It’s interesting that R’s always trumpet states’ rights and originalism/textualism when it suits them. But not now. This proves the Federalist Society types are about naked power politics and NOT the Constitution; not a surprise. Just proves R’s want to rule, not govern.
If dreams come true, and the rest of the PutinRepublicans are voted into the downward flushing vortex with TFG, major legislative steps must be made to fortify our democracy.
It is truly said that in law nothing is certain but expense. I find it hard to believe the conservative majority will rule against Trump. On the other hand if some of them truly believe in originalism - which they purport to do than perhaps they will surprise us. Let us wait and see.
They believe in originalism (and precedence, and plaintiffs having standing before bringing suit, and basing decisions on facts instead of nebulous hypotheticals, and ...) when it helps them justify the decision they already made before arguments are even presented.
When applying any legal norms means they’d have to come to any other conclusion they quite happily and brazenly ignore them.
Isn't the biggest hurdle to keeping Trump off the ballot the question of whether he has committed insurrection? I believe he has. But that conclusion has yet to be established either in a court of law, or (shamefully) the Senate.
Granted that Gorsuch's case is a strong one, there is an easy route for SCOTUS to take if they want to quash Colorado's challenge. The 14th Amendment says that Congress shall make the rules to carry out its provisions, and somehow Congress has never gotten around to establishing rules for disqualifying insurrectionists from federal elections. So Trump's lawyers (even they're not the brightest lights on the Christmas tree) can argue that Colorado has no right to establish 14th Amendment rules, and the procedure the state did establish denied Trump's right to due process. So let's not get too smug about SCOTUS's decision on this appeal...
Wonderful piece on Colorado S Ct!
It’s interesting that R’s always trumpet states’ rights and originalism/textualism when it suits them. But not now. This proves the Federalist Society types are about naked power politics and NOT the Constitution; not a surprise. Just proves R’s want to rule, not govern.
IMO this is exactly what Repubs needed to be able to blame Dems but keep thump out of the White House. (The billionaires prefer Haley)
If dreams come true, and the rest of the PutinRepublicans are voted into the downward flushing vortex with TFG, major legislative steps must be made to fortify our democracy.
YES
It is truly said that in law nothing is certain but expense. I find it hard to believe the conservative majority will rule against Trump. On the other hand if some of them truly believe in originalism - which they purport to do than perhaps they will surprise us. Let us wait and see.
They believe in originalism (and precedence, and plaintiffs having standing before bringing suit, and basing decisions on facts instead of nebulous hypotheticals, and ...) when it helps them justify the decision they already made before arguments are even presented.
When applying any legal norms means they’d have to come to any other conclusion they quite happily and brazenly ignore them.
Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The Constitution - Article II
Section 1 Requires the new
President to take the oath.
Presidential Oath - I do solemly swear (or affirm) I
will faithfully execute the
"office" (emphasis mine) of
the President of the United
States and to the best of my
ability preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of
the United States.
I was the Executive Manager
of the entire flight "office"
for the company I worked
for. I was their "officer" of
record, though I took no
oath; to market our company;
advance new contracts for
our jet and other aircraft
services; many other duties involving the pilots etc, and most importantly, not rip off
the company. Guess I did a
decent job and got promoted
to NE Regional Director.
Bottom line? Trump was an
officer of the presidency of
the United States. He abused
that office in innumerable ways and does not deserve
or warrant a 2nd chance to
cause even more abuse.
One way or another; courts or
ballots, he MUST be held
accountable.
Isn't the biggest hurdle to keeping Trump off the ballot the question of whether he has committed insurrection? I believe he has. But that conclusion has yet to be established either in a court of law, or (shamefully) the Senate.
Granted that Gorsuch's case is a strong one, there is an easy route for SCOTUS to take if they want to quash Colorado's challenge. The 14th Amendment says that Congress shall make the rules to carry out its provisions, and somehow Congress has never gotten around to establishing rules for disqualifying insurrectionists from federal elections. So Trump's lawyers (even they're not the brightest lights on the Christmas tree) can argue that Colorado has no right to establish 14th Amendment rules, and the procedure the state did establish denied Trump's right to due process. So let's not get too smug about SCOTUS's decision on this appeal...