Florida that started the instant the election was over and had Scotus not acted would have continued until 2004 if necescary. Gore lost the election, he lost the first recount, and then spent weeks in selective recounts trying to “overturn” the election.
Conversely Trump could not actually get the recounts he asked for.
Raffensburger refused to Recount Fulton County.
He refused a signature audit of Fulton county.
The Federal court approved means to challenge an election in congress is to provide an alternate slate of electors.
This is not “fake” it is literally what the courts have required for more than a century.
Trump is outrageous. – that is not a constitutional disqualification for president.
Sometimes Biden is outrageous, many other democrats are outrageous.
But mostly democrats and Biden are just a pathetic failure.
When Biden took office in 2021 – he and the democratic party had the wind at their backs.
All they needed to do to dominate for decades was …. NOTHING.
They could have coasted to victory after victory.
In Jan 2021, everything was pretty good, and more importantly everyone had every reason to expect the future would be even better.
In 3 years you have F’d up thoroughly – with a fawning press – you have F’d up.
Nearly everything is getting worse, nothing is truly getting better.
This is what failure actually looks like.
Trump did not make you fail – you did that to yourselves.
If Trump is elected in November – currently betting odds are 3:2 in favor of Trump over Biden, it will be YOUR fault.
You rant and rave about Trump’s flaws – even if True, people are still choosing Trump over you.
John Say,
Well said.
Dennis – no one is ever truly partial. The most any judge or justice can do is to attempt to see things from some other person’s situation and ask him/herself how they would feel in THAT situation.
𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐲 𝐀 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐩𝐨𝐞𝐧𝐚, 𝐒𝐨 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐎𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞?
The level of projection at play with this administration would be hilarious if it weren’t so damaging to our country.
By: Margot Cleveland ~ January 03, 2024
https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/03/joe-biden-apparently-helped-hunter-defy-a-subpoena-so-why-is-trump-the-one-charged-with-obstructing-justice/
𝐇𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 ‘𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐧’ 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞
The House Oversight Committee will begin moving forward with holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena to sit for a deposition last month as part of the House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into his father.
By: Reese Gorman, Congressional Reporter ~ January 02, 2024
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/oversight-soon-resolution-holding-hunter-biden-contempt
@Anon,
There is a legal argument that you can’t impeach Biden for acts he did before becoming POTUS.
That said… if he did what is being alleged… that would be impeachable.
The cover up is sometimes worse than the crime.
Come on Beck, that’s crazy talk! Or is it?
GLENN: Let me tell you something: This should tell you everything you need to know, about the Democrats.
It should tell you how radical, they actually are. They’re saying that they want to preserve democracy. But this isn’t true.
Let me tell you what I think is going to happen…
Bernie Sanders was not in their camp. That’s why, you saw all of the horse trading and everything else, that was going on, during the 2016 election.
They took him out. Now, that was still not the full superdelegate thing. You’re going to see it this year. I really believe the Democrats are going to do their superdelegate, which can vote differently than the public. So it’s a — it’s a hand-selected group of people, that the party elites select, and if they feel for the party or for democracy’s sake, the people have been duped. They can override their vote. And I think you’re going to see the poll numbers going down so horribly, that you’re going to have to have somebody else besides Biden. And you can’t have his vice president.
And there’s no way you can start a campaign now. It’s too late. It’s too late. You can’t even get people on the ballot.
Although, they’re strangely trying to get somebody else off the ballot. But you can’t even get anybody on the ballot at this point. Superdelegates stand in, and they say, you know what, for the good of the country we need somebody that can unite us all, and that would be Michelle Obama.
https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/3-moves-democrats-2024-election
” Bernie Sanders was not in their camp. That’s why, you saw all of the horse trading and everything else, that was going on, during the 2016 election. ”
Ditto for the 2020 Election as well: Tulsi Gabbard
So WHO’S camp is it in 2024?
Should Putin be removed from the ballot for committing genocidal war crimes? It sure does seem serious enough
Did Gloria “jewland” Nuland whisper another 20 billion in spending in moscow into your ear ? She admitted she failed last time she tried in 2014, maybe she has tried much since, and we don’t have her admission on the dirty costs and failures again, yet.
“Did Gloria “jewland” Nuland ”
Shakdi, when do you ever get things right with that brain of yours anti-Semitism has devoured?
It is Victoria Nuland, not Gloria. She is not Jewish. Her mother is Christian, and I believe she went to a Christian school.
Anti-Semitism is like Syphilis, as both eat away at your brain.
You just aren’t bright enough buddy boy.
She has victory only the glory of war.
Where did ashkenazis originate.
CASE CLOSED.
Now, if you weren’t such a doofus gasbag and so easily excited idiot, you’d have said nothing about it. Maybe if you tamped down your constant raging anti semite crap mode your brain would function. I doubt it, though.
I’ll be back, and you’ll attack.
“CASE CLOSED.”
You made no sense that was pertinent to the issue at hand. That is what we get from a Syphilitic brain. Victoria Nuland isn’t Jewish. You make a lousy anti-Semite. You are too stupid.
Should Biden be removed from the ballot fro committing genocidal war crimes? We all know the Ukrainians and Russians had a peace agreement back in March of 2020, but Biden the Butcher said no to peace and yes to war.
Voting for Biden in 2024 is voting for more death, destruction and war.
Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution.
Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto.
The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional.
The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
I nominate Dr. Carol Swain, American political scientist and legal scholar, for President of Harvard University and for President of the United States.
Karl Marx had a sister named Anya, who was an Olympic runner. Although she never medaled, her name is still chanted at the start of every Olympic running event.
The modern Olympics were revived in 1896. His sister would have been in 50s or 60s.
A drastic measure to end the war
would be worth it to end the war.
Isolationists prolong the war by
not letting anyone take drastic measures to stop it.
If the war goes on forever, it will be due to those
who don’t like forever wars. Oh, the irony.
There is a difference between – the US is not obligated to fight all wars everywhere all the time and isolationism.
I know very few isolationsits.
Ukraine is not in our national interest.
Neither are several of the other wars that we are tangentially involved in that you are likely not even aware of.
As to your poem.
No a drastic measure to end the war would not likely be worth it.
We could end the Ukraine war easily by Nuking russia – of course they would nuke us bake and WWIV would be fought with Rocks.
Regardless, it increasingly looks like there are only 3 ways to end the ukraine war.
Ukrainian defeat.
A negotiated settlement hich is unlikely to be in either the US or ukraines interest
The commitment of european troops and air power to defeat Rusia which risks triggering a nuclear war.
Patton was right.
The glorious plumes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have blossomed from Moscow to Peking, followed by these words:
“It is my earnest hope and indeed the hope of all mankind that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past – a world founded upon faith and understanding – a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish – for freedom, tolerance and justice.”
“These proceedings are closed.”
– General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, 2 September, 1945
John say, please stop wasting time on this ukraine bot. Every day
Please keep in mind that the Colorado Supreme Court in its 133 page majority opinion addressed many of the arguments that Professor Turley and commenters are making here and in related posts so you may want to look at specific parts of the opinion to see if you agree or disagree with the analysis (if you have no done so already). For example, Professor Turley said the US Supreme Court could reverse on “the casual dismissal of Trump’s free speech rights”. The majority opinion addressed and analyzed Trump’s free speech rights on pages 116 through 132. Thanks.
Addressed as in wordily ignored.
Understanding Trump’s free speech rights is trivial – see Brandenburg v. Ohio speech advocating for crime and/or violence is protected except under very narrow circumstances. Everything Trump has said falls within the Brandenberg test for protected speech.
Where speech is protected by the First amendment the Government can not punish it PERIOD.
I fully understand that you left wing nuts are entirely clueless regarding hate speech.
So let me clarify in one of the simplest ways possible.
The proverbial “yelling fire in a crowded theater” is ACTUALLY protected speech – you can not criminalize it – that is how strong first amendment protections are.
That does not mean that the theater owner can not ban you for life.
More recently a separated husband subject to a protection from abuse order, threatened to murder his wife and the police officers he beleived were aiding her in a post on Facebook. The supreme court deemed that protected speech.
Go listen to pretty much every claim about free speech by anyone on the left today, any left wing legal scholar any Obama or Biden appointed judge. If you assume that 100% of what thy say is WRONG regarding free speech you will be right nearly all of the time.
I would further note – this actually goes beyond even the constitution.
I would strongly suggest reading and understanding John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” – it is the philosophical and practical underpinnings of free speech.
Here is an abridged audiobook version in modern english.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjUW1KsSEM
Regardless, as we have seen with Covid as well as the 2020 election – nearly unlimited free speech – including alleged misinformation is a requirement for a functioning, stable and prosperous society.
Restricting speech – even speech you are sure is false actually destabilizes society – just like banning short selling causes the stock market to collapse. The only way we actually know what is true, is to allow those who disagree with us the most to make their best case against us.
Without that we are unable to tell truth from error, and we ALWAYS make bad choices.
Look at Covid – pretty mcuh EVERYTHING we were told was WRONG, worse as some of us knew nearly from the start and most of us know now – those telling us KNEW they were lying and did it anyway. And there were PLENTY of highly respected epidemiologists who not only were trying to get heard informing us of our errors, but who had DECADES of data to back that up. Lockdowns do not work against respiratory viruses PERIOD. Masks do nto actually work against respiratory viruses PERIOD, this is not NEW knowledge – though it was confirmed again by Covid.
When you do not allow free speech – THAT is when you get misinformation.
This is not some right wing article of fact it is not only a statement of principle, it is a principle that is determined by the way the world actually works.
John Say,
Great comment!
@John Say…
And that is exactly why Trump wasn’t charged under 18 USC 2383.
You can’t claim anyone guilty of insurrection when no such event took place and no one was charged as an insurrectionist.
BTW masks do work… if you’re wearing a P100 mask w Organic level filters. Better if its a full face mask.
But that’s not what you meant… 😉
Pure blood, pure skin, never jabbed, never tested, checking in.
Day one I had their number.
I watched the retards for years, but that’s nothing new for me.
ONLY COUNT THE ELECTORS WHO HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY SLATED
________________________________________________________________________
You are a liar. You abide and persist in lies. Jan 6 was a riot. No insurrection occurred. No insurrection has been charged. No insurrection has been proven.
“Fundamentally transforming the United States of America” constitutes de facto and de jure insurrection.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.”
“And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
– President Donald J. Trump, January 6, 2021
________________________________________________
Cambridge Dictionary
insurrection
noun [ C or U ]
us
/ˌɪn.sɚˈek.ʃən/ uk
/ˌɪn.sərˈek.ʃən/
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence: armed insurrection
The length of a legal opinion has little connection to its quality. Verbosity can hide confusion.
Concerned Citizen, I appreciate your many informed and well-reasoned comments, focused on legal issues. Just keep in mind that based on their behavior, many here don’t want to have informed discussions. They want to argue what they already believe based on their political beliefs.
Here is ATS, responding to himself as anonymous.
I must admit that I grow weary regarding the clutching of pearls vis-a-vis Clarence Thomas’ participation in any vote on the constitutionality of keeping Trump off of the ballot. His wife’s advocacy for Republican causes and candidates is the straw that liberals at grasping at to seek a reason to delegitimize his vote, and, by extension, the outcome of the entire vote of the Court.
Justice Thomas does not lose his judicial independence just because his wife is active politically. If that is what the Left is claiming then the potential exists that every conservative justice would be expected to recuse him/herself at some point in their career (and perhaps many times). The Left would love this to be the standard because it would most apply to the conservative justices (none of the liberal female justices are married, except for Brown Jackson). Were the standard to be that a politically active spouse required a justice to recuse themselves, then for “appropriate” reasons:
* JUSTICE ROBERTS would have to recuse himself (his spouse spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention in support of President Bush)
* JUSTICE ALITO would need to recuse himself since his wife has been seen accompanying him to conservative events and has served on the advisory board of the Catholic Charities of Central New Jersey.
* JUSTICE KAVANAUGH would need to recuse himself because his wife is a former political consultant who worked for George W. Bush and other Republican candidates. She has advocated for conservative causes, like school choice, and written for conservative publications.
* JUSTICE CONEY-BARRETT would need to recuse herself because her husband is a lawyer and former federal prosecutor appointed by President Trump. He has expressed conservative views on abortion and other legal issues.
* JUSTICE GORSUCH would need to recuse himself because his wife (a British documentary filmmaker) has produced documentaries exploring political and social issues, including immigration and religious freedom.
* JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR would need to recuse herself because her ex-husband was a legal journalist and author who wrote for liberal publications like The Nation.
* JUSTICE BROWN JACKSON would need to recuse herself because her husband (a surgeon and law professor) has served in positions within the Democratic Party and advocated for healthcare reform.
* JUSTICE KAGAN has never been married, and historically
* JUSTICE BRANDEIS’ wife was a progressive activist who advocated for women’s suffrage and social justice reforms.
* JUSTICE MARSHALL’s wife was a lawyer and educator who supported her husband’s career and advocated for civil rights, and
* JUSTICE BRENNAN’s wife was active in Democratic politics and supported liberal causes.
In retrospect, should we say that these late justices’ opinions are tainted somehow and those cases need to be re-revisited? That’s a bridge too far in my view.
Similarly, the hand-wringing over Justice Roberts’ need to craft unanimous decisions is unnecessary. What is wrong with justices’ voting their conscience? If that results in 5-4 decisions so be it There should be no expectation that Justice Roberts do any behind-the-scenes politicking to achieve any particular outcome.
Justices aren’t tasked with ‘voting their conscious’. The job requires them to issue opinions based on the law itself, not on their personal opinions.
Justices must objectively and impartially assure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law.
The entire communistic American welfare state violates Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property, and is irrefutably unconstitutional.
Ginni Thomas was directly involved with the attempted coup. Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from cases involving the attempted coup.
You are the only one who believe there was an attempted coup or an insurrection.
The rest of us normal people know no such thing transpired.
It was literally broadcast live on TV. We have the recording from the call with the GA SoS. It was not a secret that Trump pressured local election officials to declare him the winner. The fake elector scheme has been admitted to by those involved. Trump publicly called on Pence to refuse to count some EC votes. None of those were legal. None of those are in dispute. All those together is an attempted coup.
It was literally broadcast live on TV
Men dressed in drag, wearing nothing but makeup, wigs, jock straps, and high heels, performed lewd and lascivious acts, stating “its not going to lick itself” to children under age 10 sitting right in front of them. Yet your ilk calls it “free speech” as opposed to obscenities, child abuse, sexual grooming and the other facts you choose to rename
You wouldn’t know a fact unless if it hit you smack across your backside with you being on all 4’s, only you would have someone video record it, taking place in a US Senate building.
🤣
As the recently released Jan 6th video showed, it was not a coup or insurrection. It far more peaceful than the Fiery but Mostly Peaceful 2020 Summer of Love.
That video also showed how the Jan 6th clown show committee cheery picked and even edited video to support their false narrative.
The only attempted coup is the one in your mind.
Upstate — Sammy is not alone. The activities of 2021 Jun 06 were an insurrection in which 6 people died that day or shortly after.
Moron, of which 5 were not related to the riot. They had pre-existing conditions that they subcomed too.
The only one was the criminal act of a CP officer shooting an unarmed woman in the neck.
Are you really that stupid?
Upstate: Nope, at least one was hit by a baseball bat (equivalent) in the head and so driven to suicide soon thereafter.
Etc.
Lmao because baseball bats are known to cause suicide
Idiot
She was shot in the shoulder, not the neck, and no, shooting her wasn’t a criminal act. He had a job of protecting members of Congress and staffers still in the House Chamber from any rioter trying to get into that chamber via the Speaker’s Lobby. She was warned that he had a gun, and she started to climb through the broken window in the door despite that.
I remember that J wrote a column showing the violations by Officer Hill of the guidelines of the Capitol Hill police regarding use of deadly violence. Deadly force was not justified. Perhaps someone else can remember the date of the column.
The officer’s name isn’t Hill. The shooting was investigated, and not by JT.
Benson
She was not an imminent threat to life or limb and he used deadly force.
You’re an imbecile
If a goddam 7-11 security guard did that he would be in prison.
David, your memory doesn’t last 24 hours. You are in bad shape.
There was no insurrection. No one was convicted of insurrection.
Two women were killed by police officers. Babbitt and Boyland. A black male cop killed Babbit. It was not a legal shoot. A female black cop was the killer or accessory to the death of Anne Boyland. The rest of the deaths were incidental to the event though some think two men died in part because of the police firing a type of explosive close to them.
That is a lie
Ginni Thomas was directly involved with the attempted coup.
Justice Thomas is not the same person as Ginni Thomas. Ginni Thomas is not a SCOTUS Justice. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
From the Code of Conduct for SCOTUS. Ginni most defiantly is “likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding”
(2) A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in
which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware
of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could
fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, but are
not limited to, those in which:
(d) The Justice or the Justice’s spouse, or a person related to
either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse
of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to be a party to
the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) to be acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) to have
an interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding(d) The Justice or the Justice’s spouse, or a person related to
either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse
of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to be a party to
the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) to be acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) to have
an interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding
Ginni most defiantly is “likely to be a material witness in the proceeding
What proceeding? SCOTUS does not conduct evidentiary hearings, and Ginni Thomas was not a witness in the proceedings it will be reviewing. So the above doesn’t apply.
OldManFromKS,
Ah! Facts. Thank your for bringing them to the table and destroying our leftists friends fantasies.
I hope you saw my responses today to the questions you asked me last night in the column “Destroying Democracy to Save It: Maine Shows the Danger of Zealots in our Legal System” — A.N.D.
We need a unanimous decision AND we need a strong decision.
I would note – Justices are NOT supposed to vote their conscience. they are supposed to vote the plain text of the constitution.
I would BTW not presume that a 9-0 strong decision is not possible. There might be some subtle differences between the liberal justices and conservatives ones on fairly fringe speech issues.
Brandenburg V. Ohio was a Warren – Liberal Court decision that was 9-0 and is the controlling law.
I would further note that 2 of trhe justices who signed on to brandenburg would have gone further – Make no law, means NO LAW.
Free speech is a LIBERAL issue. It is modern left wing nut progressives that have abandoned the few good things liberals have ever done.
Regardless, Trump’s J6 speech is protected speech according to Brandenburg. It can not be criminalized, and it can not be used as evidence against Trump.