The Supreme Court, not voters or even legislators, likely will have the final say on Section Three, if push comes to shove on the issue. Which in turn serves as yet another unwelcome reminder that the 2016 presidential election outcome quite reasonably can be called the most significant one in American history, with an additional nod to …
The Supreme Court, not voters or even legislators, likely will have the final say on Section Three, if push comes to shove on the issue. Which in turn serves as yet another unwelcome reminder that the 2016 presidential election outcome quite reasonably can be called the most significant one in American history, with an additional nod to Mitch McConnell for both jobbing Merrick Garland out of his likely seat and providing the fast-track pathway for Amy Coney Barrett to become a last-minute addition in late 2020. Filed under: Choices Have Consequences.
It would be most ideal if the challenge to allowing Trump on the ballot came from Republicans. I won't hold my breath, but perhaps there is a more principled never-Trumper (or at least never-again-Trumper) in an office in the position of determining election eligibility that is serious about trying to reclaim their party. Then again. Sigh...
This reminds me that the 1970 New York state law expanding abortion rights was introduced by a Republican (Constance Cook), passed by Republican-controlled lower and upper chambers and signed into law by a Republican governor. Some state may yet surprise us.
If she had resigned at the end of Obama’s second term, why do we think McConnell would have considered replacing her? He was steadfastly rigging the Court. We would have had two Justices picked by Donald right off the bat.
I think the question would have come sooner. If McConnell refused to fill slot she could just stay. But it would have been a little harder I think Collins and murkowski would have folded.
What is the point of having this discussion? RBG didn’t resign in time. That ship sailed years ago in political time, at least. Shoulda coulda mighta etc. Done and dusted. Really - what is there to be gained by going through the argument when there are so many more pressingly practical issues? One of the “what ifs” of history.
If that is what you want. Except I really do wonder why it gets brought up. I agree she should have resigned earlier but that’s 20 20 hindsight. Maybe it’s an object lesson for future similar situation or a really good argument for term limits for Supreme Court appointments.
When was McConnel NOT in control of the Senate during Obama's second term? Because there's no reason he would not have found an excuse to refuse to consider a replacement for her as well as for Scalia.
McConnell only became Majority leader after the 14 midterms. The minute Obama won re-election she could have resigned and Schumer could have ensured Garland a vote.
I knew he retired sometime during Obama's administration, I guess I thought it happened earlier. Reid was much more capable and would definitely shepherded Garland through that process in '12-14 had RBG resigned then.
She knew she was already past 80 years old. She knew she had already had four rounds of cancer. It was irresponsible to bet the country's well-being, the rights of millions of citizens, on her personal well-being.
I think the first test case would be a state SoS making a judgement to deny the GOP from putting Trump on the ballot. Be interesting to see if that could happen at the primary level too. I know primaries aren't government acts, but states administer primaries on behalf of the parties, so there are maybe some precedents from the 1800s for this.
It's an interesting legal strategy question for the Marc Elias's of the world ... do you have a D SOS refuse to put Trump on the ballot, thus triggering an R lawsuit in which Ds are the defendant? Or do you file suit in, say, VA or GA seeking to enjoin the R SOS from putting him on the ballot. Interesting forum/judge shopping choices. Not too mention the question you raise, do you act before the primary or wait for the general? Wouldn't surprise me if the goal of the Fed Soc profs in making the argument is to have Ds use it to block him from the nomination. Last question -- how far into the GOP congress do you go? Gym, Gosar, Biggs, Clyde, Tuberville, Hawley, Cruz? And how about those who've given Trump "aid and comfort" since the insurrection? (Looking at you, Mr. Speaker).
Special elections galore coming up. Read literally, every member of Congress who voted against impeachment the second time and anyone employed by the government who attended the rally on Jan. 6 is subject to Section 3 sanctions. Government could be really clean for a while.
Have been sitting and ruminating over whether there might be dozens of additional federal office holders and hundreds of state office holders to whom these tenets/provisions may apply - suggest immediate establishment of a, “Really Save America” PAC establish and fund legal challenges across the federal sector and state legislatures - or am I thinking like a trumpist?
That may be true. This will likely wind up in front of the Supreme Court.
While this Supreme Court has 3 Judges appointed by Donald Trump, it has not always sided with him or all of his interests. This is the same Supreme Court that struck down the Independent State Legislatures Concept and rejected a number of his election challenge cases.
While extreme on a lot of issues, the topic of election integrity is one area they have been consistent. They even upheld a ruling striking down the NC State Legislatures attempt to re-gerrymander their districts.
Trump thinks people who hold their positions thanks to him are therefore supposed to do what he wants, hence his devotion to appointing judges. Fortunately, they tend to put the law first, not personal loyalty.
She’s been admonished twice, is relatively inexperienced, especially for a case of this import and scope, and judges find it embarrassing to be overturned on appeal. She may not become the slam-dunk for him as many (including me) fear. I withhold judgement for now and cross my fingers.
Keep crossing, but the fact that she recently raised an issue about grand jury location that trump's defense hadn't but right wing media had is not encouraging....
What are you talking about? All the "libtards" (and why are you using that term?) I know desperately cast their votes, praying that the orange menace would never come near the White House. Please adjust both your attitude and your terminology. Thank you.
Not being a schoolmarm here. You can use the words you want but I think you are smart enough to know there was going to be some blowback. When you co-opt a term used by the brain-dead hard right, the casual reader will likely misunderstand your meaning/intent/target.
I kind of like your pattern of speech, shows intensity. Do sometimes come up blank on the acronyms, though. And the Bulwark is FOR debate or engagement, after all.
I am 71 years old. I have voted Dem in every election since I became eligible. I campaigned for Carl Stokes and was Clean for Gene. I endured the horrors of May 4th from behind my Kent State dorm. I worked as a critical care RN and raised 2 beautiful citizens. I am not a schoolmarm: I am an informed woman who treats others with respect and expects the same.
I'm a few months shy of my 70th birthday, and I'm here to tell you that it's never too late. Hard, maybe, but well worth the effort. Please give it a try.
I thank you for clarifying, but there is a difference between "too late to learn anything new" and "I"m happy the way I am." If the latter is in fact the case, then OK. You do you.
Traditionally I respect people's right to vote as they see fit, as a freedom of choice that we embrace in our system of governance. But I can't extend that same sympathetic perspective to those who in 2016 allowed an irrational personal dislike or hatred for Hillary to outweigh their common sense in choosing Trump instead or sitting out the election. There were so many clear signs that he would be a disaster for this nation and the world. We were warned. The information was there, in plain sight. The MAGA crowd was a lost cause, but so many others should have seen the carnage coming. I often wonder how they sleep at night, especially in those swing states where simply connecting the dots and voting accordingly could have saved us all so much grief and misery, with the potential of still more and worse to come.
People have the right to vote as they see fit, for whatever reason (stupid or not) they have.
And that is part of the problem in electoral representative politics. Many people vote on the basis of identity rather than rationality. They are going to support candidate X not because of policy or plans or character, but because Candidate X has the right letter next to their name.
That's it.
There are other people that vote in predictable patterns (and this is, again, identity-based).
Then there are a few people that actually vote on a basis of rationality.
There is a veneer of thoughtful in many cases, but it is only a veneer. It is people looking for an excuse to vote the way that their "gut" wants them to vote.
Distaste for HC, provided many people with an excuse to vote Trump (or in their distaste for both, not vote or vote for a sure loser). Most of that wasn't really policy based.
Very little voting is--unless you FORCE people to vote on actual policies, themselves (rather than people who "represent" policies).
In rare instances (usually highly emotionally charged) people WILL vote on policy. Abortion is an example of that.
But the policy linkage and outcomes need to be emotionally charged, linked to identity, and seen as immediately affecting the voter.
Bernie quietly endorsed their write in by not giving a full blown endorsement to Hill.
I respected Bernie for giving her a run for her money. I lost all respect when he basically took his ball and went home and enjoyed watching the Bernie Bros as they took out their anger on Clinton and allowed Trump to win. Eff him
The Supreme Court, not voters or even legislators, likely will have the final say on Section Three, if push comes to shove on the issue. Which in turn serves as yet another unwelcome reminder that the 2016 presidential election outcome quite reasonably can be called the most significant one in American history, with an additional nod to Mitch McConnell for both jobbing Merrick Garland out of his likely seat and providing the fast-track pathway for Amy Coney Barrett to become a last-minute addition in late 2020. Filed under: Choices Have Consequences.
The original sin was Ralph Nader’s 2000 campaign. It was a debacle for the country and—even though they won’t admit it—progressives.
Wrong. A county comission official in TX has already been enjoined and we heard ZIP from the Supremes. Read the full legal argument. Then sit down.
It would be most ideal if the challenge to allowing Trump on the ballot came from Republicans. I won't hold my breath, but perhaps there is a more principled never-Trumper (or at least never-again-Trumper) in an office in the position of determining election eligibility that is serious about trying to reclaim their party. Then again. Sigh...
This reminds me that the 1970 New York state law expanding abortion rights was introduced by a Republican (Constance Cook), passed by Republican-controlled lower and upper chambers and signed into law by a Republican governor. Some state may yet surprise us.
If there's a nod to McConnell, it should be for opposing Trump's conviction in the second impeachment.
That too, rather than instead of.
Agreed. Let's not deprive Mitch of credit where credit is due!
I would say the courts verdict could be 7-2. I will let you surmise who the 2 are.
Also RBG failure to resign.
If she had resigned at the end of Obama’s second term, why do we think McConnell would have considered replacing her? He was steadfastly rigging the Court. We would have had two Justices picked by Donald right off the bat.
I think the question would have come sooner. If McConnell refused to fill slot she could just stay. But it would have been a little harder I think Collins and murkowski would have folded.
Maybe. But I think that a lot of us were just learning what McConnell and the Republicans were willing to do to control the Supreme Court.
What is the point of having this discussion? RBG didn’t resign in time. That ship sailed years ago in political time, at least. Shoulda coulda mighta etc. Done and dusted. Really - what is there to be gained by going through the argument when there are so many more pressingly practical issues? One of the “what ifs” of history.
Please feel free to ignore what I have to say. I promise to return the favor.
If that is what you want. Except I really do wonder why it gets brought up. I agree she should have resigned earlier but that’s 20 20 hindsight. Maybe it’s an object lesson for future similar situation or a really good argument for term limits for Supreme Court appointments.
The time for her to resign was when the dems had the senate majority during obama's first term, but her ego, unforgivably, got in the way.
When was McConnel NOT in control of the Senate during Obama's second term? Because there's no reason he would not have found an excuse to refuse to consider a replacement for her as well as for Scalia.
McConnell only became Majority leader after the 14 midterms. The minute Obama won re-election she could have resigned and Schumer could have ensured Garland a vote.
Harry Reid was Majority Leader after Obama was re-elected, not Schumer yet, but your general thrust is correct.
I knew he retired sometime during Obama's administration, I guess I thought it happened earlier. Reid was much more capable and would definitely shepherded Garland through that process in '12-14 had RBG resigned then.
That was 6 years before she actually died. She looked and probably felt a lot less vulnerable then.
She knew she was already past 80 years old. She knew she had already had four rounds of cancer. It was irresponsible to bet the country's well-being, the rights of millions of citizens, on her personal well-being.
I think the first test case would be a state SoS making a judgement to deny the GOP from putting Trump on the ballot. Be interesting to see if that could happen at the primary level too. I know primaries aren't government acts, but states administer primaries on behalf of the parties, so there are maybe some precedents from the 1800s for this.
It's an interesting legal strategy question for the Marc Elias's of the world ... do you have a D SOS refuse to put Trump on the ballot, thus triggering an R lawsuit in which Ds are the defendant? Or do you file suit in, say, VA or GA seeking to enjoin the R SOS from putting him on the ballot. Interesting forum/judge shopping choices. Not too mention the question you raise, do you act before the primary or wait for the general? Wouldn't surprise me if the goal of the Fed Soc profs in making the argument is to have Ds use it to block him from the nomination. Last question -- how far into the GOP congress do you go? Gym, Gosar, Biggs, Clyde, Tuberville, Hawley, Cruz? And how about those who've given Trump "aid and comfort" since the insurrection? (Looking at you, Mr. Speaker).
Go deep
YAY! I say get 'em all!
Special elections galore coming up. Read literally, every member of Congress who voted against impeachment the second time and anyone employed by the government who attended the rally on Jan. 6 is subject to Section 3 sanctions. Government could be really clean for a while.
Have been sitting and ruminating over whether there might be dozens of additional federal office holders and hundreds of state office holders to whom these tenets/provisions may apply - suggest immediate establishment of a, “Really Save America” PAC establish and fund legal challenges across the federal sector and state legislatures - or am I thinking like a trumpist?
If the shoe fits ...
To quote an esteemed former Gov & current Presidential candidate, “Kick up-not down”
That may be true. This will likely wind up in front of the Supreme Court.
While this Supreme Court has 3 Judges appointed by Donald Trump, it has not always sided with him or all of his interests. This is the same Supreme Court that struck down the Independent State Legislatures Concept and rejected a number of his election challenge cases.
While extreme on a lot of issues, the topic of election integrity is one area they have been consistent. They even upheld a ruling striking down the NC State Legislatures attempt to re-gerrymander their districts.
Trump thinks people who hold their positions thanks to him are therefore supposed to do what he wants, hence his devotion to appointing judges. Fortunately, they tend to put the law first, not personal loyalty.
Not judge cannon!
She’s been admonished twice, is relatively inexperienced, especially for a case of this import and scope, and judges find it embarrassing to be overturned on appeal. She may not become the slam-dunk for him as many (including me) fear. I withhold judgement for now and cross my fingers.
Keep crossing, but the fact that she recently raised an issue about grand jury location that trump's defense hadn't but right wing media had is not encouraging....
What is a libtard?
Ah.
Let's not be confused here: the people to be called to account for Trump winning are trump's voters.
'Libtards'? This is sarcasm, right?
I think that using a slur against mentally disabled people is disgusting.
Maybe this isn't the group for you...
We try to engage in civil discourse. What you're spewing ain't it.
I am offended.
Blame them for what?
Nominating Hillary so he *had* to vote Trump?
If memory serves, Clinton GOT MORE VOTES than TFG.
What are you talking about? All the "libtards" (and why are you using that term?) I know desperately cast their votes, praying that the orange menace would never come near the White House. Please adjust both your attitude and your terminology. Thank you.
He deliberately uses loaded terms. But I think he's talking about the very on-line Left that was talking about "Killary" and the Jill Stein voters.
Not being a schoolmarm here. You can use the words you want but I think you are smart enough to know there was going to be some blowback. When you co-opt a term used by the brain-dead hard right, the casual reader will likely misunderstand your meaning/intent/target.
I understood. Just enjoyed butting in :)
I kind of like your pattern of speech, shows intensity. Do sometimes come up blank on the acronyms, though. And the Bulwark is FOR debate or engagement, after all.
I am 71 years old. I have voted Dem in every election since I became eligible. I campaigned for Carl Stokes and was Clean for Gene. I endured the horrors of May 4th from behind my Kent State dorm. I worked as a critical care RN and raised 2 beautiful citizens. I am not a schoolmarm: I am an informed woman who treats others with respect and expects the same.
"BTW I am not so well veresed". Your proofreading could use some work however, lol.
That's funny.
You just can't help yourself, can you.
I'm a few months shy of my 70th birthday, and I'm here to tell you that it's never too late. Hard, maybe, but well worth the effort. Please give it a try.
I thank you for clarifying, but there is a difference between "too late to learn anything new" and "I"m happy the way I am." If the latter is in fact the case, then OK. You do you.
I blame the people that actually did it.
Traditionally I respect people's right to vote as they see fit, as a freedom of choice that we embrace in our system of governance. But I can't extend that same sympathetic perspective to those who in 2016 allowed an irrational personal dislike or hatred for Hillary to outweigh their common sense in choosing Trump instead or sitting out the election. There were so many clear signs that he would be a disaster for this nation and the world. We were warned. The information was there, in plain sight. The MAGA crowd was a lost cause, but so many others should have seen the carnage coming. I often wonder how they sleep at night, especially in those swing states where simply connecting the dots and voting accordingly could have saved us all so much grief and misery, with the potential of still more and worse to come.
People have the right to vote as they see fit, for whatever reason (stupid or not) they have.
And that is part of the problem in electoral representative politics. Many people vote on the basis of identity rather than rationality. They are going to support candidate X not because of policy or plans or character, but because Candidate X has the right letter next to their name.
That's it.
There are other people that vote in predictable patterns (and this is, again, identity-based).
Then there are a few people that actually vote on a basis of rationality.
There is a veneer of thoughtful in many cases, but it is only a veneer. It is people looking for an excuse to vote the way that their "gut" wants them to vote.
Distaste for HC, provided many people with an excuse to vote Trump (or in their distaste for both, not vote or vote for a sure loser). Most of that wasn't really policy based.
Very little voting is--unless you FORCE people to vote on actual policies, themselves (rather than people who "represent" policies).
In rare instances (usually highly emotionally charged) people WILL vote on policy. Abortion is an example of that.
But the policy linkage and outcomes need to be emotionally charged, linked to identity, and seen as immediately affecting the voter.
This on so many levels ! I still have trouble interacting with people who thought it was a good idea to vote for him in 16.
Bernie quietly endorsed their write in by not giving a full blown endorsement to Hill.
I respected Bernie for giving her a run for her money. I lost all respect when he basically took his ball and went home and enjoyed watching the Bernie Bros as they took out their anger on Clinton and allowed Trump to win. Eff him
My understanding/perception of the thing is somewhat different.