There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
“[Sunak] pledged to close loopholes as he cited the “staggering” eight-fold rise in the number of dependants brought into the UK by foreign students, up from 16,000 to 135,788 since 2019.”
“Ucas figures show there was a decline in the number of accepted international students in 2023 to 71,570, down 3 per cent from 73,820 last year and 7 per cent from 76,905 in 2019.”
So in 2019, c.77k foreign students bought with them 16k ‘dependants’, but last year c71.5k foreign students bought with them c.136k ‘dependants’, nearly two each!
It's not only new students who can apply to bring dependents.
Most likely based on its recent rulings the SC will leave it to states to decide whether Trump should be on ballot or not. Which means Trump may not be able to get the 50%+ of delegates he needs to be GOP nominee but even if he doesn't could still run as an independent in states where he remains on the ballot against Biden and the ultimate GOP nominee
Another concern I have is, even if Trump is tossed from the ballot or loses the primaries or loses in the election, will that still make any difference to him and the utter loons who are driving him on? They genuinely don't seem to grasp the basic principles involved. They just think Trump is and should be President for Life regardless.
I am starting to think this will actually only come to an ending when he dies. And even though he is old and clearly not well, that could be a long way off yet.
For the most part, the 'loons' know perfectly well what a crook and charlatan he is, but he is the only major public figure who regular sticks it to the Libtards, so they don't care what he is.
Yes, and that is why Trump (and Johnson too) retain their support. Everyone knows they are lying scoundrels, but some are happy with that provided they bash their enemies.
It’s quite simple. For various reasons, some voters want to smash the government and watch the world burn.
Right wing media and social media keeps telling them stories about a corrupt elite/EU/immigrants/woke/(insert algorithmic preferred scapegoat here) damaging their life chances and robbing their families future.
For these voters electing Trump or Boris is a rational choice. Who better to burn it all down than an agent of chaos.
The right need to defeat Trump, Boris and Farage. They created them
Well the Tories removed Boris, not that it helped them electorally.
There is no way the SC will bar Trump from running. Unless they want 24 hour police protection and a likely load of rioting by the Trump Cult .
Trump will need to be beaten at the ballot box . Even then he will say it was another rigged election .
Yes, if you want to defeat Trump, do it at the ballot box, not at the courts.
We already have one prolific poster on here (at least) who would quite happily ban one of the two main political parties in the US, so convinced is he of his moral superiority. If you want to start a Civil War in the US, there is no better way to do that than follow that route.
Above the law because he's adored by the terminally stupid many of whom are also violent goons? No thank you. That's not the shining city on the hill.
I think there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court deciding against Trump on this one.
However, to OGH's point that three Supreme Court justices were Trump appointees, ironically they are not Trump's bankers. Alito and Thomas are the locked in votes. In the unlikely event of a decision against Trump, it's be a combination of Roberts and a Trump appointee (most likely Kavanaugh but potentially another).
The assumption that a President's appointees are blindly loyal is perhaps a mistake. Trump's appointees are pretty likely to be on the bench long after he is dead. They are certainly conservatives, and will probably demonstrate it here. But they don't necessarily like him, and have got what they want from him (and he can't take it away).
The Trump appointees were also all litigators in Bush v Gore. Which gives one perspective on their flexibility regarding electoral matters.
That doesn’t matter, and for opponents of Trump to continue citing it is profoundly unhelpful
Any senior lawyer - such as a SC judge - will inevitably have been involved in the most important and controversial cases during their career.
If they weren’t they probably aren’t good enough to serve on the bench
To push this argument is to undermine the notion that the SC strives to be independent and rule on the cases before then without fear or favour. It politicises the court in a way that shouldn’t be done
“[Sunak] pledged to close loopholes as he cited the “staggering” eight-fold rise in the number of dependants brought into the UK by foreign students, up from 16,000 to 135,788 since 2019.”
“Ucas figures show there was a decline in the number of accepted international students in 2023 to 71,570, down 3 per cent from 73,820 last year and 7 per cent from 76,905 in 2019.”
So in 2019, c.77k foreign students bought with them 16k ‘dependants’, but last year c71.5k foreign students bought with them c.136k ‘dependants’, nearly two each!
Googling this up it seems to be the number of dependent visas issued, rather than the number of dependents who exist.
I don't know much about what's been happening in Britain what with living way over here but one thing to check would be whether anything happened around 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 that might increase the number of people who had to apply for visas.
I think there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court deciding against Trump on this one.
However, to OGH's point that three Supreme Court justices were Trump appointees, ironically they are not Trump's bankers. Alito and Thomas are the locked in votes. In the unlikely event of a decision against Trump, it's be a combination of Roberts and a Trump appointee (most likely Kavanaugh but potentially another).
The assumption that a President's appointees are blindly loyal is perhaps a mistake. Trump's appointees are pretty likely to be on the bench long after he is dead. They are certainly conservatives, and will probably demonstrate it here. But they don't necessarily like him, and have got what they want from him (and he can't take it away).
The Trump appointees were also all litigators in Bush v Gore. Which gives one perspective on their flexibility regarding electoral matters.
That doesn’t matter, and for opponents of Trump to continue citing it is profoundly unhelpful
Any senior lawyer - such as a SC judge - will inevitably have been involved in the most important and controversial cases during their career.
If they weren’t they probably aren’t good enough to serve on the bench
To push this argument is to undermine the notion that the SC strives to be independent and rule on the cases before then without fear or favour. It politicises the court in a way that shouldn’t be done
The SC has already undermined the notion that it strives to be independent and rule on cases without fear or favour.
The top male, Cleverly, is in fourth place and he's done little recently to help his chances.
Or has he been trying to make himself a bit more excitingly 'non PC' for the membership? Lots of them do like that sort of thing. Look at the people who are routinely popular with them.
“[Sunak] pledged to close loopholes as he cited the “staggering” eight-fold rise in the number of dependants brought into the UK by foreign students, up from 16,000 to 135,788 since 2019.”
“Ucas figures show there was a decline in the number of accepted international students in 2023 to 71,570, down 3 per cent from 73,820 last year and 7 per cent from 76,905 in 2019.”
So in 2019, c.77k foreign students bought with them 16k ‘dependants’, but last year c71.5k foreign students bought with them c.136k ‘dependants’, nearly two each!
Googling this up it seems to be the number of dependent visas issued, rather than the number of dependents who exist.
I don't know much about what's been happening in Britain what with living way over here but one thing to check would be whether anything happened around 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 that might increase the number of people who had to apply for visas.
Ah, potentially yes. So it could well be a change in paperwork rather than a change in numbers.
Do we know when the SC will make their judgement on this?
We don't - they refused the request for it to be fast tracked so potentially anytime up to 2029...
I may have missed it but I don't think they've said anything about the request to consider the eligibility issue? In a different case (DC) they declined a request by the Special Counsel prosecuting to rule on presidential immunity and skip the normal appeal court, but it would have been very unusual if they'd agreed to it.
I'm gonna link the rulings right here so that people who want to argue about the merits of this can read them first and we can have less of a nobody-knows-what-the-fuck-they're-talking-about type of discussion. America judges are really good writers.
We should also get more from the courts in Maine, assuming SCOTUS don't jump in there first.
That allows SCOTUS to decide for Trump on the grounds either that he isn't an "officer", or that insurrection requires a conviction.
I still think the former is more likely. I think the Colorado Supreme Court argument was interesting to the extent that there could be reasons why the President is not expicitly mentioned in the 14th Amendement but is intended to be covered, and I get that it ought to be covered. But I do think this remains quite a likely off ramp for SCOTUS conservatives.
On the latter, it seems more tricky. The text doesn't mention "conviction", and quite a large majority of Senators found Trump guilty of inciting insurrection following his second impeachment, just not enough to convict. So conservatives would need to read something into the Constitution that just isn't there, and they find that problematic. It also begs the question of what conviction would suffice, given a potentially relevant conviction is far from being out of the question.
On the second point, what precedent there is very clearly demonstrates the amendment was both intended to be used, and was used without any conviction being necessary. I think only Alito and Thomas are so unmoored by law and precedent to completely ignore that. But the conservative majority could probably cobble together some sort of due process argument, and claim (as in Bush v Gore) that it is not to set any precedent.
On the first, a finding that the President is not ‘an officer’ under the Constitution would have all sorts of malign consequences beyond this case, and I think it’s 50/50 whether the conservatives on the court would ignore that. Other than Thomas and Alito, who’ll probably embrace the idea with enthusiasm.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Another concern I have is, even if Trump is tossed from the ballot or loses the primaries or loses in the election, will that still make any difference to him and the utter loons who are driving him on? They genuinely don't seem to grasp the basic principles involved. They just think Trump is and should be President for Life regardless.
I am starting to think this will actually only come to an ending when he dies. And even though he is old and clearly not well, that could be a long way off yet.
It's a nice thought but I don't know about "clearly not well". Physically he looks pretty robust to me.
I'm gonna link the rulings right here so that people who want to argue about the merits of this can read them first and we can have less of a nobody-knows-what-the-fuck-they're-talking-about type of discussion. America judges are really good writers.
We should also get more from the courts in Maine, assuming SCOTUS don't jump in there first.
Thank you, Edmund. They do indeed write well.
When you read the Maine judgement, it is hard to believe the SC can do anything other than find against Trump. I would expect it to be 8-0, with Thomas recusing himself because of his wife's support for the ex-President.
I would expect it to be 5-4 the other way, with Thomas not recusing himself because that would require him to show integrity.
Edit - also, remember he didn't recuse himself from tossing the DC appeal. That is almost certainly a sign he won't recuse himself from any later case.
I do not believe it will come down to partisan voting.
They may well be partisan, indeed they have regularly shown that they are, but they are also judges and they value their place in the Constitution and in history. Their decision will have the gravest implications for democracy in the USA. They cannot be sacked.
I think they will call the case on its merits, and Trump will lose 8-0.
I hope you are correct, but fear you might not be. If you aren't one of the consequences could be that any future president can do anything he likes no matter how illegal it would be for any other American to do. There lies anarchy. No president should be above the law.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
Although the reference to the “British Navy” rather than the “Royal Navy” might lead one to conclude he’s not British…
There's a tendency amongst some of the more rabid leftists to ignore anything 'Royal'. I've heard 'British Navy' be referred to before in that context.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
I think taking the opinion of the Communist Party and ascribing it to "the left" perhaps reveals a blind spot of your own - especially as you then talk about the "far right" not the "right" with respect to blind spots on that side of the fence. For the avoidance of all doubt, I am on the left and the Communist Party is no more representative of my views than the BNP is of the average Tory. I also am very supportive of Guyana, as someone who knows and loves the Anglophone Caribbean very well. I also love my country and probably have less time for our enemies like Mr Putin than many of our right-wing posters do. This idea that people on the Left are all quislings and traitors is bollocks.
Re: Colorado, state Secretary of State has announced, that unless SCOTUS issues a ruling that upholds state Supreme Court decision barring Trump, his name WILL be on the ballot.
Repeat, Trump is on Colorado ballot UNLESS the US Supreme Count says otherwise.
Including IF the Court just declines to take the case.
How can that work?
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case, what is the justification for setting aside the CO court decision?
That the state court hasn't been over-ruled by a higher court?
Another concern I have is, even if Trump is tossed from the ballot or loses the primaries or loses in the election, will that still make any difference to him and the utter loons who are driving him on? They genuinely don't seem to grasp the basic principles involved. They just think Trump is and should be President for Life regardless.
I am starting to think this will actually only come to an ending when he dies. And even though he is old and clearly not well, that could be a long way off yet.
For the most part, the 'loons' know perfectly well what a crook and charlatan he is, but he is the only major public figure who regular sticks it to the Libtards, so they don't care what he is.
Yes, and that is why Trump (and Johnson too) retain their support. Everyone knows they are lying scoundrels, but some are happy with that provided they bash their enemies.
It’s quite simple. For various reasons, some voters want to smash the government and watch the world burn.
Right wing media and social media keeps telling them stories about a corrupt elite/EU/immigrants/woke/(insert algorithmic preferred scapegoat here) damaging their life chances and robbing their families future.
For these voters electing Trump or Boris is a rational choice. Who better to burn it all down than an agent of chaos.
The right need to defeat Trump, Boris and Farage. They created them
Well the Tories removed Boris, not that it helped them electorally.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
Explicitly not in this case.
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible? Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
I'm gonna link the rulings right here so that people who want to argue about the merits of this can read them first and we can have less of a nobody-knows-what-the-fuck-they're-talking-about type of discussion. America judges are really good writers.
We should also get more from the courts in Maine, assuming SCOTUS don't jump in there first.
Thank you, Edmund. They do indeed write well.
When you read the Maine judgement, it is hard to believe the SC can do anything other than find against Trump. I would expect it to be 8-0, with Thomas recusing himself because of his wife's support for the ex-President.
I would expect it to be 5-4 the other way, with Thomas not recusing himself because that would require him to show integrity.
Edit - also, remember he didn't recuse himself from tossing the DC appeal. That is almost certainly a sign he won't recuse himself from any later case.
I do not believe it will come down to partisan voting.
They may well be partisan, indeed they have regularly shown that they are, but they are also judges and they value their place in the Constitution and in history. Their decision will have the gravest implications for democracy in the USA. They cannot be sacked.
I think they will call the case on its merits, and Trump will lose 8-0.
I think that’s extraordinarily unlikely. There’s very little chance Thomas will recuse, and less still that both he and Alito would find against Trump.
As for the decision, it seems more likely than not that the majority will find for Trump.
I'm gonna link the rulings right here so that people who want to argue about the merits of this can read them first and we can have less of a nobody-knows-what-the-fuck-they're-talking-about type of discussion. America judges are really good writers.
We should also get more from the courts in Maine, assuming SCOTUS don't jump in there first.
Thank you, Edmund. They do indeed write well.
When you read the Maine judgement, it is hard to believe the SC can do anything other than find against Trump. I would expect it to be 8-0, with Thomas recusing himself because of his wife's support for the ex-President.
I would expect it to be 5-4 the other way, with Thomas not recusing himself because that would require him to show integrity.
Edit - also, remember he didn't recuse himself from tossing the DC appeal. That is almost certainly a sign he won't recuse himself from any later case.
I do not believe it will come down to partisan voting.
They may well be partisan, indeed they have regularly shown that they are, but they are also judges and they value their place in the Constitution and in history. Their decision will have the gravest implications for democracy in the USA. They cannot be sacked.
I think they will call the case on its merits, and Trump will lose 8-0.
I'd call it the other way. They don't want the Court to be the decider of this question and this election if they can help it. They'll slide on this one somehow, rule against Trump's immunity defence claims which would make a President Louix XIV, and like other politicians hope convictions rather than exclusion will take care of the problem.
They all have their own political agendas rather than being slavish to Trump or Biden, bar one or two, but collectively do they want the Supreme Court to decide the election outcome? They'll find a way out.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
The key point here is the one I made above - the 14th amendment doesn't just exclude those who "engaged" in insurrection or rebellion but also those who have " given aid or comfort" to it. That's a much lower bar.
Re: Colorado, state Secretary of State has announced, that unless SCOTUS issues a ruling that upholds state Supreme Court decision barring Trump, his name WILL be on the ballot.
Repeat, Trump is on Colorado ballot UNLESS the US Supreme Count says otherwise.
Including IF the Court just declines to take the case.
How can that work?
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case, what is the justification for setting aside the CO court decision?
That the state court hasn't been over-ruled by a higher court?
The state court says he should NOT be on the ballot. But someone else clarified - he will be on the primary ballot if there is no final determination prior to Jan 5 which is when the candidates are certified.
Re: Colorado, state Secretary of State has announced, that unless SCOTUS issues a ruling that upholds state Supreme Court decision barring Trump, his name WILL be on the ballot.
Repeat, Trump is on Colorado ballot UNLESS the US Supreme Count says otherwise.
Including IF the Court just declines to take the case.
How can that work?
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case, what is the justification for setting aside the CO court decision?
That the state court hasn't been over-ruled by a higher court?
The state court says he should NOT be on the ballot. But someone else clarified - he will be on the primary ballot if there is no final determination prior to Jan 5 which is when the candidates are certified.
That seems reasonable
That's not how the decision appears to read? At least in the case where they decline to hear it.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
And civil matters are decided on a balance of probabilities. The authors of the Constitution were quite capable of writing "convicted of" if they felt like it.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
And civil matters are decided on a balance of probabilities. The authors of the Constitution were quite capable of writing "convicted of" if they felt like it.
I presume if he is convicted of insurrection, that’s a criminal offence so it’s a criminal issue
I think there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court deciding against Trump on this one.
However, to OGH's point that three Supreme Court justices were Trump appointees, ironically they are not Trump's bankers. Alito and Thomas are the locked in votes. In the unlikely event of a decision against Trump, it's be a combination of Roberts and a Trump appointee (most likely Kavanaugh but potentially another).
The assumption that a President's appointees are blindly loyal is perhaps a mistake. Trump's appointees are pretty likely to be on the bench long after he is dead. They are certainly conservatives, and will probably demonstrate it here. But they don't necessarily like him, and have got what they want from him (and he can't take it away).
The Trump appointees were also all litigators in Bush v Gore. Which gives one perspective on their flexibility regarding electoral matters.
That doesn’t matter, and for opponents of Trump to continue citing it is profoundly unhelpful
Any senior lawyer - such as a SC judge - will inevitably have been involved in the most important and controversial cases during their career.
If they weren’t they probably aren’t good enough to serve on the bench
To push this argument is to undermine the notion that the SC strives to be independent and rule on the cases before then without fear or favour. It politicises the court in a way that shouldn’t be done
No, it’s quite reasonable to point it out. The first part of your argument it quite correct, but it’s rather more than a coincidence that all three were conservative activists involved in the most controversial election case in the last half century.
The notion that the SC strives to be some kind if neutral arbiter was undermined some time ago. Just look at the polling on public trust in the court.
Re: Colorado, state Secretary of State has announced, that unless SCOTUS issues a ruling that upholds state Supreme Court decision barring Trump, his name WILL be on the ballot.
Repeat, Trump is on Colorado ballot UNLESS the US Supreme Count says otherwise.
Including IF the Court just declines to take the case.
How can that work?
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case, what is the justification for setting aside the CO court decision?
That the state court hasn't been over-ruled by a higher court?
The state court says he should NOT be on the ballot. But someone else clarified - he will be on the primary ballot if there is no final determination prior to Jan 5 which is when the candidates are certified.
That seems reasonable
That's not how the decision appears to read? At least in the case where they decline to hear it.
My understanding was:
CO court says “guilty of engaging in insurrection but not an officer”
CO Supreme Court says “nah he’s an officer” and therefore is disbarred
CO Secretary of State stays that decision until the SCOTUS has ruled or declined to take the case (in the latter scenario the the COSC ruling stands and he is off the ballot)
However, if SCOTUS does not rule before Jan 5 and does not decline the case (which is effectively a decision) by then, the the CO SoS will certify the candidates for the primary INCLUDING Trump.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
I think there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court deciding against Trump on this one.
However, to OGH's point that three Supreme Court justices were Trump appointees, ironically they are not Trump's bankers. Alito and Thomas are the locked in votes. In the unlikely event of a decision against Trump, it's be a combination of Roberts and a Trump appointee (most likely Kavanaugh but potentially another).
The assumption that a President's appointees are blindly loyal is perhaps a mistake. Trump's appointees are pretty likely to be on the bench long after he is dead. They are certainly conservatives, and will probably demonstrate it here. But they don't necessarily like him, and have got what they want from him (and he can't take it away).
The Trump appointees were also all litigators in Bush v Gore. Which gives one perspective on their flexibility regarding electoral matters.
That doesn’t matter, and for opponents of Trump to continue citing it is profoundly unhelpful
Any senior lawyer - such as a SC judge - will inevitably have been involved in the most important and controversial cases during their career.
If they weren’t they probably aren’t good enough to serve on the bench
To push this argument is to undermine the notion that the SC strives to be independent and rule on the cases before then without fear or favour. It politicises the court in a way that shouldn’t be done
No, it’s quite reasonable to point it out. The first part of your argument it quite correct, but it’s rather more than a coincidence that all three were conservative activists involved in the most controversial election case in the last half century.
The notion that the SC strives to be some kind if neutral arbiter was undermined some time ago. Just look at the polling on public trust in the court.
Polling follows the kind of partisan attack you are making. That horse has bolted, but the political parties should avoid making partisan attacks on the court.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
it's a matter for the supreme court to rule on. but precedent for the 14th amendment goes as far as barring someone from office without having a conviction.
it also automatically bars people who are foreign born or who are under 35 automatically. this is an extension of the principle.
what can be, and is, in question is whether what Trump did constitutes an insurrection. two courts have said yes but the supreme court will have to decide on it ultimately.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
Explicitly not in this case.
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible? Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
Common sense says you need a conviction. Honestly this isn’t hard. It’s Trump driving people mad
The left and the anti-Trump right is contorting itself into obscene positions to try and exclude him from the ballot; I understand the motivation but this course seems perilously amoral and probably illegal and I’m sure SCOTUS will - rightly - shut it down
Because who’s next? What if the Alabama Supreme Court doesn’t like the look of a democratic contender? Strike him/her off the ballot? Why not?
“[Sunak] pledged to close loopholes as he cited the “staggering” eight-fold rise in the number of dependants brought into the UK by foreign students, up from 16,000 to 135,788 since 2019.”
“Ucas figures show there was a decline in the number of accepted international students in 2023 to 71,570, down 3 per cent from 73,820 last year and 7 per cent from 76,905 in 2019.”
So in 2019, c.77k foreign students bought with them 16k ‘dependants’, but last year c71.5k foreign students bought with them c.136k ‘dependants’, nearly two each!
The 2019 government strategy was to massively increase the number of students and specifically targeted India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Nigeria to get the increase. Those are countries where people marry younger, have children younger and have stronger family ties than most of the West. Nigeria brings in by far the most of the dependents, rising from 1,427 in 2019 to 60,506 in 2023.
This is a case of the government setting out to do something, doing it, and then getting angry and confused it happened.
“[Sunak] pledged to close loopholes as he cited the “staggering” eight-fold rise in the number of dependants brought into the UK by foreign students, up from 16,000 to 135,788 since 2019.”
“Ucas figures show there was a decline in the number of accepted international students in 2023 to 71,570, down 3 per cent from 73,820 last year and 7 per cent from 76,905 in 2019.”
So in 2019, c.77k foreign students bought with them 16k ‘dependants’, but last year c71.5k foreign students bought with them c.136k ‘dependants’, nearly two each!
The 2019 government strategy was to massively increase the number of students and specifically targeted India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Nigeria to get the increase. Those are countries where people marry younger, have children younger and have stronger family ties than most of the West. Nigeria brings in by far the most of the dependents, rising from 1,427 in 2019 to 60,506 in 2023.
This is a case of the government setting out to do something, doing it, and then getting angry and confused it happened.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
it's a matter for the supreme court to rule on. but precedent for the 14th amendment goes as far as barring someone from office without having a conviction.
it also automatically bars people who are foreign born or who are under 35 automatically. this is an extension of the principle.
what can be, and is, in question is whether what Trump did constitutes an insurrection. two courts have said yes but the supreme court will have to decide on it ultimately.
Insurrection is a criminal offence which can get you ten years in chokey
That’s a serious crime and it requires a jury. Trump has not been convicted by a jury. By all means put him on trial - he’s quite possibly guilty (I can see arguments both ways) - but until that point he is a legitimate candidate and these devious efforts to exclude him look corrupt - and counter productive
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
Although the reference to the “British Navy” rather than the “Royal Navy” might lead one to conclude he’s not British…
There's a tendency amongst some of the more rabid leftists to ignore anything 'Royal'. I've heard 'British Navy' be referred to before in that context.
They're quite insane.
You're all getting wound up. The chap is aiming to speak to a geographically and politically wider audience than elderly British males of a certain political persuasion, and for that wider audience the 'British Navy' is the only sensible term.
Sunak secretly taking advice from Cummo presumably explains the giddying veer of political strategy we saw during the year?
Rishi does not seem to have acted on Cummings' advice to settle the NHS dispute and smash up Whitehall so no, not really. It may be symptomatic of Sunak's lack of core beliefs that he will listen to anyone passing but CCHQ rather than Cummings may be to blame.
CCHQ has done to Rishi what it did to Theresa May and what Labour did to Gordon Brown: force them into stunts designed for their more charismatic predecessors and in doing so trash their reputations as stoic technocrats.
He doesn’t have to have taken all of Cummo’s advice. Despite supposedly having a brain the size of a planet, it’s quite possible that Cummo thinks the same crude anti-immigrant approach that won in 2016 would work in 2024; certainly majoring on immigration is what Sunak has done since, rather unfortunately, given the reality.
Is it though? The small boats target came before Cummings, and beyond that has anything been said about immigration in general? We've just extended visa-free travel to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Cummings advocates burning down Whitehall and starting again, which has been his schtick from the Gove days of fighting the blob and is constantly rehashed on his substack, and (perhaps surprisingly to some) boosting the NHS. Maybe tax cuts but every right wing outlet wants tax cuts, they just differ on which taxes.
Cummings is actually in favour of a much smaller state, and is especially aware of Civil Service “groupthink” - but understands the electoral attachment to the NHS.
The irony being that Brexit has caused a massive expansion in civil service numbers.
My USA electoral predictions are nearly universally inaccurate. I lived there for 5 years but it was a long time ago and it all seems a very weird place now.
That said, I don't think that the SCOTUS would keep Trump off the ballot. That would be judicial overreach even for America.
If Trump is to be defeated, it will have to be at the ballot box. If Trump is selected as Republican candidate then Sleepy Joe will get a second term.
If Trump is found guilty and in jail, I could see the Supreme Court agreeing he should be off the ballot. But the Court is being asked for a decision now and the relevant cases against Trump won’t rule for months.
The easy action, I guess, is to leave him on the ballot and to defer the decision until later. Events may settle the matter. Events settled the matter of whether McCain was eligible.
Trump is not going to be in jail this side of the election. Even if he is found guilty in one or more of the cases against him (and he’s making every possible effort to delay any trial), the sentencing hearings themselves take several months.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
They probably should have made barring for this reason require a conviction. But legally did they?
Questions of eligibility are unfortunately legal questions. You have to be, what, 35 to run for President? And a natural born citizen? If a party picked a candidate and then it transpired they were 34 and not natural born then they might be about to win the biggest landslide in history but they'd be ineligible to run and a court would rule on that.
Other questions of eligibility criteria are presumably no different, including on insurrection.
But I fully expect the SC to find a way around this so that in practice a conviction would be necessary, even if that is not the legal reason they go with.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
Explicitly not in this case.
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible? Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
Common sense says you need a conviction. Honestly this isn’t hard. It’s Trump driving people mad
Could Robert E Lee have run for President in 1868? I think there is also some prior precedent at the congressional level post civil war where senators etc were not seated because they had been on the wrong side in that war, without any explicit trials for insurrection.
The legal question here AIUI is whether this clause of the constitution is "self executing", i.e. is it like the age limit, and just applies, or does it need Congress to pass a law about insurrection and somebody to be convicted for it to apply? The various courts did consider this, and I think even though perhaps the plaintiffs, media and some forum posters might be suffering from Trump induced madness, it's harder to argue that state supreme courts also are so suffering to the extent that they produce legally incorrect decisions.
Separately from that is the political/public question of "even if Trump could be excluded from some state ballots, is it a good idea to do it?". I'm not sure about that but it could certainly get very messy and especially given the timeframe I lean towards "bad idea". If we were discussing this in early 2021 it would be different.
Sunak secretly taking advice from Cummo presumably explains the giddying veer of political strategy we saw during the year?
Rishi does not seem to have acted on Cummings' advice to settle the NHS dispute and smash up Whitehall so no, not really. It may be symptomatic of Sunak's lack of core beliefs that he will listen to anyone passing but CCHQ rather than Cummings may be to blame.
CCHQ has done to Rishi what it did to Theresa May and what Labour did to Gordon Brown: force them into stunts designed for their more charismatic predecessors and in doing so trash their reputations as stoic technocrats.
He doesn’t have to have taken all of Cummo’s advice. Despite supposedly having a brain the size of a planet, it’s quite possible that Cummo thinks the same crude anti-immigrant approach that won in 2016 would work in 2024; certainly majoring on immigration is what Sunak has done since, rather unfortunately, given the reality.
Is it though? The small boats target came before Cummings, and beyond that has anything been said about immigration in general? We've just extended visa-free travel to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Cummings advocates burning down Whitehall and starting again, which has been his schtick from the Gove days of fighting the blob and is constantly rehashed on his substack, and (perhaps surprisingly to some) boosting the NHS. Maybe tax cuts but every right wing outlet wants tax cuts, they just differ on which taxes.
Cummings is actually in favour of a much smaller state, and is especially aware of Civil Service “groupthink” - but understands the electoral attachment to the NHS.
The irony being that Brexit has caused a massive expansion in civil service numbers.
Especially when the actual customs regulations come in, and some more of Brexit actually happens, with btw another dollop of food inflation to add to the mix (will current trends outweigh it?) and reduction in UK food supply and security in the short term.
I think there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court deciding against Trump on this one.
However, to OGH's point that three Supreme Court justices were Trump appointees, ironically they are not Trump's bankers. Alito and Thomas are the locked in votes. In the unlikely event of a decision against Trump, it's be a combination of Roberts and a Trump appointee (most likely Kavanaugh but potentially another).
The assumption that a President's appointees are blindly loyal is perhaps a mistake. Trump's appointees are pretty likely to be on the bench long after he is dead. They are certainly conservatives, and will probably demonstrate it here. But they don't necessarily like him, and have got what they want from him (and he can't take it away).
“ think there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court deciding against Trump on this one.”
The main thrust of OGH header is “ The big question is how much was Trump responsible for what happened and those against him are said to be building up a strong case that he was.” And at first glance you are right, it was in essence a riot by Trump supporters, hard to pin on Trump as full fledged sedition. However, if we look for evidence of sedition beyond the Capital Hill riot, how hard can the investigations in places like Georgia make it for the Supreme Court, if turns up lots of evidence of criminality in trying to get a different result from the state. That could be plenty enough evidence of sedition from Georgia alone.
And how long will the Supreme Court have in order to rule, with clock ticking, and evidence building all the time. Can their judgement be on the other side of the election?
And remember that the 14th amendment as written doesn’t require Trump to have been responsible for or personally involved in the insurrection, to be barred - giving aid and support to an insurrection is sufficient.
Which he did by leaving the door open to DC, inviting a mob and then inciting it - as well as reshuffling the civilian command / responsibility for the national guard etc so that his loyal appointees were running the show. The lack of security prior to and during the protest/riot is striking.
However, any half-competent would-be dictator would have ensured that arrangements were reliably sub-contracted to someone with a bit of military understanding, and given an end goal. Trump did neither. He brought the mob in, lit the match and then retired to watch, presumably on the assumption that events would take care of themselves without his involvement.
What was the mob meant to do? Either he didn't know himself or he never allowed it to be communicated - and consequently the mob itself didn't know what to do or where to go once inside. Was it simply meant to intimidate by its presence? Was it supposed to physically intervene in the vote? If so, how? Lock up pro-Biden congressmen and senators? And Pence (both to affect the vote and to forestall any 25th Amendment invocation)? Kill them? Who can say? And that's the only reason it failed.
But having failed, Trump can credibly claim that he wasn't directly and actively involved. It's not a slam-dunk case by any means but it's probably sufficiently arguable for him to win.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
And civil matters are decided on a balance of probabilities. The authors of the Constitution were quite capable of writing "convicted of" if they felt like it.
They were also capable of writing “President” in the 14th Amendment, if they had felt like it.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
There are lots of offices you can be disqualified from holding without a conviction. Many of them are based on balance of probabilities - whether that is a Director's Disqualification Order, or a professional body disqualifying a doctor, lawyer etc from practicing.
In the case of the US Constitution, in my view the 14th Amendment is pretty clear that it's balance of probabilities as the phrase used is "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies [of the USA]". The word "conviction" could have been used (and is elsewhere in the Constitution) but wasn't.
There is a pretty strong argument Trump reaches the balance of probabilities test. Even before the recent charges, and the January 6th Commission, a majority of the Senate voted to convict Trump of incitement to insurrection at his trial following his second impeachment.
Whilst I have some sympathy with your "have an election" plea, that simply isn't what the US Constitution says - it prevents people from holding office in some circumstances. If the US people want to decide to elect a 34 year old Frenchman as President, they can't as he's disqualified on two grounds.
My USA electoral predictions are nearly universally inaccurate. I lived there for 5 years but it was a long time ago and it all seems a very weird place now.
That said, I don't think that the SCOTUS would keep Trump off the ballot. That would be judicial overreach even for America.
If Trump is to be defeated, it will have to be at the ballot box. If Trump is selected as Republican candidate then Sleepy Joe will get a second term.
If Trump is found guilty and in jail, I could see the Supreme Court agreeing he should be off the ballot. But the Court is being asked for a decision now and the relevant cases against Trump won’t rule for months.
The easy action, I guess, is to leave him on the ballot and to defer the decision until later. Events may settle the matter. Events settled the matter of whether McCain was eligible.
Trump is not going to be in jail this side of the election. Even if he is found guilty in one or more of the cases against him (and he’s making every possible effort to delay any trial), the sentencing hearings themselves take several months.
Yes, at this point it's uncertain if any of the trials are complete this side of the election, depending how quickly the SC rules on key defences, and no chance of being locked up.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
Explicitly not in this case.
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible? Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
Common sense says you need a conviction. Honestly this isn’t hard. It’s Trump driving people mad
The left and the anti-Trump right is contorting itself into obscene positions to try and exclude him from the ballot; I understand the motivation but this course seems perilously amoral and probably illegal and I’m sure SCOTUS will - rightly - shut it down
Because who’s next? What if the Alabama Supreme Court doesn’t like the look of a democratic contender? Strike him/her off the ballot? Why not?
Precedent says that you don’t require a conviction. And the framers explicitly didn’t include that requirement in the text.
As for the Alabama court, yes, if the candidate aided insurrection then yes they should be struck off.
Sunak secretly taking advice from Cummo presumably explains the giddying veer of political strategy we saw during the year?
Rishi does not seem to have acted on Cummings' advice to settle the NHS dispute and smash up Whitehall so no, not really. It may be symptomatic of Sunak's lack of core beliefs that he will listen to anyone passing but CCHQ rather than Cummings may be to blame.
CCHQ has done to Rishi what it did to Theresa May and what Labour did to Gordon Brown: force them into stunts designed for their more charismatic predecessors and in doing so trash their reputations as stoic technocrats.
He doesn’t have to have taken all of Cummo’s advice. Despite supposedly having a brain the size of a planet, it’s quite possible that Cummo thinks the same crude anti-immigrant approach that won in 2016 would work in 2024; certainly majoring on immigration is what Sunak has done since, rather unfortunately, given the reality.
Is it though? The small boats target came before Cummings, and beyond that has anything been said about immigration in general? We've just extended visa-free travel to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Cummings advocates burning down Whitehall and starting again, which has been his schtick from the Gove days of fighting the blob and is constantly rehashed on his substack, and (perhaps surprisingly to some) boosting the NHS. Maybe tax cuts but every right wing outlet wants tax cuts, they just differ on which taxes.
Cummings is actually in favour of a much smaller state, and is especially aware of Civil Service “groupthink” - but understands the electoral attachment to the NHS.
The irony being that Brexit has caused a massive expansion in civil service numbers.
Re: Colorado, state Secretary of State has announced, that unless SCOTUS issues a ruling that upholds state Supreme Court decision barring Trump, his name WILL be on the ballot.
Repeat, Trump is on Colorado ballot UNLESS the US Supreme Count says otherwise.
Including IF the Court just declines to take the case.
How can that work?
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case, what is the justification for setting aside the CO court decision?
That the state court hasn't been over-ruled by a higher court?
The state court says he should NOT be on the ballot. But someone else clarified - he will be on the primary ballot if there is no final determination prior to Jan 5 which is when the candidates are certified.
That seems reasonable
That's not how the decision appears to read? At least in the case where they decline to hear it.
My understanding was:
CO court says “guilty of engaging in insurrection but not an officer”
CO Supreme Court says “nah he’s an officer” and therefore is disbarred
CO Secretary of State stays that decision until the SCOTUS has ruled or declined to take the case (in the latter scenario the the COSC ruling stands and he is off the ballot)
However, if SCOTUS does not rule before Jan 5 and does not decline the case (which is effectively a decision) by then, the the CO SoS will certify the candidates for the primary INCLUDING Trump.
What have I missed?
I thought "stays that decision until the SCOTUS has ruled or declined to take the case" was the CO Supreme Court, not the SoS? Otherwise that looks right. In practice the upshot is "he will be on the primary ballot, and any outcome will effectively be about the later general election ballot", since SCOTUS declined to do things quickly.
Sunak secretly taking advice from Cummo presumably explains the giddying veer of political strategy we saw during the year?
Rishi does not seem to have acted on Cummings' advice to settle the NHS dispute and smash up Whitehall so no, not really. It may be symptomatic of Sunak's lack of core beliefs that he will listen to anyone passing but CCHQ rather than Cummings may be to blame.
CCHQ has done to Rishi what it did to Theresa May and what Labour did to Gordon Brown: force them into stunts designed for their more charismatic predecessors and in doing so trash their reputations as stoic technocrats.
He doesn’t have to have taken all of Cummo’s advice. Despite supposedly having a brain the size of a planet, it’s quite possible that Cummo thinks the same crude anti-immigrant approach that won in 2016 would work in 2024; certainly majoring on immigration is what Sunak has done since, rather unfortunately, given the reality.
Is it though? The small boats target came before Cummings, and beyond that has anything been said about immigration in general? We've just extended visa-free travel to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Cummings advocates burning down Whitehall and starting again, which has been his schtick from the Gove days of fighting the blob and is constantly rehashed on his substack, and (perhaps surprisingly to some) boosting the NHS. Maybe tax cuts but every right wing outlet wants tax cuts, they just differ on which taxes.
Cummings is actually in favour of a much smaller state, and is especially aware of Civil Service “groupthink” - but understands the electoral attachment to the NHS.
The irony being that Brexit has caused was used to justify a massive expansion in civil service numbers.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
And civil matters are decided on a balance of probabilities. The authors of the Constitution were quite capable of writing "convicted of" if they felt like it.
They were also capable of writing “President” in the 14th Amendment, if they had felt like it.
it was in the original draft but they removed it to use words which covered more than political offices.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
The real failure is on the part of the criminal justice system which has failed to hold Trump to account for January 6th in 3 years. If it had the US would not be having this debate. Several states have refused to make orders for the same reason as you have set out: they do not think it is the courts who should decide who can be elected (although 2000 was arguably an exception to that).
The decision of the SC is ultimately a political one rather than a legal one. My guess is that they will let him run but the law, such as it is, is not on his side.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
it's a matter for the supreme court to rule on. but precedent for the 14th amendment goes as far as barring someone from office without having a conviction.
it also automatically bars people who are foreign born or who are under 35 automatically. this is an extension of the principle.
what can be, and is, in question is whether what Trump did constitutes an insurrection. two courts have said yes but the supreme court will have to decide on it ultimately.
Insurrection is a criminal offence which can get you ten years in chokey
That’s a serious crime and it requires a jury. Trump has not been convicted by a jury. By all means put him on trial - he’s quite possibly guilty (I can see arguments both ways) - but until that point he is a legitimate candidate and these devious efforts to exclude him look corrupt - and counter productive
“[Sunak] pledged to close loopholes as he cited the “staggering” eight-fold rise in the number of dependants brought into the UK by foreign students, up from 16,000 to 135,788 since 2019.”
“Ucas figures show there was a decline in the number of accepted international students in 2023 to 71,570, down 3 per cent from 73,820 last year and 7 per cent from 76,905 in 2019.”
So in 2019, c.77k foreign students bought with them 16k ‘dependants’, but last year c71.5k foreign students bought with them c.136k ‘dependants’, nearly two each!
It's not only new students who can apply to bring dependents.
Ok I am officially bemused here. Why on earth do we allow foreign students to bring dependents at all? Ok I can see if they are the students kids maybe but this sounds more like parents/aunts/uncles/cousins and sundry. I cant believe that many students foreign or otherwise have children that they absolutely must bring with them.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
it's a matter for the supreme court to rule on. but precedent for the 14th amendment goes as far as barring someone from office without having a conviction.
it also automatically bars people who are foreign born or who are under 35 automatically. this is an extension of the principle.
what can be, and is, in question is whether what Trump did constitutes an insurrection. two courts have said yes but the supreme court will have to decide on it ultimately.
Insurrection is a criminal offence which can get you ten years in chokey
That’s a serious crime and it requires a jury. Trump has not been convicted by a jury. By all means put him on trial - he’s quite possibly guilty (I can see arguments both ways) - but until that point he is a legitimate candidate and these devious efforts to exclude him look corrupt - and counter productive
It may be the latter without being the former. Its why not everyone who hates Trump supported those initiatives, thinking it will help him - it is one of the problems when a rule may require something but has never had to be used before or may even be a rule we would not actually want. I'm surprised conviction is not a requirement.
Trump, of course, has people argue even if he is guilty of crimes charging him was wrong because he is running for office, in effect saying politicians are above the law, so it'd be impossible to get convictions in any case.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
They probably should have made barring for this reason require a conviction. But legally did they?
Questions of eligibility are unfortunately legal questions. You have to be, what, 35 to run for President? And a natural born citizen? If a party picked a candidate and then it transpired they were 34 and not natural born then they might be about to win the biggest landslide in history but they'd be ineligible to run and a court would rule on that.
Other questions of eligibility criteria are presumably no different, including on insurrection.
But I fully expect the SC to find a way around this so that in practice a conviction would be necessary, even if that is not the legal reason they go with.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
Although the reference to the “British Navy” rather than the “Royal Navy” might lead one to conclude he’s not British…
There's a tendency amongst some of the more rabid leftists to ignore anything 'Royal'. I've heard 'British Navy' be referred to before in that context.
They're quite insane.
You're all getting wound up. The chap is aiming to speak to a geographically and politically wider audience than elderly British males of a certain political persuasion, and for that wider audience the 'British Navy' is the only sensible term.
Nah. As I said, I've heard people - when talking to a British audience - refer to is as such. And other things as well, as though 'Royal' is some form of swear word, to be avoided at all costs.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Mainer looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
And civil matters are decided on a balance of probabilities. The authors of the Constitution were quite capable of writing "convicted of" if they felt like it.
They were also capable of writing “President” in the 14th Amendment, if they had felt like it.
it was in the original draft but they removed it to use words which covered more than political offices.
There is helpful context for that from the Senate debate on the drafting of the amendment at the time. .. In a key exchange that Portnoy found in the 1866 Senate debate, Sen. REVERDY JOHNSON (D-Md.) asked why the offices of president and vice president had been omitted.
Sen. LOT MORRILL (R-Maine) quickly clarified, Portnoy notes: “‘Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,’ Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.”
A second quote unearthed by Portnoy sheds light on another major question the courts have grappled with: Was Section 3 meant simply to bar insurrectionists associated with the recently concluded Civil War? Or was it a prospective prohibition for insurrections yet to come?
Here’s what Sen. PETER VAN WINKLE (R-W.Va.) had to say about that: “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood….
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
They probably should have made barring for this reason require a conviction. But legally did they?
In the aftermath of the civil war you can see why they might have preferred not to -- lots of people heavily involved on the Southern side hadn't been convicted of insurrection and getting convictions in trials held in the southern states would presumably have been tricky, even if they'd wanted to spend a lot of time and money on holding them.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
Although the reference to the “British Navy” rather than the “Royal Navy” might lead one to conclude he’s not British…
There's a tendency amongst some of the more rabid leftists to ignore anything 'Royal'. I've heard 'British Navy' be referred to before in that context.
They're quite insane.
You're all getting wound up. The chap is aiming to speak to a geographically and politically wider audience than elderly British males of a certain political persuasion, and for that wider audience the 'British Navy' is the only sensible term.
Nah. As I said, I've heard people - when talking to a British audience - refer to is as such. And other things as well, as though 'Royal' is some form of swear word, to be avoided at all costs.
And I'm not wound up by it - just amused.
Happy New year to you (and everyone else)!
OT: BTW just finished the multiauthor book on Smeaton the C18 engineer, edited by P. W. Skempton. I knew about the Eddystone lighthouse of course (models in the museum in Edinburgh) other works of his (Forth-Clyde Canal) but the book was full of new insights, and I had not realised his role in quantitative analysis of kinetic energy, Newcomen engine optimisation, and so on. Extraordinary.
Bottom line is the USA is very fond of legal wrangling, and its courts very keen on torturous analysis of very precise wording of statute and creative interpretation of that statute. Even more than most nations I'd say.
If they have a rule saying X they are going to test it eventually and have some say X is a bad idea but it is what it is, and others who argue X somehow means Y, or that Z is more important than X.
On Trump's eligibility I reckon they go for Z - sidesteps the issue without saying X does not apply at all, just makes it pointless in practice, and means people get to vote.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
Explicitly not in this case.
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible? Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
Common sense says you need a conviction. Honestly this isn’t hard. It’s Trump driving people mad
The left and the anti-Trump right is contorting itself into obscene positions to try and exclude him from the ballot; I understand the motivation but this course seems perilously amoral and probably illegal and I’m sure SCOTUS will - rightly - shut it down
Because who’s next? What if the Alabama Supreme Court doesn’t like the look of a democratic contender? Strike him/her off the ballot? Why not?
Precedent says that you don’t require a conviction. And the framers explicitly didn’t include that requirement in the text.
As for the Alabama court, yes, if the candidate aided insurrection then yes they should be struck off.
There is the added complication here that these are primary elections, operating under state law, and their interaction with the constitutional election process is fuzzy (i.e. how parties nominate their candidates is a matter for them but there are defined and established public election processes involved too). It may well be the case that some states allow people who are disbarred from the office they seek to run anyway (FWIW, that's true in the UK too - qualification for nomination and qualification to serve don't entirely overlap).
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
You may not be advocating an immediate halt. Many do, directly or by proposing options which lead to it by compromising defence.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
And civil matters are decided on a balance of probabilities. The authors of the Constitution were quite capable of writing "convicted of" if they felt like it.
They were also capable of writing “President” in the 14th Amendment, if they had felt like it.
Whilst I tend to agree that this is most likely to be the route used by conservative SCOTUS justices to exempt Trump, I concede that the Colorado Supreme Court judgment makes a good counterargument on this.
Essentially, they argue that the President is treated as an "officer" of the United States elsewhere in the Constitution whereas the other roles mentioned are not (Senators and Representatives are "members" of a body rather than "officers", and Electors clearly aren't officers - indeed an officer of the US cannot be an Elector). That makes sense of explicitly mentioning those three roles and then a catch-all for "officers". They further note that the framers of the 14th Amendment fairly clearly took it as a given that "officers" included the President (although conservatives may put limited weight on that).
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
Explicitly not in this case.
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible? Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
Common sense says you need a conviction. Honestly this isn’t hard. It’s Trump driving people mad
The left and the anti-Trump right is contorting itself into obscene positions to try and exclude him from the ballot; I understand the motivation but this course seems perilously amoral and probably illegal and I’m sure SCOTUS will - rightly - shut it down
Because who’s next? What if the Alabama Supreme Court doesn’t like the look of a democratic contender? Strike him/her off the ballot? Why not?
Democratic government is a rules-based system of governance in which those who participate are expected to accept its rules and not use extra-democratic means such as violence to overthrow the system itself, or to support or encourage others in doing so. It is entirely reasonable to bar someone who has demonstrated a disregard for this principle from participation.
There is no way the SC will bar Trump from running. Unless they want 24 hour police protection and a likely load of rioting by the Trump Cult .
Trump will need to be beaten at the ballot box . Even then he will say it was another rigged election .
Morning all! I think we have to assume a significant chance that Trump is on the ballot for the American GE. We know how that will play out with regards to armed militias trying to stop democrats from voting whilst claiming the election is being rigged by democrats etc etc.
If you were the British establishment, would you allow Sunak to hold an election then? Sunak cannot act unilaterally - ultimately he has to ask the King for permission - and that rather sinks November or even October.
The Trump insurgency is a clear and present danger to the west, NATO, British interests on a massive level. There will be Firm Pressure from the establishment to get our election done and the government functional long before we get into what could be at best a turbulent period and at worst, who knows?
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
Explicitly not in this case.
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible? Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
Common sense says you need a conviction. Honestly this isn’t hard. It’s Trump driving people mad
Could Robert E Lee have run for President in 1868? I think there is also some prior precedent at the congressional level post civil war where senators etc were not seated because they had been on the wrong side in that war, without any explicit trials for insurrection.
The legal question here AIUI is whether this clause of the constitution is "self executing", i.e. is it like the age limit, and just applies, or does it need Congress to pass a law about insurrection and somebody to be convicted for it to apply? The various courts did consider this, and I think even though perhaps the plaintiffs, media and some forum posters might be suffering from Trump induced madness, it's harder to argue that state supreme courts also are so suffering to the extent that they produce legally incorrect decisions.
Separately from that is the political/public question of "even if Trump could be excluded from some state ballots, is it a good idea to do it?". I'm not sure about that but it could certainly get very messy and especially given the timeframe I lean towards "bad idea". If we were discussing this in early 2021 it would be different.
On the political question, both parties are divided on whether it was a good idea to bring such a case.
The two senior lawyers who originally proposed the idea are a Democrat and a Republican. And there are plenty of senior Democrats arguing it should have been left for the electorate to decide.
That there is a strong legal case is a fact, though, and it needs addressing by the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
They probably should have made barring for this reason require a conviction. But legally did they?
Questions of eligibility are unfortunately legal questions. You have to be, what, 35 to run for President? And a natural born citizen? If a party picked a candidate and then it transpired they were 34 and not natural born then they might be about to win the biggest landslide in history but they'd be ineligible to run and a court would rule on that.
Other questions of eligibility criteria are presumably no different, including on insurrection.
But I fully expect the SC to find a way around this so that in practice a conviction would be necessary, even if that is not the legal reason they go with.
I suspect the workaround would be to rule state courts have no power to determine who stands for federal office. That looked the weakest part of the Colorado upper court decision from my skim reading. If the SC focuses on process, it doesn't have to deal with the substantive issue of whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump from office. As @DavidL points out, that argument looks compelling.
Leon's call to let the people decide would carry more weight if Trump had accepted the verdict of the last election. He lost and used his office to try to overturn the result. He only stopped when his own team didn't back him and life was lost on Capitol Hill.
Trump does not respect the ballot box and the US Constitution. This is not business as usual.
The only reason that he is still in the game is that the contemporary right lacks the nerve to stand up to him.
Ok I can see if they are the students kids maybe but this sounds more like parents/aunts/uncles/cousins and sundry.
Where are you getting the parents/aunts/uncles/cousins thing from?
His mates second cousin heard it from his niece down the pub?
To answer the question of why, most people think of new students as 18 year olds, whereas a lot of the overseas student recruitment, that pays for the universities and subsidises our taxes, is in the postgraduate sector, where mid to late twenties with a family would not be at all unusual.
Off topic: Is there any difference with broadband reliability these days between provider. BT contract is coming to an end, we currently have 100 Mbps Fibre To The Premises (fttp), just need it to be cert reliable as my other half works full time from home. Is the reliability basically pasu since it's all Openreach ?
BT offer 'halo' now, which is an EE 4G/5G service that takes over if the cabled service drops out
Leon's call to let the people decide would carry more weight if Trump had accepted the verdict of the last election. He lost and used his office to try to overturn the result. He only stopped when his own team didn't back him and life was lost on Capitol Hill.
Trump does not respect the ballot box and the US Constitution. This is not business as usual.
The only reason that he is still in the game is that the contemporary right lacks the nerve to stand up to him.
He only stopped when the riot was clearly not going to produce the result he wanted. I doubt the deaths affected his actions one way or the other.
Leon's call to let the people decide would carry more weight if Trump had accepted the verdict of the last election. He lost and used his office to try to overturn the result. He only stopped when his own team didn't back him and life was lost on Capitol Hill.
Trump does not respect the ballot box and the US Constitution. This is not business as usual.
The only reason that he is still in the game is that the contemporary right lacks the nerve to stand up to him.
Relatedly, Trump started his political career trying to get Obama removed from the presidency on the grounds that he wasn't eligible. For it to be ended by him being barred from office by the same amendment would just be too neat.
I can't see this series ending like that unless they've changed the writers or something, they'll have another twist.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
They probably should have made barring for this reason require a conviction. But legally did they?
Questions of eligibility are unfortunately legal questions. You have to be, what, 35 to run for President? And a natural born citizen? If a party picked a candidate and then it transpired they were 34 and not natural born then they might be about to win the biggest landslide in history but they'd be ineligible to run and a court would rule on that.
Other questions of eligibility criteria are presumably no different, including on insurrection.
But I fully expect the SC to find a way around this so that in practice a conviction would be necessary, even if that is not the legal reason they go with.
I suspect the workaround would be to rule state courts have no power to determine who stands for federal office. That looked the weakest part of the Colorado upper court decision from my skim reading. If the SC focuses on process, it doesn't have to deal with the substantive issue of whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump from office. As @DavidL points out, that argument looks compelling.
That isn't a viable workaround at all. You cannot possibly have a situation where a person is disqualified from being US President in Colorado but not in Texas.
The entire point of SCOTUS is to ensure that the US Constitution means the same in different states. Even an ultra-conservative, state rights judge would accept that, and this is perhaps the textbook case of where a consistent approach is absolutely required.
Leon's call to let the people decide would carry more weight if Trump had accepted the verdict of the last election. He lost and used his office to try to overturn the result. He only stopped when his own team didn't back him and life was lost on Capitol Hill.
Trump does not respect the ballot box and the US Constitution. This is not business as usual.
The only reason that he is still in the game is that the contemporary right lacks the nerve to stand up to him.
He only stopped when the riot was clearly not going to produce the result he wanted. I doubt the deaths affected his actions one way or the other.
It might have upset those around Trump, who convinced him that the game was up. But you are right, I suspect he didn't mind a few martyrs.
The moment to stop Trump cleanly was the Senate trial. Only 10 GOP senators were needed to reach the supermajority required to convict.
Because of that mistake and Trumps self-serving ego, the US is on the brink.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
Although the reference to the “British Navy” rather than the “Royal Navy” might lead one to conclude he’s not British…
There's a tendency amongst some of the more rabid leftists to ignore anything 'Royal'. I've heard 'British Navy' be referred to before in that context.
They're quite insane.
You're all getting wound up. The chap is aiming to speak to a geographically and politically wider audience than elderly British males of a certain political persuasion, and for that wider audience the 'British Navy' is the only sensible term.
Nah. As I said, I've heard people - when talking to a British audience - refer to is as such. And other things as well, as though 'Royal' is some form of swear word, to be avoided at all costs.
And I'm not wound up by it - just amused.
Happy New year to you (and everyone else)!
OT: BTW just finished the multiauthor book on Smeaton the C18 engineer, edited by P. W. Skempton. I knew about the Eddystone lighthouse of course (models in the museum in Edinburgh) other works of his (Forth-Clyde Canal) but the book was full of new insights, and I had not realised his role in quantitative analysis of kinetic energy, Newcomen engine optimisation, and so on. Extraordinary.
And Smeaton trained a certain William Jessop....
Thanks, I hadn't heard of that book. It was a fascinating period of history, where an intelligent person with funding could make advances in radically different areas of science and knowledge. See also Robert Hooke a century or two earlier.
I think that's exceedingly difficult nowadays, as scientific knowledge has become ever deeper and more specialised. Sadly.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
You may not be advocating an immediate halt. Many do, directly or by proposing options which lead to it by compromising defence.
I think that what I am suggesting is probably the policy we are trying to enact although whenever this is specifically aired in public it gets shouted down as appeasement and selling Ukraine out. A lot of posters on here just repeat propoganda about 'beating Russia back', in the same way as they repeat 'woke' talking points, whether they are aware of it or not.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
They probably should have made barring for this reason require a conviction. But legally did they?
Questions of eligibility are unfortunately legal questions. You have to be, what, 35 to run for President? And a natural born citizen? If a party picked a candidate and then it transpired they were 34 and not natural born then they might be about to win the biggest landslide in history but they'd be ineligible to run and a court would rule on that.
Other questions of eligibility criteria are presumably no different, including on insurrection.
But I fully expect the SC to find a way around this so that in practice a conviction would be necessary, even if that is not the legal reason they go with.
Technical point but being underage doesn't prevent anyone from being elected to the presidency; it prevents them from serving. As soon as they reach 35 (and took the oath), they'd become president. Obviously, someone under a lifetime bar, such as an immigrant, couldn't qualify part way through. The insurrection bar can however be lifted by a 2/3rds vote in Congress so the same rules as being underage should apply. The provision for an acting president in the event of the president not qualifying or not having been elected is dealt with in Section 3 of the 20th Amendment -
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
“[Sunak] pledged to close loopholes as he cited the “staggering” eight-fold rise in the number of dependants brought into the UK by foreign students, up from 16,000 to 135,788 since 2019.”
“Ucas figures show there was a decline in the number of accepted international students in 2023 to 71,570, down 3 per cent from 73,820 last year and 7 per cent from 76,905 in 2019.”
So in 2019, c.77k foreign students bought with them 16k ‘dependants’, but last year c71.5k foreign students bought with them c.136k ‘dependants’, nearly two each!
It's not only new students who can apply to bring dependents.
Ok I am officially bemused here. Why on earth do we allow foreign students to bring dependents at all? Ok I can see if they are the students kids maybe but this sounds more like parents/aunts/uncles/cousins and sundry. I cant believe that many students foreign or otherwise have children that they absolutely must bring with them.
It is mostly postgraduate students, and mostly spouses and dependent children, who are allowed to work. Students themselves are allowed to work 20 hours per week in termtime, more in holidays, and to work for 2 years after graduation.
The big increase is in taught MSc courses at less well known universities, and from Middle East, Nigeria and the Sub-continent.
Leon's call to let the people decide would carry more weight if Trump had accepted the verdict of the last election. He lost and used his office to try to overturn the result. He only stopped when his own team didn't back him and life was lost on Capitol Hill.
Trump does not respect the ballot box and the US Constitution. This is not business as usual.
The only reason that he is still in the game is that the contemporary right lacks the nerve to stand up to him.
He only stopped when the riot was clearly not going to produce the result he wanted. I doubt the deaths affected his actions one way or the other.
It might have upset those around Trump, who convinced him that the game was up. But you are right, I suspect he didn't mind a few martyrs.
The moment to stop Trump cleanly was the Senate trial. Only 10 GOP senators were needed to reach the supermajority required to convict.
Because of that mistake and Trumps self-serving ego, the US is on the brink.
McDonnell and the others are responsible for all this. He, and probably some others, even went so far as to say Trump was responsible for what happened, but decided not to convict anyway (yes yes, they had their reasons), seeming to assume the temporary anger they felt about what he did would mean he was done as a political force.
Instead here we are 3 years later and the GOP base and a majority of its representatives a) think the election was indeed rigged, b) don't think anything bad happened on January 6th (unless they think it was an FBI false flag) and c) Trump is stronger than ever with the party.
If refusing to accept the results of the election and encouraging what ended up being violent resistance to the transfer of power won't convict in the Senate nothing will (I believe some did go so far as to say the impeachment process is inherently a bad thing to have, though curiously that doesn't apply to Democrats I imagine).
Leon's call to let the people decide would carry more weight if Trump had accepted the verdict of the last election. He lost and used his office to try to overturn the result. He only stopped when his own team didn't back him and life was lost on Capitol Hill.
Trump does not respect the ballot box and the US Constitution. This is not business as usual.
The only reason that he is still in the game is that the contemporary right lacks the nerve to stand up to him.
Relatedly, Trump started his political career trying to get Obama removed from the presidency on the grounds that he wasn't eligible. For it to be ended by him being barred from office by the same amendment would just be too neat.
I can't see this series ending like that unless they've changed the writers or something, they'll have another twist.
It wouldn't be under the "same amendment". The "natural born citizen" qualification for the Presidency has nothing to do with the 14th amendment - it's part of the original Constitution (Article 2).
The 14th amendment does, as it happens, include a citizenship clause. But that was specifically about overturning Dred Scott, which denied citizenship rights to all black people, not about the Presidency (albeit plainly Obama couldn't have been President but for Dred Scott being overturned).
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
You may not be advocating an immediate halt. Many do, directly or by proposing options which lead to it by compromising defence.
I think that what I am suggesting is probably the policy we are trying to enact although whenever this is specifically aired in public it gets shouted down as appeasement and selling Ukraine out. A lot of posters on here just repeat propoganda about 'beating Russia back', in the same way as they repeat 'woke' talking points, whether they are aware of it or not.
Well, it is appeasement, and is selling Ukraine out. Do you disagree?
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
You may not be advocating an immediate halt. Many do, directly or by proposing options which lead to it by compromising defence.
I think that what I am suggesting is probably the policy we are trying to enact although whenever this is specifically aired in public it gets shouted down as appeasement and selling Ukraine out. A lot of posters on here just repeat propoganda about 'beating Russia back', in the same way as they repeat 'woke' talking points, whether they are aware of it or not.
I think the big divide in Western opinion is over what would happen if the war were frozen and Putin given some of Ukraine. The calculation is very different depending on whether you think he’d be satisfied but tired, this would be the off ramp, and would fall into line, or if he’d see it as a victory and a chance to regroup for the next imperial adventure.
I think Germany, France (with reservations), Italy and parts of the US right and left believe the former; the US hawks, the UK and most of Eastern Europe believe the latter.
This is informed by which lessons you take from history too. Germany saw first hand the end of the Cold War through a process of opening up and mutual friendship. Italy’s history teaches it to be wary of facing up against major powers. Britain remembers Munich and appeasement, and of course Salisbury. Eastern Europeans have a whole history that teaches them Russia will always want a piece of them.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
You may not be advocating an immediate halt. Many do, directly or by proposing options which lead to it by compromising defence.
I think that what I am suggesting is probably the policy we are trying to enact although whenever this is specifically aired in public it gets shouted down as appeasement and selling Ukraine out. A lot of posters on here just repeat propoganda about 'beating Russia back', in the same way as they repeat 'woke' talking points, whether they are aware of it or not.
I think it's an incorrect calculation, for two reasons.
Russia doesn't want a deal, as they've made pretty clear - or rather they do, but the deal is that we give up and they don't. Any 'freeze' in current circumstances just leaves us with the same problem.
And secondly, the Russian invasion can be beaten, at a cost which is likely to be less than that of trying to maintain some sort of 'frozen' conflict.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
Although the reference to the “British Navy” rather than the “Royal Navy” might lead one to conclude he’s not British…
There's a tendency amongst some of the more rabid leftists to ignore anything 'Royal'. I've heard 'British Navy' be referred to before in that context.
They're quite insane.
You're all getting wound up. The chap is aiming to speak to a geographically and politically wider audience than elderly British males of a certain political persuasion, and for that wider audience the 'British Navy' is the only sensible term.
Nah. As I said, I've heard people - when talking to a British audience - refer to is as such. And other things as well, as though 'Royal' is some form of swear word, to be avoided at all costs.
And I'm not wound up by it - just amused.
Happy New year to you (and everyone else)!
OT: BTW just finished the multiauthor book on Smeaton the C18 engineer, edited by P. W. Skempton. I knew about the Eddystone lighthouse of course (models in the museum in Edinburgh) other works of his (Forth-Clyde Canal) but the book was full of new insights, and I had not realised his role in quantitative analysis of kinetic energy, Newcomen engine optimisation, and so on. Extraordinary.
And Smeaton trained a certain William Jessop....
Thanks, I hadn't heard of that book. It was a fascinating period of history, where an intelligent person with funding could make advances in radically different areas of science and knowledge. See also Robert Hooke a century or two earlier.
I think that's exceedingly difficult nowadays, as scientific knowledge has become ever deeper and more specialised. Sadly.
The main pier at St Ives is known as Smeaton's Pier and while it was extended in the mid 19th century to its current length, the original was built between 1767 and 1770.
It fascinates me how much of the Victorian (and earlier) architecture still survives. Another interesting character is one John Passmore Edwards and he links west Cornwall to Newham having funded the construction of buildings in St Ives and East Ham (the Newham Town Hall and the original library were both named after him).
He was a proper philanthropist from a time when those with wealth reasoned it was their duty to help those in need - now, we line up to make the wealthy even wealthier through tax cuts and the belief is "the State" should do all the providing for the poor. Wouldn't be a bad thing is we re-discovered the spirit of philanthrophy.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
You may not be advocating an immediate halt. Many do, directly or by proposing options which lead to it by compromising defence.
I think that what I am suggesting is probably the policy we are trying to enact although whenever this is specifically aired in public it gets shouted down as appeasement and selling Ukraine out. A lot of posters on here just repeat propoganda about 'beating Russia back', in the same way as they repeat 'woke' talking points, whether they are aware of it or not.
Well, it is appeasement, and is selling Ukraine out. Do you disagree?
I don't think it is appeasement, as that was a direct transaction between Britain, France and Nazi Germany with the Czechs not invited.
If we stop funding Ukraine (or more accurately the USA) that is not appeasement, even if it is cowardly.
Apart from anything else, I think the Ukranians would fight on.
There's so much to be said about that. Mostly, that he concentrates on blaming us, and not Venezuela for threatening a smaller sovereign nation. And the far left's screeching of 'Exxon!' is hilarious given the reason Venezuela is doing this is... oil.
In fact, he seems to indicate he things Essequibo is Venezuela's.
Too often, as we see over Ukraine, Guyana and elsewhere, the left's agenda is not about right or wrong, or morality; it is about supporting those who are against us.
(That is not to say the far right don't have similar blindspots...)
It’s bizarre that the governments of Russia, Venezuela, China etc. should still have admirers, among people who should know much better.
Communists struggle to accept that the events of 1989-91 actually happened, and that their Communist states are now corrupt capitalist war-mongering oligarchies little different to Tsarist Russia. So they pretend that they are still the workers states that they imagined they always were.
The British hard left has been Pro-Russian for a century, its a hard thing to move on from.
IMV it's much more complex than that. I think it's fair to say that @NickPalmer is no longer a Communist, yet when Putin started his fascistic, imperialist war of aggression against Ukraine, Nick immediately started blaming us - the west - for the attacks. He said we should not 'poke' Russia into invading Ukraine. He repeated the 'Ukrainian Nazi' rubbish, and also the 'no eastwards NATO expansion' b/s.
Then you get the likes of @Dura_Ace - who seems to dislike everyone - who is all too keen to fall back into Ukrainians-are-lesser-Russians rhetoric that could come straight off Telegram.
And this is a real problem: Ukraine is the victim in this, and has done f-all to 'deserve' the beating Russia is giving it. Putin has full agency, and trying to blame 'us' for his evil is tantamount to excusing that evil.
In this, as is often the case, the far left and far right find common cause.
And correspondingly centre left and centre right have found common ground in supporting self determination and the right of Ukraine to decide its own future. This is another driver on realignment of the electorate - not dissimilar to how the culture war approach has been pushed by the right as a wedge to split social liberals and conservatives. Interesting times.
In terms of Ukraine, the problem as I see it, is that the west is likely to tire of spending endless amounts of money on ammunition and tech which get rapidly depleted and the enthusiasm for the war does not extend to going to actually send people to fight and die in a trench conflict. This is what Putin is saying and he will probably turn out to be correct. In the end it may not be all that useful to think of these conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' because often the 'right' side lose. Looking for ways of avoiding these conflicts, or bringing them to an end in some way isn't 'victim blaming' it is just being realistic.
In translation, give Putin what he wants, because you can’t defeat him.
It isn't a realist view to seek to avoid conflict when the conflict is already happening. Halting fighting by encouraging stalemate or surrender is not avoiding that conflict. In fact it freezes it and makes aggressors realise it works so more will try it.
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
The suggestion is not for an 'immediate halt' to the fighting, it is to try and bring the situation to a conclusion, probably in some kind of freeze as has been said before, without compromising the ability of Ukraine to defend itself going forward. In hindsight it would probably have been better to do that in the aftermath of the previous military successes. The problem is the mindset that 'we must do this because it is right'. This applies amongst the people who advocate it as long as it is abstract amounts of money, it disappears at the point where they actually need to go and die, or send their children to go and die, which of course they will find reasons not to do.
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
You may not be advocating an immediate halt. Many do, directly or by proposing options which lead to it by compromising defence.
I think that what I am suggesting is probably the policy we are trying to enact although whenever this is specifically aired in public it gets shouted down as appeasement and selling Ukraine out. A lot of posters on here just repeat propoganda about 'beating Russia back', in the same way as they repeat 'woke' talking points, whether they are aware of it or not.
I think it's an incorrect calculation, for two reasons.
Russia doesn't want a deal, as they've made pretty clear - or rather they do, but the deal is that we give up and they don't. Any 'freeze' in current circumstances just leaves us with the same problem.
And secondly, the Russian invasion can be beaten, at a cost which is likely to be less than that of trying to maintain some sort of 'frozen' conflict.
If you do not mind, I'll add some more:
3) Russia has shown its territorial and power ambitions go much further than just Ukraine. Over the last two decades, we have folded every time, and Russia then picks a new fight - and each time, it gets riskier for us.
4) It will encourage other countries with territorial ambitions to perform similar adventures, knowing that the 'west' will not do much to stop them - and they can calculate the costs of the few actions we do make, such as sanctions, in advance. There *will* come a time when those territorial ambitions come into conflict with us, and at that point the cost of that conflict will be much, much greater.
5) Russia is untrustworthy. It lies repeatedly, and those lies are repeated, even on here. Take (1) as an example. How can we trust them that any frozen conflict will remain frozen?
Then there are a load of other issues, such as self-determination and simple right and wrong.
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
They probably should have made barring for this reason require a conviction. But legally did they?
Questions of eligibility are unfortunately legal questions. You have to be, what, 35 to run for President? And a natural born citizen? If a party picked a candidate and then it transpired they were 34 and not natural born then they might be about to win the biggest landslide in history but they'd be ineligible to run and a court would rule on that.
Other questions of eligibility criteria are presumably no different, including on insurrection.
But I fully expect the SC to find a way around this so that in practice a conviction would be necessary, even if that is not the legal reason they go with.
Technical point but being underage doesn't prevent anyone from being elected to the presidency; it prevents them from serving. As soon as they reach 35 (and took the oath), they'd become president. Obviously, someone under a lifetime bar, such as an immigrant, couldn't qualify part way through. The insurrection bar can however be lifted by a 2/3rds vote in Congress so the same rules as being underage should apply. The provision for an acting president in the event of the president not qualifying or not having been elected is dealt with in Section 3 of the 20th Amendment -
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
On that basis, Trump should be on the ballot.
Did you read the rulings? They cover this, both these states have laws that you shouldn't put someone on the ballot unless they're eligible to serve.
That said, this won't necessarily be true in all the states, and in some it'll be true of the general election ballot but not the primary ballot.
Comments
Any senior lawyer - such as a SC judge - will inevitably have been involved in the most important and controversial cases during their career.
If they weren’t they probably aren’t good enough to serve on the bench
To push this argument is to undermine the notion that the SC strives to be independent and rule on the cases before then without fear or favour. It politicises the court in a way that shouldn’t be done
I don't know much about what's been happening in Britain what with living way over here but one thing to check would be whether anything happened around 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 that might increase the number of people who had to apply for visas.
I think only Alito and Thomas are so unmoored by law and precedent to completely ignore that. But the conservative majority could probably cobble together some sort of due process argument, and claim (as in Bush v Gore) that it is not to set any precedent.
On the first, a finding that the President is not ‘an officer’ under the Constitution would have all sorts of malign consequences beyond this case, and I think it’s 50/50 whether the conservatives on the court would ignore that. Other than Thomas and Alito, who’ll probably embrace the idea with enthusiasm.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
They're quite insane.
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
There are lots of hurdles to qualify to stand for US President.
Is it wrong that AOC isn’t eligible?
Is it wrong that Arnie isn’t eligible?
Similarly the 14th amendment disqualifies anyone who has engaged in insurrection from standing for office. It’s not a criminal sanction.
There’s very little chance Thomas will recuse, and less still that both he and Alito would find against Trump.
As for the decision, it seems more likely than not that the majority will find for Trump.
They all have their own political agendas rather than being slavish to Trump or Biden, bar one or two, but collectively do they want the Supreme Court to decide the election outcome? They'll find a way out.
That seems reasonable
The first part of your argument it quite correct, but it’s rather more than a coincidence that all three were conservative activists involved in the most controversial election case in the last half century.
The notion that the SC strives to be some kind if neutral arbiter was undermined some time ago. Just look at the polling on public trust in the court.
CO court says “guilty of engaging in insurrection but not an officer”
CO Supreme Court says “nah he’s an officer” and therefore is disbarred
CO Secretary of State stays that decision until the SCOTUS has ruled or declined to take the case (in the latter scenario the the COSC ruling stands and he is off the ballot)
However, if SCOTUS does not rule before Jan 5 and does not decline the case (which is effectively a decision) by then, the the CO SoS will certify the candidates for the primary INCLUDING Trump.
What have I missed?
The question is whether letting it happen and doing nothing is best, regrettably or otherwise.
In 2014 the answer for the world was yes. 2022 showed that was a big mistake. Now in 2024 people are deciding to give 2014 a try again.
No it's not easy, Russia is in this for the long haul and are not pushovers, and The West cannot bankroll forever.
But an immediate halt to fighting is not without cost either.
it also automatically bars people who are foreign born or who are under 35 automatically. this is an extension of the principle.
what can be, and is, in question is whether what Trump did constitutes an insurrection. two courts have said yes but the supreme court will have to decide on it ultimately.
Common sense says you need a conviction. Honestly this isn’t hard. It’s Trump driving people mad
The left and the anti-Trump right is contorting itself into obscene positions to try and exclude him from the ballot; I understand the motivation but this course seems perilously amoral and probably illegal and I’m sure SCOTUS will - rightly - shut it down
Because who’s next? What if the Alabama Supreme Court doesn’t like the look of a democratic contender? Strike him/her off the ballot? Why not?
This is a case of the government setting out to do something, doing it, and then getting angry and confused it happened.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-education-strategy-2021-update/international-education-strategy-2021-update-supporting-recovery-driving-growth
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection
That’s a serious crime and it requires a jury. Trump has not been convicted by a jury. By all means put him on trial - he’s quite possibly guilty (I can see arguments both ways) - but until that point he is a legitimate candidate and these devious efforts to exclude him look corrupt - and counter productive
Is it better for Richi to lose in the Spring or in the Autumn?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/31/eve-of-election-year-rishi-sunak-faces-dilemma
Questions of eligibility are unfortunately legal questions. You have to be, what, 35 to run for President? And a natural born citizen? If a party picked a candidate and then it transpired they were 34 and not natural born then they might be about to win the biggest landslide in history but they'd be ineligible to run and a court would rule on that.
Other questions of eligibility criteria are presumably no different, including on insurrection.
But I fully expect the SC to find a way around this so that in practice a conviction would be necessary, even if that is not the legal reason they go with.
The legal question here AIUI is whether this clause of the constitution is "self executing", i.e. is it like the age limit, and just applies, or does it need Congress to pass a law about insurrection and somebody to be convicted for it to apply? The various courts did consider this, and I think even though perhaps the plaintiffs, media and some forum posters might be suffering from Trump induced madness, it's harder to argue that state supreme courts also are so suffering to the extent that they produce legally incorrect decisions.
Separately from that is the political/public question of "even if Trump could be excluded from some state ballots, is it a good idea to do it?". I'm not sure about that but it could certainly get very messy and especially given the timeframe I lean towards "bad idea". If we were discussing this in early 2021 it would be different.
However, any half-competent would-be dictator would have ensured that arrangements were reliably sub-contracted to someone with a bit of military understanding, and given an end goal. Trump did neither. He brought the mob in, lit the match and then retired to watch, presumably on the assumption that events would take care of themselves without his involvement.
What was the mob meant to do? Either he didn't know himself or he never allowed it to be communicated - and consequently the mob itself didn't know what to do or where to go once inside. Was it simply meant to intimidate by its presence? Was it supposed to physically intervene in the vote? If so, how? Lock up pro-Biden congressmen and senators? And Pence (both to affect the vote and to forestall any 25th Amendment invocation)? Kill them? Who can say? And that's the only reason it failed.
But having failed, Trump can credibly claim that he wasn't directly and actively involved. It's not a slam-dunk case by any means but it's probably sufficiently arguable for him to win.
In the case of the US Constitution, in my view the 14th Amendment is pretty clear that it's balance of probabilities as the phrase used is "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies [of the USA]". The word "conviction" could have been used (and is elsewhere in the Constitution) but wasn't.
There is a pretty strong argument Trump reaches the balance of probabilities test. Even before the recent charges, and the January 6th Commission, a majority of the Senate voted to convict Trump of incitement to insurrection at his trial following his second impeachment.
Whilst I have some sympathy with your "have an election" plea, that simply isn't what the US Constitution says - it prevents people from holding office in some circumstances. If the US people want to decide to elect a 34 year old Frenchman as President, they can't as he's disqualified on two grounds.
As for the Alabama court, yes, if the candidate aided insurrection then yes they should be struck off.
Kemi Badenoch most favoured by Tory members as next leader in @ConHome survey
Badenoch 38%
Mordaunt 23%
Braverman 15%
Cleverly 8%
The real failure is on the part of the criminal justice system which has failed to hold Trump to account for January 6th in 3 years. If it had the US would not be having this debate. Several states have refused to make orders for the same reason as you have set out: they do not think it is the courts who should decide who can be elected (although 2000 was arguably an exception to that).
The decision of the SC is ultimately a political one rather than a legal one. My guess is that they will let him run but the law, such as it is, is not on his side.
Everything you need to know about Trump and the 14th Amendment
It’s ok to feel confused. It’s confusing. But we’ve got you covered.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/trump-14-amendment-ballot-troubles-00133318
Trump, of course, has people argue even if he is guilty of crimes charging him was wrong because he is running for office, in effect saying politicians are above the law, so it'd be impossible to get convictions in any case.
And I'm not wound up by it - just amused.
.. In a key exchange that Portnoy found in the 1866 Senate debate, Sen. REVERDY JOHNSON (D-Md.) asked why the offices of president and vice president had been omitted.
Sen. LOT MORRILL (R-Maine) quickly clarified, Portnoy notes: “‘Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,’ Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.”
A second quote unearthed by Portnoy sheds light on another major question the courts have grappled with: Was Section 3 meant simply to bar insurrectionists associated with the recently concluded Civil War? Or was it a prospective prohibition for insurrections yet to come?
Here’s what Sen. PETER VAN WINKLE (R-W.Va.) had to say about that: “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood….
Incidentally I had a (presumably paid) facebook ad from a charity that claimed to be linked to the UN stating that the refugee convention allowed people to flee Ukraine where they had lost their home and faced persecution. From what exactly? The Zelensky regime? The Russians are laughing at us.
OT: BTW just finished the multiauthor book on Smeaton the C18 engineer, edited by P. W. Skempton. I knew about the Eddystone lighthouse of course (models in the museum in Edinburgh) other works of his (Forth-Clyde Canal) but the book was full of new insights, and I had not realised his role in quantitative analysis of kinetic energy, Newcomen engine optimisation, and so on. Extraordinary.
If they have a rule saying X they are going to test it eventually and have some say X is a bad idea but it is what it is, and others who argue X somehow means Y, or that Z is more important than X.
On Trump's eligibility I reckon they go for Z - sidesteps the issue without saying X does not apply at all, just makes it pointless in practice, and means people get to vote.
Essentially, they argue that the President is treated as an "officer" of the United States elsewhere in the Constitution whereas the other roles mentioned are not (Senators and Representatives are "members" of a body rather than "officers", and Electors clearly aren't officers - indeed an officer of the US cannot be an Elector). That makes sense of explicitly mentioning those three roles and then a catch-all for "officers". They further note that the framers of the 14th Amendment fairly clearly took it as a given that "officers" included the President (although conservatives may put limited weight on that).
If you were the British establishment, would you allow Sunak to hold an election then? Sunak cannot act unilaterally - ultimately he has to ask the King for permission - and that rather sinks November or even October.
The Trump insurgency is a clear and present danger to the west, NATO, British interests on a massive level. There will be Firm Pressure from the establishment to get our election done and the government functional long before we get into what could be at best a turbulent period and at worst, who knows?
The two senior lawyers who originally proposed the idea are a Democrat and a Republican. And there are plenty of senior Democrats arguing it should have been left for the electorate to decide.
That there is a strong legal case is a fact, though, and it needs addressing by the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
Trump does not respect the ballot box and the US Constitution. This is not business as usual.
The only reason that he is still in the game is that the contemporary right lacks the nerve to stand up to him.
To answer the question of why, most people think of new students as 18 year olds, whereas a lot of the overseas student recruitment, that pays for the universities and subsidises our taxes, is in the postgraduate sector, where mid to late twenties with a family would not be at all unusual.
I can't see this series ending like that unless they've changed the writers or something, they'll have another twist.
The entire point of SCOTUS is to ensure that the US Constitution means the same in different states. Even an ultra-conservative, state rights judge would accept that, and this is perhaps the textbook case of where a consistent approach is absolutely required.
The moment to stop Trump cleanly was the Senate trial. Only 10 GOP senators were needed to reach the supermajority required to convict.
Because of that mistake and Trumps self-serving ego, the US is on the brink.
Thanks, I hadn't heard of that book. It was a fascinating period of history, where an intelligent person with funding could make advances in radically different areas of science and knowledge. See also Robert Hooke a century or two earlier.
I think that's exceedingly difficult nowadays, as scientific knowledge has become ever deeper and more specialised. Sadly.
UK’s pension regime makes investment nigh-on impossible. A radical reform under Labour would turbo-charge the economy
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/31/britain-stuck-in-doom-loop-system-rigged-against-growth-that-needs-to-change
Not just Liz Truss then.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
On that basis, Trump should be on the ballot.
The big increase is in taught MSc courses at less well known universities, and from Middle East, Nigeria and the Sub-continent.
Instead here we are 3 years later and the GOP base and a majority of its representatives a) think the election was indeed rigged, b) don't think anything bad happened on January 6th (unless they think it was an FBI false flag) and c) Trump is stronger than ever with the party.
If refusing to accept the results of the election and encouraging what ended up being violent resistance to the transfer of power won't convict in the Senate nothing will (I believe some did go so far as to say the impeachment process is inherently a bad thing to have, though curiously that doesn't apply to Democrats I imagine).
The 14th amendment does, as it happens, include a citizenship clause. But that was specifically about overturning Dred Scott, which denied citizenship rights to all black people, not about the Presidency (albeit plainly Obama couldn't have been President but for Dred Scott being overturned).
I think Germany, France (with reservations), Italy and parts of the US right and left believe the former; the US hawks, the UK and most of Eastern Europe believe the latter.
This is informed by which lessons you take from history too. Germany saw first hand the end of the Cold War through a process of opening up and mutual friendship. Italy’s history teaches it to be wary of facing up against major powers. Britain remembers Munich and appeasement, and of course Salisbury. Eastern Europeans have a whole history that teaches them Russia will always want a piece of them.
Russia doesn't want a deal, as they've made pretty clear - or rather they do, but the deal is that we give up and they don't.
Any 'freeze' in current circumstances just leaves us with the same problem.
And secondly, the Russian invasion can be beaten, at a cost which is likely to be less than that of trying to maintain some sort of 'frozen' conflict.
It fascinates me how much of the Victorian (and earlier) architecture still survives. Another interesting character is one John Passmore Edwards and he links west Cornwall to Newham having funded the construction of buildings in St Ives and East Ham (the Newham Town Hall and the original library were both named after him).
He was a proper philanthropist from a time when those with wealth reasoned it was their duty to help those in need - now, we line up to make the wealthy even wealthier through tax cuts and the belief is "the State" should do all the providing for the poor. Wouldn't be a bad thing is we re-discovered the spirit of philanthrophy.
If we stop funding Ukraine (or more accurately the USA) that is not appeasement, even if it is cowardly.
Apart from anything else, I think the Ukranians would fight on.
3) Russia has shown its territorial and power ambitions go much further than just Ukraine. Over the last two decades, we have folded every time, and Russia then picks a new fight - and each time, it gets riskier for us.
4) It will encourage other countries with territorial ambitions to perform similar adventures, knowing that the 'west' will not do much to stop them - and they can calculate the costs of the few actions we do make, such as sanctions, in advance. There *will* come a time when those territorial ambitions come into conflict with us, and at that point the cost of that conflict will be much, much greater.
5) Russia is untrustworthy. It lies repeatedly, and those lies are repeated, even on here. Take (1) as an example. How can we trust them that any frozen conflict will remain frozen?
Then there are a load of other issues, such as self-determination and simple right and wrong.
(1): https://twitter.com/EmbassyofRussia/status/1740995090695246037
That said, this won't necessarily be true in all the states, and in some it'll be true of the general election ballot but not the primary ballot.