The prospect of the case getting tossed on a technicality is terrifying and depressing. We have a lot of work in front of us to prevent that man from winning the election.
No offense, but enough bedwetting. This doomerist narrative flies against virtually every other analysis about how, if there's any one case where the court goes out of the way to preserve its facade of "legitimacy" so they can dismantle the EPA or something in the next case, this is it. I am extremely skeptical that they're going to give Trump an assist on a narrow technical matter when people are paying attention the most and am confused why you thought it is worth writing a whole piece about.
Fair criticism. The inspiration for the piece is in part the role that similar briefs from similar conservative legal thinkers played in the Dobbs decision, as detailed toward the bottom of the piece. But as you mention, it's quite possible that SCOTUS's conservative majority decides to keep their powder dry on this one. In any event hopefully the piece sheds some light on amicus briefs more broadly. Appreciate the input.
The broader look is indeed a pretty good window into the closed loop circlejerk of self-justification for policy-based rulings and it'd be no surprise if Alito writes them but has his buddies at Heritage put their names on the bottom.
While I've got your ear, this one petition to Los Supremos has been driving me nuts lately and I wish I'd had time to comment on the Steve Vladeck interview from last week to see if he'd address it (if he was in the comments), because I haven't seem him or any of the other big dogs in constitutional/election law comment on it: Couy Griffin, the "Cowboys for Trump" assclown who's the only other 21st century politician disqualified under the 14th Amendment also has a petition in front of the Supreme Court to get them to overturn his expulsion/disqualification. It hasn't been granted certiorari yet but I have to expect that a similar case in their inbox has some sort of implication for Trump's petition or vice versa. Any space to look into that one anytime soon?
lol this is definitely on me. I had Sauer in there and then my brain yelled that it was Lauro because I mixed up my "Attorneys Named John/D. John who are repping Trump over J6."
I’m still waiting to see some curious reporter asking a group of working-class, farm-loving, grey-haired white devout Christian voters in some small town diner why they still support BIDEN. They aren’t that rare; far from it. But you would never know that by watching the election coverage. I’ve worn out the remote trying to avoid seeing red-hat-wearing, trump-flag-waving evangelical folks regularly have a reporter shove a microphone in their faces so they can spew their admiration for a cult leader.
Exactly! The mute button is wearing out here. I'm so frustrated and disappointed by the network news (no cable). Night after night they feature interviews, and worse, clips from Fox Spews, of right wing politicians spouting their nonsense. No one pushes back at all. Unfortunately PBS News Hour has become the worst.
This circular argument that implies conviction from impeachment is the only way to hold TFG accountable. Who do I need to see about having him impeached for a 3rd time?
The SCOTUS does not need to let Trump off the hook on such a technicality if they are concerned about their reputation, already low. There is gonna be violence regardless but the neutrality of the law and the Constitution has to be preserved.
Less likely almost daily. The entitled white men who thought themselves untouchable on Jan 6 are finding out that’s not the case. And Trump’s calls for demonstrations are largely going unanswered.
Doesn’t mean there won’t be any violence. The Maga idiots are getting desperate and have always been eager to prove their manhood by punching someone. But they’ve also always been cowards, and those back down when the realize they might get hit back.
But without trying to be naive, I expect it will be a lot less that last time. "SWATting" and threats and legislative efforts to disenfranchise and attempts to intimidate voters and poll workers ahead of the election but I doubt the large scale demonstrations like we've seen before.
And post-election any attempts will be far less effective because folks will see it to be just the same song as last time and Trump won't be in a position of power to mess things up from inside.
NONE OF THIS MEANS WE SHOULD LET DOWN OUR GUARD or proceed as if our democracy isn't on the line because it most definitely is. But the threat, pernicious and real, will be less violent and more vocal.
Post election having lost he will say it was rigged unless he loses by massive votes. If he wins he will have the power to at least try to go after his enemies . There will be violence if he wins i think. We won’t accept him again regardless.
If Meese's Amicus brief is adopted as correct by SCOTUS, that would mean that ALL the recent special counsels were illegal. Robert Mueller, John Durham, Robert Hur (Joe Biden), David Weiss (Hunter Biden) and probably others. So all those convictions under the special Counsel would be thrown out? Talk about Bedlam!
The prospect of the case getting tossed on a technicality is terrifying and depressing. We have a lot of work in front of us to prevent that man from winning the election.
And to get Trump tried and convicted for criminal acts, not just civil acts.
No offense, but enough bedwetting. This doomerist narrative flies against virtually every other analysis about how, if there's any one case where the court goes out of the way to preserve its facade of "legitimacy" so they can dismantle the EPA or something in the next case, this is it. I am extremely skeptical that they're going to give Trump an assist on a narrow technical matter when people are paying attention the most and am confused why you thought it is worth writing a whole piece about.
Fair criticism. The inspiration for the piece is in part the role that similar briefs from similar conservative legal thinkers played in the Dobbs decision, as detailed toward the bottom of the piece. But as you mention, it's quite possible that SCOTUS's conservative majority decides to keep their powder dry on this one. In any event hopefully the piece sheds some light on amicus briefs more broadly. Appreciate the input.
The broader look is indeed a pretty good window into the closed loop circlejerk of self-justification for policy-based rulings and it'd be no surprise if Alito writes them but has his buddies at Heritage put their names on the bottom.
While I've got your ear, this one petition to Los Supremos has been driving me nuts lately and I wish I'd had time to comment on the Steve Vladeck interview from last week to see if he'd address it (if he was in the comments), because I haven't seem him or any of the other big dogs in constitutional/election law comment on it: Couy Griffin, the "Cowboys for Trump" assclown who's the only other 21st century politician disqualified under the 14th Amendment also has a petition in front of the Supreme Court to get them to overturn his expulsion/disqualification. It hasn't been granted certiorari yet but I have to expect that a similar case in their inbox has some sort of implication for Trump's petition or vice versa. Any space to look into that one anytime soon?
Trump’s lawyer was Sauer, not Laura.
lol this is definitely on me. I had Sauer in there and then my brain yelled that it was Lauro because I mixed up my "Attorneys Named John/D. John who are repping Trump over J6."
No problem, Lisa. I fixed this early am. Thanks for flagging Arthur.
I’m not going to worry about this just yet.
I’m still waiting to see some curious reporter asking a group of working-class, farm-loving, grey-haired white devout Christian voters in some small town diner why they still support BIDEN. They aren’t that rare; far from it. But you would never know that by watching the election coverage. I’ve worn out the remote trying to avoid seeing red-hat-wearing, trump-flag-waving evangelical folks regularly have a reporter shove a microphone in their faces so they can spew their admiration for a cult leader.
Exactly! The mute button is wearing out here. I'm so frustrated and disappointed by the network news (no cable). Night after night they feature interviews, and worse, clips from Fox Spews, of right wing politicians spouting their nonsense. No one pushes back at all. Unfortunately PBS News Hour has become the worst.
This circular argument that implies conviction from impeachment is the only way to hold TFG accountable. Who do I need to see about having him impeached for a 3rd time?
The SCOTUS does not need to let Trump off the hook on such a technicality if they are concerned about their reputation, already low. There is gonna be violence regardless but the neutrality of the law and the Constitution has to be preserved.
Less likely almost daily. The entitled white men who thought themselves untouchable on Jan 6 are finding out that’s not the case. And Trump’s calls for demonstrations are largely going unanswered.
Doesn’t mean there won’t be any violence. The Maga idiots are getting desperate and have always been eager to prove their manhood by punching someone. But they’ve also always been cowards, and those back down when the realize they might get hit back.
I hope you are right. I am getting some fearfulness of violence if they don't get what they want... could all be coming from Trump and his media.
Oh, they'll lash out alright. It's all they have.
But without trying to be naive, I expect it will be a lot less that last time. "SWATting" and threats and legislative efforts to disenfranchise and attempts to intimidate voters and poll workers ahead of the election but I doubt the large scale demonstrations like we've seen before.
And post-election any attempts will be far less effective because folks will see it to be just the same song as last time and Trump won't be in a position of power to mess things up from inside.
NONE OF THIS MEANS WE SHOULD LET DOWN OUR GUARD or proceed as if our democracy isn't on the line because it most definitely is. But the threat, pernicious and real, will be less violent and more vocal.
I hope you are right. You’re depending on Trump losing, Me too.
I’m not depending in Trump losing. That makes it sound like we can only stand by and hope things just happen to work out the way we want them to.
We, each of us, need to be proactively working to MAKE sure he loses.
Post election having lost he will say it was rigged unless he loses by massive votes. If he wins he will have the power to at least try to go after his enemies . There will be violence if he wins i think. We won’t accept him again regardless.
I am concerned that this particular SCOTUS will bend over backwards to find a way to absolve dump!
If Meese's Amicus brief is adopted as correct by SCOTUS, that would mean that ALL the recent special counsels were illegal. Robert Mueller, John Durham, Robert Hur (Joe Biden), David Weiss (Hunter Biden) and probably others. So all those convictions under the special Counsel would be thrown out? Talk about Bedlam!