This week, the argument before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson captivated the nation as the justices considered the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. For some of us, the argument brought back vivid memories of covering Bush v. Gore almost 25 years ago. While one justice (Clarence Thomas) remains on the Court, the last major intervention of the Court into a close presidential election is a matter of distant history.
As someone who covered both cases, much is regrettably familiar: the deep division in the country and rage of many advocates. However, unlike in 2000, the Court itself appears virtually unanimous in this case. The biggest difference is not the Court but the coverage.
The Trump case exposed the erosion of legal coverage in the media. For millions of Americans, the cold reception of all of the justices to the novel theory under the 14th Amendment came as a surprise. Networks and newspapers have been featuring experts who assured the public that this theory was well-based and disqualification well-established. The only barrier, they insisted, was the blind partisanship of the six conservative justices on the Court.
Twenty-four years ago, I was covering the Bush v. Gore case for CBS. I had just left NBC as an analyst when the election controversy exploded. While there were the usual partisans and some outlets slanted the merits, the legal analysis was overall balanced and informative.
This is not a case of the Court changing. We have changed as legal analysts. The Court itself is deeply divided on some issues. However, the justices gave a fair hearing to both sides. That is not the case with the coverage.
Looking back at the coverage, most legacy media called upon the same legal experts who have previously endorsed virtually every claim made against Trump. They predictably declared Trump as clearly disqualified despite the fact that this theory has never been embraced by the federal courts.
Figures like federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig who called these arguments against disqualification as “revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical.” Others insisted that the argument that the provision might not apply to presidents was “absurd.” That was the argument pushed by Justice Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson.
Many of the media turned to Professor Laurence Tribe despite a long record of constitutional claims rejected by the Court, in some cases unanimously. Tribe assured the public that the theory was “unassailable” and also insisted that the theory (later voiced by Jackson) is “an absurd interpretation.”
It is important that such views are heard in the coverage. The problem is that the media has, once again, pushed this novel (and in my view unfounded) theory to the point that many assumed that it was indeed unassailable.
What was most troubling is the repeated attacks on the Court by legal experts who suggested that the only thing keeping Trump on the ballot was the bias of conservative justices. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D. Md.) declared “This is their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.” It appears that both Justices Kagan and Jackson did not behave like “real Supreme Court justices” in oral argument by objecting to core aspects of this theory.
We will have to wait for the final opinion but most of us are predicting a reversal of Colorado and the possibility of a unanimous or near unanimous decision. The question is whether such a result will change how media outlets frame these disputes in the future. After weeks of portraying the opposition as only resting with the right of the Court, the coverage had a weird disjointed feel as some of the same commentators reported that the justices appeared uniformly unconvinced by this “unassailable” theory.
Good article, but it is incorrect to call Luttig a “federal judge.” Luttig resigned from the bench nearly two decades ago.
Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, and the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute.”
Early on, the delegates who were opposed to having a strong central government argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Madison, advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of tribunals chosen by the national legislature. It was proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive’s power to veto or revise laws.
Eventually, the framers compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary in Article Three of the United States Constitution, vesting federal judicial power in “one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE IS TO GIVE THE LAWS THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION WHEN THERE IS BAGUITY IN THEM.
Indeed, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law to decide whether the law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to decide how a law should be applied.
Therefore the Historical importance of this section since there is no precedent. This is not giving meaning to a law created by Congress with legal deficiencies, this is clearly the interpretation of an article of the Constitution, a fundamental task of this court, which is why it seems to me that the Supreme Court has been up to the task, but the defense attorneys for both parties did not.
Rather, it seemed like a master class in Constitutional Law 001, with extreme patience, due to the incompetence of the defense lawyers.
It won’t change a thing. Our laughable media (actually, paid leftist propagandists) are shameless in their hatred of Trump.
All this back and forth could be easily avoided if everyone would just read the manual.
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. Does anyone not understand that the watchers decree is Law of the land?
Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.
2 For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.
3 And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.
4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.
6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments, which I have given them to publish unto you, O inhabitants of the earth.
7 Wherefore, fear and tremble, O ye people, for what I the Lord have decreed in them shall be fulfilled.
8 And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious;
9 Yea, verily, to seal them up unto the day when the wrath of God shall be poured out upon the wicked without measure—
10 Unto the day when the Lord shall come to recompense unto every man according to his work, and measure to every man according to the measure which he has measured to his fellow man.
11 Wherefore the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear:
12 Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh;
13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.
14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;
15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;
16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.
17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;
18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—
19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—
20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;
And it came to pass that Enoch journeyed in the land, among the people; and as he journeyed, the Spirit of God descended out of heaven, and abode upon him.
27 And he heard a voice from heaven, saying: Enoch, my son, prophesy unto this people, and say unto them—Repent, for thus saith the Lord: I am angry with this people, and my fierce anger is kindled against them; for their hearts have waxed hard, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes cannot see afar off;
28 And for these many generations, ever since the day that I created them, have they gone astray, and have denied me, and have sought their own counsels in the dark; and in their own abominations have they devised murder, and have not kept the commandments, which I gave unto their father, Adam.
29 Wherefore, they have foresworn themselves, and, by their oaths, they have brought upon themselves death; and a hell I have prepared for them, if they repent not;
30 And this is a decree, which I have sent forth in the beginning of the world, from my own mouth, from the foundation thereof, and by the mouths of my servants, thy fathers, have I decreed it, even as it shall be sent forth in the world, unto the ends thereof.
31 And when Enoch had heard these words, he bowed himself to the earth, before the Lord, and spake before the Lord, saying: Why is it that I have found favor in thy sight, and am but a lad, and all the people hate me; for I am slow of speech; wherefore am I thy servant?
32 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Go forth and do as I have commanded thee, and no man shall pierce thee. Open thy mouth, and it shall be filled, and I will give thee utterance, for all flesh is in my hands, and I will do as seemeth me good.
33 Say unto this people: Choose ye this day, to serve the Lord God who made you.
34 Behold my Spirit is upon you, wherefore all thy words will I justify; and the mountains shall flee before you, and the rivers shall turn from their course; and thou shalt abide in me, and I in you; therefore walk with me.
35 And the Lord spake unto Enoch, and said unto him: Anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see. And he did so.
36 And he beheld the spirits that God had created; and he beheld also things which were not visible to the natural eye; and from thenceforth came the saying abroad in the land: A seer hath the Lord raised up unto his people.
37 And it came to pass that Enoch went forth in the land, among the people, standing upon the hills and the high places, and cried with a loud voice, testifying against their works; and all men were offended because of him.
38 And they came forth to hear him, upon the high places, saying unto the tent-keepers: Tarry ye here and keep the tents, while we go yonder to behold the seer, for he prophesieth, and there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us.
39 And it came to pass when they heard him, no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him; for he walked with God.
40 And there came a man unto him, whose name was Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest?
41 And he said unto them: I came out from the land of Cainan, the land of my fathers, a land of righteousness unto this day. And my father taught me in all the ways of God.
42 And it came to pass, as I journeyed from the land of Cainan, by the sea east, I beheld a vision; and lo, the heavens I saw, and the Lord spake with me, and gave me commandment; wherefore, for this cause, to keep the commandment, I speak forth these words.
43 And Enoch continued his speech, saying: The Lord which spake with me, the same is the God of heaven, and he is my God, and your God, and ye are my brethren, and why counsel ye yourselves, and deny the God of heaven?
44 The heavens he made; the earth is his footstool; and the foundation thereof is his. Behold, he laid it, an host of men hath he brought in upon the face thereof.
45 And death hath come upon our fathers; nevertheless we know them, and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know, even Adam.
46 For a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given by the finger of God; and it is given in our own language.
47 And as Enoch spake forth the words of God, the people trembled, and could not stand in his presence.
48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.
49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.
50 But God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent.
51 And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.
52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.
53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.
54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.
55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
56 And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.
57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.
58 Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying:
59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;
60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;
61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.
62 And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.
63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.
64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.
65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.
66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;
67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity.
68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen.
I have a question about how the 14th Amendment was applied in the near term after the Civil War. As a retired Army officer I am familiar with at least one case of General Joseph Wheeler, CSA and USA. Wheeler graduated from West Point and thereby took an oath as a US Army officer. He served for a few years and then resigned his commission to serve as an officer in the Confederacy. After the Confederate defeat, he was able to serve as a Representative from Alabama for several terms, and then re-joined the US Army for the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection. How was this possible? I can’t find any information on a uniform process for enforcing the provisions of the 14th Amendment or whether it was just ignored in cases that furthered reconciliation and reconstruction (as a southern Dem, Wheeler worked across the party and victor/vanquished divides).
And thanks to Professor/Barrister Turley and the discussants on this forum for the reasoned and civil debates.
Because he wasn’t in office at the time… He was covered under the Amnesty of 1872.
So he could run for office after 1872. He was elected in 1880.
-G
The Civil War was not an insurrection.
You are a prime example of leftist illiteracy.
I found the Oral Argument fairly evasive of the Court’s responsibility to figure out how these disqualifications should be settled. I’m not one who believes SCOTUS wants to be case-by-case deciders of who gets knocked off the ballot. That would be arrogating raw political power to themselves. That nobody on the current Court feels comfortable doing that shows great progress over the Warren-era Courts, who wielded case-by-case political power unflinchingly.
That said, if SCOTUS finds that State Courts cannot disqualify a Presidential candidate under 14A(3), they need to say how these disqualifications are to be settled, who decides, and by what time in the pre-election cycle.
Colorado will lose this case, but they did win the argument over timing of disqualification — that it should precede the printing of primary ballots. Any later challenge disenfranchises voters who have already voted in good faith. Disqualifying the winner of the general election before Inauguration as suggested by Trump’s lawyer as the “textual” meaning of disqualification from “holding office” was stupid to the realities, and a complete nonstarter.
The danger of federalizing the disqualification process is over-centralization, e.g., giving the DOJ veto power over
an indictment disqualifying a sitting President who is intent on remaining in power beyond his term. On the other hand, if Civil Lawsuit be the means of disqualification, there needs to be a way to dismiss frivolous use as a tool of political competition.
Congress decided to not implement the ban in Sec 3. Therefore, it is a dead letter. Unless one regards 18 USC 1823 (?) – which covers “insurrections” – as implementation of 14A.3.
18.2823
18USC2383
RUSH2112
Yes 18USC2383.
There was the Amnesty of 1872 that limited the scope of the 14h Amendment.
Since then, the only time the 14th was used… the Congressman was refused to be seated because he was found guilty of the Espionage Act.
However he got that conviction overturned and ran again, was elected again and was allowed to sit in Congress.
Notice how Colorado didn’t bring his case up?
The obvious point is that Trump wasn’t found guilty of insurrection, therefore how could you apply the 14th.
This was also raised in the dissenting opinion.
I expect 9-0 in Trump’s favor, but who knows.
-G
Sotomayer has shown no allegiance to the Constitution or rule of law in general.
Anonymous said: “I expect 9-0 in Trump’s favor, but who knows.’
And your expectation was met. Unananimous result overturning the Colorado ban of Trump from the ballot. There were actually two minority decisions that affirmed the result, without going as far down the path of possible repercussions as the majority decision. What all 9 justices did affirm is that enforcement of the insurrection prohibition is not a matter for individual states to pursue or decide. Barring some unanticipated, earth-shaking new development, it appears that the November election is now Trump’s to lose. What will be truly interesting is how left/progressive Democrats, will react to his victory. Will the Senate refuse to certify? Will the Deep State have him assassinated?
I think that you (along with many others, including most voters) are forgetting what a voteractually selects, which is an electoral college representative who may, or may not, be bound by the express preference of the voters. That level of indirection imo does (or should) make a huge difference in judging whether an individual voter has, in fact, been disenfranchised.
Ya missed the entire point they were making. It is not up to the SCOTUS to decide how. 1. Section 3 doesn’t apply to elected officials, only to appointed officials. 2. State don’t get to decide who is on the National ballot. One state cant bar if they meet the qualifications to run and be elected. A video and one-sided media opinion doesn’t decide a criminal conviction for insurrection.
As a Brit, the amusing thing that never gets mentioned is that every single one of the Framers of blessed US memory was an “insurrectionist”. There is a reason that there was no “insurrection” clause in your original Constitution – even the Framers were not complete hypocrites… Your entire country was founded by insurrection against lawful government. The only point of debate is whether it was justifiable insurrection, but is that not an almighty can of worms?
Finally, a realist. The issue is, and always been with regards to “insurrections”, the right of self rule. When a formerly co-joined people experience an increasing separation, both in terms of culture and actual physical distance, the formerly joined tend to wish to be separated. It’s the way of man, no use in debating the matter.
Well said! But of course, if one were to ask the American High School graduate in 2024 ‘who are the Framers,’ the responses would be fascinating, would they not?
Framers ? They build houses
Framers: Those people who made it look like Michael Brown attacked that cop, instead of the truth, that he was on the ground with his hands up, begging not to be shot.
Our entire (sic) country was founded by insurrection against tyranny.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Said the Anarcho syndicalist
I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away!
Really? “Lawful government”? Here we go again!
LOL.
When the 14th was written, they were long dead.
But to your point. They were not guilty of insurrection against the US but Britain and the King.
-G
A tyrant king = lawful govt ? , you must mean awful govt.
Clever
The reason that leftist ideologues like Lawrence Tribe have jobs at all is because universitites are run by leftist ideologues. It is so ironic that these rigid leftists all live and work in the largess of paeans to the fruits of capitalism. They are cynical monsters who live in a delusional la la land. While they sit in the lap of capitalistic luxury, they want to tear down the capitalist system so that no one else every enjoys its benefits. Leftists are not dangerous because they are right, they are dangerous because they are incapable of rational thought. Michael Savage once wrote a book entitled liberalism is a mental disorder. Michael Savage is himself a nutcase, but he wasn’t wrong.
It is interesting watching the dumpster fire that is the Biden WH today.
Last Night Biden had an absymal press conference That if anything made the Hur report more damning.
Biden outright lied repeatedly, and stumbled throught the statement and press conference.
Today the WH counsel is answering questions trying to defend Biden – and aside from deliberately conflating things that are not the same is busy making Trump’s case for him.
The WC said that Hur’s allegations regarding Biden sharing classified information involved Biden reading from his “personal diaries”, and that everyone knows that presidents keep personal diaries that have classified information in them – with the WC citing Reagan, Clinton and Obama.
absolutely – Presidents ARE different.
Diaries are not.
You may not share classified information – regardless of where you are getting it from.
Biden was NOT president at the time. Trump was.
The WC made a biog deal that some classified document in Biden’s possession came to him innocently as VP.
Except that the SC found classified information from Biden’s time as senator.
There is no innocent way a Senator can have classified information outside of a SCIF.
There is no accidental way.
Regardless – the WC DID succeed in defending Trump.
Presidents ARE different. Reagan had classified information in his diary – no one did anything.
Clinton took classified tapes with him and kept them in his sock drawer – the DC courts not only said that was fine, but that NARA had no authority at all to retrieve classified information (or non classified) from an Ex-president, and that the courts had no authority to order the return of classified
or unclassified information.
The WC repeatedly used examples of ex-presidents possessing and even sharing classified information.
Trump is an ex-president – all those examples apply to Trump.
Biden is not yet an ex-president and was not a president prior to 2021.
Legally there is no difference between a senator, a VP, and ex vp, and anyone else in government regarding the espionage act.
But there is a world of difference between presidents and ex-presidents
The more the WH speaks to defend Biden the harder it will be for Jack Smith to prosecute.
Ladies and gentlemen — the President of the United States. Who here besides Turley voted for this guy?
https://x.com/leslibless/status/1755712397266895152?s=20
Censorship happening HERE, LIVE.
This did not age well except that the trained seals clapping in the audience are likely dead or regretting they voted for the lying dog pony soldier
Turley complains about unfair media coverage and what he claims is censorship, but somehow missed Senator Lankford’s public statement that some alt-right personality promised to bury his career if he brought the bipartisan border security bill forward. The sole reason—? Donald Trump is trying to prevent Biden from another legislative victory and he thinks he can milk the border crisis politically. He doesn’t care how many Americans will die from the Fentanyl coming across the border while the border security bill languishes.
We are now living in a time where a losing candidate from the prior presidential election is controlling which bills will be voted on —after being rejected by 80 million Americans—and this is coming after a bipartisan group of senators hammered out an agreement that is strongly supported by Border Patrol officials. None of that matters or even merits comment by Turley.
“… a bipartisan group of senators hammered out an agreement …”
LOL — RINOs plus democrats do NOT comprise a “bipartisan” group. The US Senate is the most-corrupt body in American politics today.
Their politics is unimportant. They failed because supermajorities of americans want immigration fixed and do not beleive this bill will do so.
Lol 😂
Silly reply. We are adults here attempting to have reasoned educated and fact filled dialog.
Precisely how would you have a slavering, dependent, communist feminazi respond when her welfare and affirmative action are threatened?
Figure it out. NUTCHACHACHA’s “free stuff” and “free status” are in mortal jeopardy; she’ll be left with nothing but merit to offer, and nobody’s buying that.
Whatever will she/it/her/thing do?
The “bipartisan deal” is opposed by the rank and file of the Republican Party. Trump is not controlling anyone. And there is no “border crisis.” There is only an unwillingness of Biden to enforce the law.
Gigi,
Sen, Lankford is answerable to the voters from his state.
Personally there is much about the “compromise” bill that is worht discussion. But that does not alter the fact that I and people far beyond republicans still oppose it.
I will provide some criticisms that have little to do with the contents of the bill.
First and foremost – unless and until the president and the execive will enforce the law, there is absolutely zero reason to beleive that any new law will be enforced no matter how good it is.
Congress legislated the constution of the souther border wall as part of the 1986 immigration act.
Despite agreeing to the construction of the wall in 1986 and atleast a dozen times since. Democrats have allowed very little border wall to be built. Outside the just under 500Miles that Trump had built, the only other border wall construction congress has allowed was a crappy wall at the california border – that substantially reduced illegal immigration in California, but is now falling apart.
Nor is the border wall the only instance in which democrats adn democrat presidents have refused to follow the law.
You say this is a political issue – it absolutely is. 75% of americans oppose the Biden administration and democrats on immigration.
More than 60% beleive that illegal immigration would be dramatically reduced if only democratic presidents would enforce the law.
People correctly do not beleive more money is need. They do not beleive the president needs more power than he already has.
People correctly beleive that no matter what the Lankford bill proposes – Biden will not enforce the new law any more than the old one.
Why don’t they beleive that – because it is true. Because democrats LIE. Because they do not enforce the law – not immigration laws, not shoplifting laws, not any laws they do not like.
Increasingly it is not just republicans that do not trust democrats to enforce the law, and to keep agreements, it is the majority of american people.
You say Trump wants this as a campaign issue – absolutely – as do the overwhelming majority of republican senators and congressmen.
The House passed HR2 9 months ago. It was the 2nd bill passed by the new GOP majority. Republicans have taken this issue seriously, democrats have not.
There was no need for a cabal of senators, to put something together in secret in a rush when it was finally clear to democrats that the Biden administrations handling of immigration alone would tank Biden’s re-election and drag lots of democrats down with it.
Democratic senators could have started work on a bill to address immigration at anytime in the Biden administration.
They could have passed something like this when they had the majority.
Even right now at this moment Democrats need not do anything EXCEPT enforce existing immigration law to deny Republicans this issue as an election issue.
With respect to Lankford and the others who worked on this who I beleive are sincere. They are still misguided.
The SOLE purpose of this bill was ALWAYS political. Biden’s lawless immigration policies – like pretty much all his policies have exploded in his face, and are threatening to take down the entire democratic party.
Trump did not cause that failure. Republicans did not cause that failure.
Democratic lawlessness has blow up in your faces, and honestly the only way that you will learn, and the only way democrats will think twice about this lawlessness is to have to pay the political price for it.
The american people are paying the price for democrats bad policies and lawlessness.
It is both political and correct that democrats pay – at the polls.
Republicans fell one vote short of impeaching Mayorkas – because Democrats wheeled Rep Green in from his hospital bed at the last minute.
Democrats are free to do that. The declaration of independence only passed because Ceasar Rodney was wheeled in practically on his death bed.
But Republicans are bringing Rep. Scalise back from Chemo therapy next week and intend to try again.
The impeachment of Mayorkas is political. It does not fit within the constitutions guidance for impeachment.
But Democrats blew that guidance away with Trump faux impeachment uno and duo.
The only way Democrats will earn is to be victims of their own unconstitutional conduct.
Mayorkas will not be removed by the senate. But every democrat in the house and the senate will have to explain their vote to their voters.
That is politics – it is exactly how politics is supposed to work.
Elections have consequences.
They dictate who gets to set policy.
And they dictate who is to blame.
Democrats can resolve their iommigration problem by
Enforcing the law.
or by writing immigration law that will pass both the house and the senate and that the president will sign.
Further, while all laws should be written in public – not smoke filled rooms.
It is quite clear that the american people want immigration law that they beleive will actually work.
The secret cabal bill is not something that can be trusted to be enforced by this president.
Gigi the american people are controlling this issue – not Trump, not Biden, not the house or senate.
Exit polling in new hampshire – which is the most libertarian state in theis country found that 75% of voters named immigration as their #1 issue leading even the economy by almost double.
Immigration has ALWAYS been Trump’s issue. It was a no brainer for Trump to spotlight that.
It was clearly important for Republicans as HR2 was passed by republicans 9 months ago – the 2nd law passed by republicans.
Democrats too – and particularly Biden have made immigration a critical part of their political campaign.
Only to discover recently that 3/4 of the american people oppose them.
You are constantly claiming that Trump controls people.
You are entirely backwards. I do not know whether Trump si a true beleiver in his policies.
But I do know that Trump’s policies are driven by what voters want.
One of the reasons that Biden is in deep schiff right now is that even if Biden and Trump are equally hated by the electorate.
Biden’s policies are hated and Trump’s have super-majority support.
You say Biden won in 2020. Biden won because he successfully painted Covid deaths as Trump’s fault – that issue is gone – Biden has had 3 times as many deaths – with a vaccine.
Biden won in 2020 because the press, social media, government funded 501C3’s , and govenrment agencies censored the truth about Covid and about the corruption of the Bidens.
Biden won in 2020 because state executives lawlessly ignored their states voting laws
And even after all of this – significant ballot fraud was with near certainty required to eek out a win by under 45,000 votges.
Whether you like it or not – Trump’s policies are driven by voters, not the other way arround.
Trump won in 2016 and should have won in 2020 and likely will win in 2024 – not because of his charm and personalty
While Biden has managed to get worse negatives that Trump it is still true that the majority of people do not like Trump – but they are voting for him anyway.
Because he has promised to do what they have wanted, long before Trump descended the escalator.
No one is brainwashed. Trump is promising and delivering what supermajorities of voters want, and the Senate is behind him – because the voters are.
If the 2024 election was a vote on policies – not people, Democrat would lose every state.
Sidetracked. Back to defending Senator Biden’s handling of classified docs. Got anything on point?
I think this one is much less of a close call. Forgetting legalities which I don’t understand, they can’t disqualify the front runner. In Bush v Gore they were choosing the winner for partisan purposes.
In Bush V Gore they were determining the process not the winner. The FL judge and FL supreme court were acting contrary to FL election law and FL constitution.
FL in 2000 had had a recanvass and one recount, and they were in the midst of the 3rd attempt to put Gore over the top,
and they were doing so by conducting a partisan recount only in those counties they though might net them votes.
The court was litterally doing what Trump asked Raffensburger – they were trying to “find more votes”.
More than that, they were manufacturing votes, which Trump did not ask Raffensperger to do. I am convinced that had the Gore recount ordered by the FL courts been allowed to proceed, Gore would have won. Yes, after the event the news industry counted the ballots and found that there weren’t enough to change the result. But those were the ballots as they were at the time; had the recount proceeded the numbers would have been different. Every time the ballots were handled, some were being altered in Gore’s favor, and one more round meant one more opportunity to push Gore over the top.
That is what the “riot” outside the Miami-Dade Board of Elections office was about. The board members had taken the ballots into their office, locked the door, and there is no telling what they were doing with them. Naturally Republican observers objected by the only means they had available. They were witnessing a blatant attempt to steal the election right in front of them. By rights every ballot in those boxes, for which the chain of custody was broken, ought to have been disqualified, which would have given Bush a substantial majority.
I wouldn’t do any victory laps, until the absentee ballots are counted.
I damn near choked when I read that