Regarding the ruling on Trump's eligibility in Colorado, this may not turn out well for him in the end. Sounds like the judge wants someone else to make the ruling that he is not eligible. That's the legal part of the ruling, which is what the state supreme court and possibly SCOTUS will be looking at and deciding whether to overrule. Th…
Regarding the ruling on Trump's eligibility in Colorado, this may not turn out well for him in the end. Sounds like the judge wants someone else to make the ruling that he is not eligible. That's the legal part of the ruling, which is what the state supreme court and possibly SCOTUS will be looking at and deciding whether to overrule. The factual part of the ruling, which appellate courts usually give great deference to, was that he is an insurrectionist. So any appellate court merely has to agree with that fact and just make the opposite determination on whether it disqualifies him.
DAS, I certainly hope that you are right, but I fear not, and I despair of liberal democracy. It seems to me that this ruling tells me all I need to know about America 2023: That it will have to succumb to authoritarianism, that its liberal democracy simply doesn't have the courage or the resources to defend itself.
The judge enumerates all of Trump's participation in insurrection, and also his failure to use tools at his disposal to quell that insurrection. But in the end, she stops to ponder the word "officer" as though it were some eighteenth century linguistic curiousity ( like "emolument", for example), turning it, twisting it, noting that the (19th century) framers of the 14th amendment didn't directly apply the word to the President, though they did apply it to Senators and Congressmen. Let me make my point more clearly: didn't directly apply the word "officer" to the holder of the office of the presidency. For Christ's bloody sake, HE'S AN OFFICER!!!!
Why in God's name is this the reason NOT to uphold the appeal to law? If this is how liberal democracy works, we are indeed doomed. This is why people appeal to authoritarians, and authoritarians appeal to people. Authoritarians over simplify, and the masses need that. Unfortunately, the world is generally complicated. However, in this particular case, it is not at all complicated. Is the President of the United States an officer of the United States? BLOODY WELL OF COURSE HE IS! Is the CEO of a corporation an officer of that corporation? Of course he is.
We have a war to fight against the one of darkest forces of the world, authoritarianism, we have a man pinned to the wall as an insurrectionist authoritarian, and we let him off over a quibbling non-argument like this? How can we expect to succeed? I am almost in tears reading this inane finding, in tears for this country.
Regarding the ruling on Trump's eligibility in Colorado, this may not turn out well for him in the end. Sounds like the judge wants someone else to make the ruling that he is not eligible. That's the legal part of the ruling, which is what the state supreme court and possibly SCOTUS will be looking at and deciding whether to overrule. The factual part of the ruling, which appellate courts usually give great deference to, was that he is an insurrectionist. So any appellate court merely has to agree with that fact and just make the opposite determination on whether it disqualifies him.
DAS, I certainly hope that you are right, but I fear not, and I despair of liberal democracy. It seems to me that this ruling tells me all I need to know about America 2023: That it will have to succumb to authoritarianism, that its liberal democracy simply doesn't have the courage or the resources to defend itself.
The judge enumerates all of Trump's participation in insurrection, and also his failure to use tools at his disposal to quell that insurrection. But in the end, she stops to ponder the word "officer" as though it were some eighteenth century linguistic curiousity ( like "emolument", for example), turning it, twisting it, noting that the (19th century) framers of the 14th amendment didn't directly apply the word to the President, though they did apply it to Senators and Congressmen. Let me make my point more clearly: didn't directly apply the word "officer" to the holder of the office of the presidency. For Christ's bloody sake, HE'S AN OFFICER!!!!
Why in God's name is this the reason NOT to uphold the appeal to law? If this is how liberal democracy works, we are indeed doomed. This is why people appeal to authoritarians, and authoritarians appeal to people. Authoritarians over simplify, and the masses need that. Unfortunately, the world is generally complicated. However, in this particular case, it is not at all complicated. Is the President of the United States an officer of the United States? BLOODY WELL OF COURSE HE IS! Is the CEO of a corporation an officer of that corporation? Of course he is.
We have a war to fight against the one of darkest forces of the world, authoritarianism, we have a man pinned to the wall as an insurrectionist authoritarian, and we let him off over a quibbling non-argument like this? How can we expect to succeed? I am almost in tears reading this inane finding, in tears for this country.
It really is that bad.