THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2023
We're sorry, but no—it doesn't: Borrowing from sacred Chekhov, though only in translation:
"The appearance on the front of a new arrival...became the topic of general conversation."
That new arrival appeared on the scene on Tuesday afternoon. We refer to the game-changing decision by the Colorado Supreme Court—a 4-3 decision declaring that erstwhile candidate Donald J. Trump cannot appear on that state's ballot in the coming year.
In the ruling by the court, Trump would be barred from the Colorado ballot because he engaged in the "insurrection or rebellion" which took place on January 6, 2021. With the arrival of this decision, all other topics of conversation quickly disappeared.
On balance, the decision struck us as virtually insane. Many others disagreed with that assessment—with that view or that reaction.
Below, we offer a large chunk of the balanced assessment offered by Josh Marshall. We agree with a lot of what Marshall said about the court's game-changing court decision.
We disagree with one basic point:
Before delving into the constitutional text, let’s discuss how we should think about this issue, because there’s a lot going on here besides the plain text of the 14th Amendment. Criticisms that I hear are that barring Trump from the ballot is simply undemocratic. Trump has many supporters and they should be allowed to vote for him. At least in the abstract, good point. Another is that attempting to disqualify Trump and barring him from the ballot may actually help him, allowing him to play the victim and, perversely, to wear the mantle of democratic legitimacy.
For myself, I’m equivocal about the whole idea. Trump is going to win or lose the old-fashioned way—based on the votes. I have no time to be distracted by strategies to short circuit that electoral reckoning. I’m not totally sure the disqualification provision applies to his set of facts. I have some small questions about whether this passage applies to presidents. I have bigger questions about whether the passage’s “insurrection” matches Trump’s insurrection. But I’m not the one bringing the lawsuits to disqualify him. So I don’t need to make that decision. My approach—and the one I would recommend to anyone interested in my opinion—is one of open-minded disinterest.
We agree with many points in that balanced assessment. We even agree with this statement by Josh:
I have bigger questions about whether the passage’s “insurrection” matches Trump’s [actions with respect to January 6].
Did Donald J. Trump take part in an "insurrection?" Ridiculous as his conduct was—disordered as it continues to be—we can't necessarily say that he did. Nor would we know how to argue that point to Others.
Josh says he's "equivocal about the whole idea" of barring Trump from the ballot. On balance, it remains our view that this is a very shaky idea which leads down a very strange road.
With that minor point of disagreement stated, we'll now direct your attention to a very basic point:
Early in his presentation, Josh refers to what he calls "the plain text of the 14th amendment." As everyone knows by now, the court's decision to bar Trump from the ballot was based on that amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Josh refers to the amendment's "plain text." As reactions to this ruling has come to dominate the conversation, many other blue tribe observers have described the 14th amendment in a similar way.
We disagree with those observers—and we think this is a very basic point. Here is Adam Serwer, writing for the Atlantic and including the language in question:
The language of that section, written in the aftermath of the Civil War to disqualify former Confederates who had taken up arms against the United States in defense of the institution of human bondage, is short and simple:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
There is no language limiting the power of the section to former Confederates, however, and its scope is sweeping, with no requirement that those engaged in the specified conduct be convicted.
In Serwer's view, the language of that section of the 14th amendment is "short and simple." The amendment's language is short and simple as it describes "the specified conduct" which bars an offender from office.
Many others have offered some version of that basic assessment. On yesterday morning's Morning Joe, Joyce Vance offered this appraisal, with a callback to George Conway:
There's this foundational notion we all have that Americans should decide elections at the ballot box. But people like George increasingly are looking at the 14th amendment and reading its language, and look, this is the clear language of the law that the Colorado Supreme Court has now decided means that Trump shouldn't be certified to be on the ballot in Colorado.
According to Vance, the Colorado court based its decision on "the clear language of" the 14th amendment. As if to settle the matter, Rachel Maddow had even made a somewhat similar statement as she spoke with Joy Reid by phone on Tuesday night:
In the case of the 14th amendment, this was written in 1868 specifically to preclude people from holding office in the United States if they were—if they had engaged in trying to overthrow the government of the United States, or if they had previously been office holders who had violated that oath. And so it's— I mean, I look at that as a person who doesn't agree with that "originalism" fantasy legal philosophy and say, "Well, it seems pretty clear to me."
Rachel's statement was muddier than the others. But in the past few days, many observers have referred to the clear language, to the plain text, of the 14th amendment.
We don't think that clear language exists. Tomorrow, we'll tell you why.
For now, for the record, this:
In our view, this basic point helps illustrate the weakness of our society's storehouse of "daily logic." In the past, we've often noted the fact that our academic logicians have long since walked away from their posts—have stopped offering guidance concerning our nation's crucial public debates and discussions.
In our view, the crowning example remains the way our professors of logic failed to offer a peep as mainstream journalists spent two years insisting that Candidate Gore had crazily said that he invented the Internet.
Was that a reasonable paraphrase of what the candidate had actually said? Also, what are the basic rules of fair and accurate paraphrase?
Locked away in their famous towers, the professors failed to instruct. Meanwhile, mainstream journalists protected their careers by advancing that standard claim, or by maintaining group silence.
So it will be today as observers refer to the clear language of the 14th amendment—as observers refer to the simple language and the plain text which basically don't exist.
Tomorrow, let's hold a lesson in "daily logic!" Let's discuss a pair of assertions which have been widely advanced:
Assertion 1: The 14th amendment offers simple language, a plain text.
Assertion 2: We're all familiar with the practice of disqualifying possible candidates from running for office.
The second assertion is plainly true. It seems to us that the first assertion plainly isn't.
Within the academy, the logicians will all be snoring again as this conversation unfolds. Tomorrow, let's sneak into a campus building and enter an abandoned classroom. Then, let's explain what's wrong with the many claims about the 14th amendment's "plain text."
Should Donald J. Trump be removed from the ballot? At this site, we're afraid we may be hearing "a firebell in the night" as this idea advances.
We also find it hard to believe that President Biden can win next year. From our perspective, that makes this a very dangerous time—but red and blue are being pushed even farther and farther apart as we head toward a blue, blue Christmas.
Tomorrow: Appearances can deceive (surface versus depth)
“I will not bother reading and analyzing the actual court decision, and will render my own layman’s view.” — Bob Somerby, not a crank
ReplyDeleteThe language is not plain to me, a layman, thus the Democratic-appointed judges must rule in favor of Trump and the Others, instead of crafting an insane opinion. I am not a crank.
ReplyDelete"Borrowing from sacred Chekhov, though only in translation:
ReplyDelete"The appearance on the front of a new arrival...became the topic of general conversation."
That new arrival appeared on the scene on Tuesday afternoon."
As if Somerby could translate Russian! He hasn't even read the story in question beyond the beginning sentences. If he had, it wouldn't be one of his favorite quotes, because it is about a womanizer who gets his comeuppance and Somerby thinks women deserve whatever ill treatment they receive from men, including rape (see his essays on Chanel Miller who was assaulted by convicted rapist Brock Turner).
This opening sentence by Chekov in the short story, The Lady with the Lapdog, a story Somerby doesn't even credit today, has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
"Somerby thinks women deserve whatever ill treatment they receive from men, including rape"
DeleteI plugged in "chanel miller" into the search function and the first hit I got was 10/25/19. In that essay, Somerby explicitly says Miller was sexually assaulted and that no one should be the victim of sexual assault. I have to rate your quoted statement as "False!"
In that series of essays Somerby also said that Chanel Miller shouldn't have drunk so much at that frat party if she didn't want to be raped -- in other words, he blamed the victim.
DeleteSo, no, my statement is not false.
Somerby questioned the jury’s verdict, Dogface George. He most assuredly wanted to cast doubt on Miller’s story, because of her testimony of being blacked up it drunk.
DeleteThe claim made was that Somerby thinks women deserve rape. That claim is false, and obviously so.
DeleteI don't have time to check the claims you want to substitute in place of this obviously false claim, but if you want me to even think about looking at any substituted claims you'll have to provide
the date Somerby supposedly made the statement in question.
I am not substituting any claim. Somerby said that if Chanel Miller didn't want to be assaulted, she shouldn't have drunk so much. He went to great lengths to catalog the number of drinks she had at home before attending the party, and to show that she was drunk (something that was not contested). The law does not allow men to take sexual advantage of women who are unconscious, sleeping, drugged, drunk, low IQ, children, or otherwise unable to give consent. Somerby argued that it was not Brock Turner's fault but Chanel Miller's fault that he came across her unconscious, lying beside a dumpster outside the building, and sexually assaulted her. Turner was convicted but given such a light sentence that the judge was subsequently recalled because of it.
DeleteOthers here read the same essays I did. YOU are disputing things so it is on you to look this up, not anyone else. I have previously given you links but you don't agree that they say what they plainly say, so I am not going to waste my time with you any more.
I'm going to take the fact that you can't cite any exact quotations and give exact dates of blog posts as an admission that you can't cite any exact quotations or give exact dates of blog posts.
DeleteBut here's a freebie: You state: "Somerby said that if Chanel Miller didn't want to be assaulted, she shouldn't have drunk so much."
DeleteHere's what Somerby actually says: "Let's be clear. There's nothing about Miller's degree of drinking that night which is necessarily 'immoral' (as opposed to perhaps unwise). There's nothing about her drinking that night which meant that, on a moral basis or in a perfect world, she should have been subjected to a criminal act of assault, or to any other sort of misconduct." 10/29/19.
I judge your substituted claim to be "False!"
Somerby always includes such a disclaimer before stating his actual point or opinion. You left out the line that comes directly after your quote:
Delete"That said, Miller's degree of drunkenness was dangerous that night."
He then goes on to argue that none of the events would have happened had she not been that drunk. In other words, that she was ultimately the cause of her own assault. He also blames her sister, who was unaware of her impaired state and did nothing to rescue her. A broader point of his essay is that by leaving out her state of drunkenness, journalists present a false version of what happened, because Somerby considers her drunkenness to be the fault, the root cause of what Turner did to her.
You want to ignore Somerby's disclaimers (the part where he calls someone a good, decent person before trashing them) at face value, but you can only do that by ignoring everything else he says, the parts that directly contradict the disclaimer (the part you copy above). Somerby says Miller shouldn't have been assaulted. Then he directly contradicts that by saying that Turner would never have assaulted her had she not been drunk. In fact, he says Miller likely wouldn't have left the party with him had she not been drunk, again implying that the entire assault was Miller's fault, for being so drunk.
And you ignore that Brock Turner was convicted of that assault by a jury that knew all about her drinking and still considered his actions to be a crime. "But she was really really drunk" is not a defense against rape, as Somerby clearly thinks it should be.
Next time you quote a Somerby disclaimer, quote the part that comes directly after it too. That is the part that reflects Somerby's actual opinion.
https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-age-of-novel-profile-of-drunken.html
By the way, there was no "brawl" involved. That is Somerby using language to put his thumb on the scales in favor of his views. A passed out woman was assaulted by a swimming star at Stanford, who was convicted by a jury of that crime. Somerby defends him and blames the woman herself, her sister, and ultimately, the President of the University who allowed drinking in campus fraternities. But not Brock Turner, the guy who committed the assault.
"That said, Miller's degree of drunkenness was dangerous that night."
DeleteShe was blackout drunk at a frat party - of course that level of drunkenness was dangerous. I feel certain you must agree, if you have any sense at all.
But, again, what you're doing is changing the subject, something you always do when caught fabricating Somerby statements.
No, Somerby goes on at length about her drunkenness but her drinking is immaterial to the assault, which is why Turner was convicted. There are men who believe that drunken women are fair game but that is illegal. That belief is why women are locked up in Muslim countries. The things you consider common sense are sexist. It doesn’t matter how a woman became unable to consent. Brock Turner was convicted because he committed a crime, not because Miller was drunk.
DeleteI haven’t changed the subject. I’ve shown you the part where Somerby says Miller’s drinking caused her assault, the part where Somerby clearly and at length blames her for Turner’s assault.
"With the arrival of this decision, all other topics of conversation quickly disappeared."
ReplyDeleteActually, no, many other topics are still being discussed. The court decision is yesterday's news. Even the NY Times editorials and opinion pieces are about a variety of other topics this morning.
This is phone-it-in commentary from Somerby who argues that Trump didn't actually participate in 1/6. Unfortunately for Somerby, that Trump did participate is part of the court decision. The evidence was presented and weighed by the judge who decided as a matter of fact that Trump did participate in the insurrection of 1/6. Somerby has no basis for saying that he did not.
For those who have claimed that Somerby does not defend Trump at this blog, note that today's essay is clearly a defense of Trump against the court ruling and the Constitution. Just as Somerby did not believe the 1/6 Committee Hearing's presentation of evidence of Trump's involvement. That is what Somerby does here -- he defends Trump against the consequences of his own actions.
Today's essay is not a clear defense of Trump. Girl, you high? The piece is critiquing the court's decision and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Not outright defending Trump.
DeleteCommenters here are stoopid.
It is all a big coincidence that the first time Somerby writes an essay "critiquing the court's decision and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment" it just happens to involve Trump. You don't fool anyone.
DeleteStep 1 -- Somerby defends Trump using sophistry.
Step 2 -- Commenters complain about Somerby's defense of Trump and address the sophistry.
Step 3 -- Trolls and fanboys attack the commenters without addressing the substance.
Step 4 -- Right wing comments appear attempting to confuse the issue or deflect to another topic.
Step 5 -- More personal abuse of commenters occurs until the comments are nothing but abuse and it dies down or the next day comes, when Somerby doubles down on his defense of Trump.
The essay shows the decision may help Trump. Arguing against the decision would be anti-Trump. Why is you so stupid?
DeleteIt is a defense of that foul human being. Ask Somerby why that foul human being decided not to cooperate with the Jan 6 Committee.
DeleteI am tired of this horseshit. Just like with the Mueller investigation. That foul human being obstructed, corruptly tampered with witnesses, and refused to answer questions under oath, and then his fucking cult followers howl to the moon that the whole thing was a hoax, and he was vindicated. What utter horseshit.
Then the Jan 6 committee comes along and he refuses to cooperate, orders his co-conspirators in the congress to obstruct and not cooperate, and then along come his magat fans like DiC proclaiming the whole thing was just an innocent little demonstration and how dare we claim he was orchestrating sedition and insurrection. You can't have it both ways, motherfuckers.
That fucking abomination was given the extreme privilege of serving the country as President. And he shit all over us. He swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and he shit all over that. He has forfeited his right to any further trust from the American people.
Trump could demand a speedy trial in D.C. to clear his name, instead he has his lawyer abuse the judicial system beyond the breaking point, even to the point of telling the US SC not to rule on his groundless claim that he has some sort of total immunity from prosecution, just to stall and drag out his endless appeals.
DeleteAnd then fucking magats like DiC chime in to whine that the poor boy hasn't even had a trial and conviction yet. fuck off, magats.
11:52 is obviously a MAGA dope.
DeleteAnd yes, Bob will always claim the position that is not his is getting ALL the attention (Trump Trump Trump) and is driving the country apart ( the cop killers of Jan 6 never face this dubious rhetoric at the Daily Howler). Neither has anything to do with the Colorado decision.
We should not forget Bob’s pants wetting tantrum over Republicans getting called out for calling Jan 6 legitimate political discourse. Did you ever get the feeling Bob was in any way appalled at the riot on that day and what it was attempting to achieve?
The language of the Constitution is indeed plain. MSNBC presented counter views to the Colorado Court, and how the Supremes might let Trump wriggle of here. Not good enough, predictably, for Bob. Somerby’s sentimental heart is always with Plantation Slavery and its justifiers, so his hostility to the amendment is no surprise. Nor is his lack of outrage at shit being wiped on the walls of our Capitol.
"Somerby’s sentimental heart is always with Plantation Slavery"
DeleteDo you really believe that Somerby favors the institution of slavery? If you don't, why say it?
I believe that Somerby is a racial bigot. His own words over time have convinced me of that. For example, he was against the 1619 project, thought Ketanji Jackson Brown was underqualified to be on the Supreme Court, thinks those complaining about microaggressions haven't enough real racism in their lives to complain about, defended George Zimmerman and complained about BLM and so on. More tellingly, his disaggregation of black children's NAEP scores are presented to show that black children cannot learn (gaps persist no matter what anyone does) and he worked way overtime to tell us that those MS NAEP reading scores were bogus. His quoting of MLK is right in line with the way conservatives use such quotes, to say race doesn't matter any more because it is the contents of a man's character not his skin color that is important, so civil rights no longer matters. And he disproportionately attacks black female journalists and professors and black gay cable news hosts.
DeleteSomerby does have a thing about people who look down on the South, but what other stance can one take toward Plantation Slavery? It is an oddity or affectation of Somerby's that the South needs defending against the bad reputation it gained when it was a horrible place for black people to live.
"the cop killers of Jan 6 never face this dubious rhetoric at the Daily Howler".
DeleteThere were no cop killers on Jan 6th. Are you stupid?
Like a fireball in the night, Bob Somerby vaporizes and blasts all who oppose him.
ReplyDeleteFirebell in the night, not fireball, but your enthusiasm is appreciated.
DeleteI’m the bell of the ball. I am not Corby.
DeleteCorby would spell belle correctly.
DeleteSomerby presents two assertions and says that a lesson in daily logic means that Assertion 1 is not true. Logic does not test the truth value of assertions. It tests the reasoning by which assertions are extended to produce additional truths. The original assertions are assumed to be true "a priori" and can only be tested with reference to the external world, not using logic. There is no logic applied to the two assertions Somerby has listed, no disqualification of either of them based on logic. Logicians cannot help decide whether they are true or not because Somerby presents no reasoning involving those assertions.
ReplyDeleteThis is pure sophistry by Somerby. He is trying to fool his readers into thinking an assertion is untrue by asserting that it is untrue and justifying his own assertion throwing the word "logic" around. But he hasn't done the work to show that Assertion 1 is unrue at all.
You’re right, 10:46, such a dumb way for Somerby to look at it. You nailed it.
DeleteSomerby is funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar.
DeleteI am Corby.
ReplyDeleteThey were repaying loans. There is no evidence.
I am Corby.
The idea that impeachment is for crimes and misdemeanors committed by the presiding during his presidency is, I suppose, quaint. Also, evidence of actual crimes or misdemeanors would generally help in an impeachment.
Delete"Should Donald J. Trump be removed from the ballot? At this site, we're afraid we may be hearing "a firebell in the night" as this idea advances."
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson was talking about the Missouri Compromise and the admission of Missouri as a slave state into the Union. Slavery is an important topic but it has nothing to do with the current situation of Trump's participation in an insurrection, which makes him unqualified to hold office again under our Constitution.
It is unclear whether Somerby is implying that this court decision (which is not legislation but an application of existing law to Trump's situation) is some sort of compromise, or whether he considers it an insult to morality, as abolitionists considered the Missouri Compromise extending slavery to new territories. The Missouri Compromise was not a court decision but legislation, but perhaps Somerby just likes the words "firebell in the night" and doesn't care what they meant to Jefferson (or anyone else).
Somerby refers to this court decision in CO as an idea that is advancing. But that isn't what it is. It is a court of law making a ruling on the application of the Constitution to a particular situation, which is what courts do. The court is not "advancing" an "idea" but making a legal ruling on a specific case, that of Trump.
It strikes me as ridiculous for Somerby to refer to part of our Constitution as an idea that is being advanced. It is the law that Donald Trump took an oath to uphold. And our courts are not "opinion makers" but a body designated to resolve conflicts involving the application of law. The court heard evidence from Trump and from the plaintiffs and made a decision, a ruling. It did not advance an idea. The court's ruling becomes part of our law unless it is overturned by the Supreme Court to which the ruling will undoubtedly be appealed, but it is not an idea being advanced. It is now a legal ruling that Trump may not appear on the ballot in CO because he was judged to have participated in the insurrection of 1/6 and no one who has done that after having sworn to uphold the Constitution may hold public office again.
Somerby clearly wishes to reduce this situation to a matter of opinion, but that is not what is happening. The implementation of the decision was stayed until January in order to give time to appeal to the Supreme Court. Unless that higher court overturns the decision, Trump is off the ballot and cannot run again. This is not an idea being advanced but a ruling made about Trump's eligibility, by a court of law.
Somerby's suggestion that this is an idea and not a ruling suggests he thinks adherence to this ruling is optional, that there is room for debate, that people can ignore it if they don't want to adhere to it, etc. This attitude by Somerby is shocking to me because it reflects a lack of respect for the rule of law that parallels that of Trump and his minions, like Rudy Giuliani, who is convicted of defamation and then turns around and defames his victims again, the day of the ruling. Adherence to court judgements is not optional, not up for further discussion, not something to be ignored when inconvenient. Somerby should not be modeling that kind of attitude for readers here, because it is illegal but because it undermines the fabric of our society when rule of law becomes something to set aside based on personal whim, as Somerby attempts today.
The 14th amendment is obsolete. Only the 2nd amendment remains in force.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Joe. There is no evidence.
I am Corby.
Even with evidence, I still love Joe. I am Korbi.
DeleteThere is no evidence. They were all loan repayments. All of them. He was not aware.
DeleteI am Corby.
With evidence or without it, with loan repayments or without them, I love Joe. I am Quorbie.
DeleteYou are Boris. You are funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar.
DeleteI read wikipedia. I am nice. I ♥ my blankie. I smell my fingers.
I am Corby.
Blankie yes, fingers no.
Delete"RED AND BLUE BLUE CHRISTMAS: The 14th amendment involves simple, clear language!"
ReplyDeleteEven if the 14th amendment involved complicated, opaque language, it is the job of the courts to decipher and apply that language to Trump's case. The highest court in CO is its Supreme Court. The judges appointed to that court have experience and training to deal with complicated, opaque language and difficult situations. It is their job and they were appointed because they are good at it.
This idea Somerby seems to hold, that if the language is not clear then Trump cannot be barred from the ballot, is ridiculous on its face. Very complicated cases go to the courts because those cases are too difficult to be resolved without legal expertise. But Somerby doesn't believe in expertise. He seems to think that things which are not clear, complicated things, are at fault because of their compexity -- that everything should be within common grasp, including Einstein's theory of relativity, as if Einstein deliberately made it complicated and that were not a property of real life that scientific training is needed to address.
Whether Trump will be on the ballot depends on what the Supreme Court decides, assuming they choose to consider the case. It doesn't depend on Somerby's odd ideas about complexity being somehow wrong or beyond a court's grasp.
I am so glad that Somerby made the decision to stop teaching elementary and middle school. He seems to have no grasp of civics and his bigotry makes him unsuitable as a teacher. I worry that he was similarly wrong to be working with kids back in the 1970s, but that is water under the bridge.
I play bridge. Somerby is no liberal.
DeleteI am Corby.
Asa Hutchinson says the Colorado ruling is another reason why trump shouldn’t be the Republican nominee. But who is he? Just another woke Maddow-loving tribalist, I guess.
ReplyDeleteDershowitz makes several legal arguments including
ReplyDelete1. The power to decide whether someone participated in an “insurrection” lies with Congress, not with the states.
2. That provision does not apply to the office of President.
Dershowitz predicts that the Supreme Court will reverse based on (1)
Please don’t read the Colorado ruling, David. Both issues are addressed. However, the Supreme Court may reverse, at which point, the wisdom of our legal system will remain unblemished, n’est ce pas?
DeleteYes, the Supreme Court will probably reverse. Nevertheless, in may view, damage has been done. That a highly popular candidate might be disqualified based on trumped up charges is a blow to American democracy. What happened once could happen again.
DeleteBTW I hope some liberal Justices will vote to reverse. That way the reversal will be seen as proper legal judgment, not simply as political clout.
Yes, I bet you do hope, fuckface.
DeleteBTW, USA is a Republic, not a democracy, magat.
Did Dersh work in anything about OJ being innocent?
DeleteThe Colorado decision is over 200 pages long including the dissents. I started to read it, but gave up because of its length. The judge's voted on party lines, not the best thing for a decision like this. There are different ways to look at the decision: is it reasonable or justifiable legally? what are the political consequences of the decision? what effect, if any, will it have on the welfare of the country or the outcome of the next election? I just read the language from the constitutional amendment that applies here. It begins by saying that "No person shall be a Senator or a Representative in Congress or Elector of the President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military" who has been involved in an insurrection against the U.S. It thus specifies that such a person can't be a senator, representative or elector of the President (i.e., a member of the Electoral College) who has participated in an "insurrection." It does not specify that such a person cannot be "President." It does contain a catch-all phrase that such an insurrectionist, may not "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States," That would seem to include the office of the Presidency. But this interpretation appears to defy normal statutory rules of construction. If the amendment was intended to apply to the presidency, why not specify that, like it does with senators, representatives and electors? Why leave it to a catch-all phrase? that doesn't make sense to me. I would assume that the judges who wrote the majority per curiam decision did address this issue - but I didn't get that far. I'd also note that the 14th amendment was specifically relevant to those who fought for the South in the Civil War. Isn't there a big difference between the Civil War and the rag tag Jan. 6 incident when it comes to "insurrections?" Personally, I anticipate another Trump term with a mixture of dread and nausea, but almost every comment here is utterly partisan and generally weak on reasoning - one exception being anon 10:52.
ReplyDeleteParty lines? They're all Democrats.
DeleteDifferent intensity levels of TDS are the lines.
DeleteExcellent comment, AC/MA. As you say, there are different standards to look at the decision -- reasonable, justifiable, etc. Using these words allows me to state more clearly something I posted yesterday.
DeleteIMO banning a leading candidate from running for President is a historic decision. Reasonable or justifiable are not adequate. A decision of this import should be utterly legally compelling.
hey, fuckface, I am sure Jefferson Davis was pretty popular in the Confederacy too. What the fuck does it matter how popular donald J chickenshit is? Should laws only be enforced on unpopular insurrectionists, magat?
Delete@1:46 there was no chance after the Civil War that a confederate would be elected President. OTOH a Confederate might easily be elected Senator or Representative by a Southern state. That's why this provision of the 14the Amendment specifically applied to Congress, but not to the Presidency.
Deletethat wasn't the point, magat.
DeleteIs there something in the 14th Amendment that grants exceptions to popular insurrectionists, you fascist prick? Let me know when you find it, jackass.
He lost the "popular vote" by 3 million the first time and over 7 million the 2nd time. That's how fucking popular the orange abomination is, magat.
DeleteYes AC everyone here but you is stupid. Sorry but you disqualify yourself from being taken seriously.
DeleteAC is so smart he didn’t read the entire ruling. Because his attention span is that of a gnat. So he just dives into his own “layman’s” view, which miraculously equals Somerby’s.
Delete“We must bar former insurrectionists from any office, civil or military. Except the presidency, the highest office in the land.”
DeleteAnyone who thinks this is what the writers of the 14th amendment meant is a nutcase.
David, a confederate WAS elected president, of the confederacy. I assume you mean a former confederate might be elected president of the US. The point is not so much whether someone was a confederate but whether or not he violated his oath of office. The president takes an oath of office too and you wouldn't want that person to be reelected.
DeleteWhen you see a vote that was decided along party lines, that doesn't necessarily mean that the basis for the vote was party. It may be that the Democrats voted on the merits of the case while the Republicans all voted to rally around Trump. That would account for why the two sets of votes differ without it being party-based.
DeleteSeveral of AC/MA's listed bases for looking at the decision are not allowed to be considerations in the decision actually made by the justices. The judges have their own criteria that they use.
Delete"It does not specify that such a person cannot be "President." says AC/MA
DeleteHowever:
"...or hold any office, civil or military"
This part covers the presidency and vice presidency among other offices that might be held within government or the military. There are too many such offices to list them all, but the word "any" covers them.
AC/MA doesn't see this because he is explicitly looking for ways to set aside the decision. Judges don't get to skip little words like "any office" unless they are MAGAt judges looking for a way to exclude Trump from the consequences of his actions.
AC/MA claims to be a lawyer. I wouldn't hire him on the basis of the work he has done here today.
Delete"Isn't there a big difference between the Civil War and the rag tag Jan. 6 incident when it comes to "insurrections?""
DeleteNot to the insurrectionists themselves. They have been referring to their own actions as Civil War 2.0. They use that explicit language within their own movement.
However it goes, does anyone find it offensive that this matter will be settled by the Supreme Court? The notion seems to frighten Bob.
ReplyDeleteShould they side with Trump, as many on the left seem to feel is likely, it will be another source of embarrassment for the Court MAGA built, and Bob fears that. Should they NOT side with Trump, it will really hurt the feelings of Bob’s friends and neighbors, who it’s difficult not to conclude are pretty trashy people.
I trust Clarence Thomas.
DeleteStart on page 75 to find the discussion of whether the verbiage includes the presidency:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
This part on pg 78 is relevant:
Delete"While nothing in Representative
McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was
removed, his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft
proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political
power. Representative McKee explained that, under the proposed amendment,
77
“the loyal alone shall rule the country” and that traitors would be “cut[] off . . .
from all political power in the nation.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2505
(1866); see also Mark Graber, Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: Our
Questions, Their Answers, 22–23 (Univ. of Md. Legal Stud. Rsch. Paper No. 2023-16),
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591133 (“Our Questions,
Their Answers”); Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten
Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War 106, 114 (2023) (indicating that
Representative McKee desired to exclude all oath-breaking insurrectionists from
all federal offices, including the Presidency). When considered in light of these
pronouncements, the shift from specifically naming the President and Vice
President in addition to officers appointed and confirmed to the broadly inclusive
“any officer, civil or military” cannot be read to mean that the two highest offices
in the government are excluded from the mandate of Section Three."
Ukraine has lost the war though. That we can agree on.
DeleteWe agree that Russia is poo-poo.
DeleteFollowing up on my earlier comment, I did raad the 132 page decision of the 4 judge majority. as noted by anon 3:18 above. The majority did address the issue I raised about the wording of section 3 of the 14th amendment, which specified senators, representatives, and electors, with a catch all phrase including any civil or military "office holders," while omitting any specific reference to the President. The majority argument seemed to me to be well reasoned albeit probably not beyond reasonable contrary interpretation. I would not that the trial judge based his decision against the plaintiffs on the very reasoning I had put forth in my earlier comment. The dissenting judges didn't focus on that specific issue in their dissents. The dissents did raise arguments arguments against the majority decision. There are many complicated and first impression issues in the case. the court's decision largely revolved on Colorado's own election statute. I suggest anyone taking a position on the issues raised by the decision to read the majority and minority opinions, before reaching any conclusions.
DeleteI have a plan: the states with a Republican majority in the legislate should remove all Democratic candidates from the ballot. And the states with a Democratic majority in the legislate should remove all Republican candidates from the ballot.
DeleteIt will be clean, that way.
I have a plan: political parties shouldn’t support a demented indicted insurrectionist as their nominee.
DeleteIs he also an indicted insurrectionist?
DeleteI thought he only loves children and takes 50% of his son's loot.
There is no evidence. They were repaying loans.
DeleteI am Corby.
If the election were held today there is no question Trump would roundly defeat Biden. So it would be in the best interest for Democrats to get Trump off the ballot in every state they can.
Delete