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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
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.
They had no need to, since the President is an officer (it literally says so dozens of times in the document) so it would be redundant to say so. He's covered by the term officer, which members of Congress are not.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follow
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Indeed, and as @Luckyguy1983 points out, she was "right" from a certain point of view. That certain point of view is that lack of growth is bad and that her changes would increase growth dramatically. In that she was correct. Her problem was that UK is so indebted that the value of the pound and market confidence must be maintained, and she lost both. The post of "Prime Minister" is not absolutely powerful (except for the nukes) and she was naive in thinking she could issue commands without incurring a cost. Steve Richards points out that political space is necessary for big changes, and she hadn't built up enough political credit to enact her changes
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
It has to be a court. That court might include a jury of 12 randoms or it might be (for example) the 9 most senior judges in the land.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
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.
You are wrong.
"Appeasement, in an international context, is a diplomatic policy of making political, material, or territorial concessions to an aggressive power to avoid conflict."
What happened before WW2 was an example of appeasement, but not its definition.
And what we are hearing from many of the non-funders *is* appeasement - the Ukrainians should give up territory for peace. Not the appeasers' territory, obviously. It's easy to tell someone else to give up *their* stuff...
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.
They had no need to, since the President is an officer (it literally says so dozens of times in the document) so it would be redundant to say so. He's covered by the term officer, which members of Congress are not.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follow
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
It would be pretty ridiculous to argue someone holding an office is not an officer, but I'm fairly confident jurists have decided even more ridiculous interpretations are the case before.
Feels like Roberts at least would prefer something a bit more robust than that to get around this problem though.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
It has to be a court. That court might include a jury of 12 randoms or it might be (for example) the 9 most senior judges in the land.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
To convict someone of a criminal offence carrying a 10 year sentence, it has to be a jury
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.
Trump is contingently eligible to serve, depending on Congress's will.
I did make that point downthread about state law varying from place to place. But no, I've not read the judgement or studied either state's law in that depth.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
It has to be a court. That court might include a jury of 12 randoms or it might be (for example) the 9 most senior judges in the land.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
To convict someone of a criminal offence carrying a 10 year sentence, it has to be a jury
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
It has to be a court. That court might include a jury of 12 randoms or it might be (for example) the 9 most senior judges in the land.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
One interesting point specific to the US system is whether or not he would be 'written in' if there were a bar on him being on the paper. One can well imagine a situation where he is not an official candidate in the Republican primaries but wins on 'write ins'. Only Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma and South Dakota do not allow write in candidates.
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.
Trump is contingently eligible to serve, depending on Congress's will.
I did make that point downthread about state law varying from place to place. But no, I've not read the judgement or studied either state's law in that depth.
Seriously, read either the Maine one or the Colorado Supreme Court one, they're really well-written and if you skip the procedural parts and go straight to the point then they won't take any longer to read than reading this thread.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
It has to be a court. That court might include a jury of 12 randoms or it might be (for example) the 9 most senior judges in the land.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
To convict someone of a criminal offence carrying a 10 year sentence, it has to be a jury
Nope, judges will work well here.
But thats not the law
The right to a jury trial is actually in the US Bill of Rights:
"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
Irrespective of the merits of the Trump insurrection exclusion point the US's democratic system is creaking pretty alarmingly. Something like 25%-50% do not believe elections are conducted fairly, and the ability to legally challenge processes and decisions is becoming expected rather than a right to exercise when there are problems, and the willingness of legislators to place their thumb on the scales with gerrymandering or state level election rules seems to be increasing, as well as potential willingness to just ignore an outcome.
The key actors there are very much Trumpists, but that in itself causes a reaction among opponents which is injurious to democracy.
No, the USA is not about to collapse, and honestly their system has held up remarkably well considering all the travails of the last 250 years, but its also in a much worse state than I think many of them like to admit.
"A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution.[1] It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.
Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments)."
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
The entire purpose of the clause was that you didn’t need a trial. Have you read any of the articles that people have helpfully posted or are you just fulminating?
It wasn’t a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado. The judges happen to have been appointed by a democrat governor but they are of mixed registered affiliation/independent status
And another state court would need to convince the judges and, ultimately SCOTUS, that they are justified in their actions
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
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.
I don't know the answers to this, but it'd be interesting to know the relative amount of taxation on a rich person like John Passmore Edwards back then, and on a person with similar income/business nowadays. My instinct was that it was much less.
ISTR that in the US, which in general has a much smaller tax burden on the rich, rates of philanthropy per capita is much higher. Might it be the more you tax someone, the less they feel able or morally due to give to charity, because you have less, and the money you pay as tax means the state should sort it out? P'haps.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
It has to be a court. That court might include a jury of 12 randoms or it might be (for example) the 9 most senior judges in the land.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
To convict someone of a criminal offence carrying a 10 year sentence, it has to be a jury
This isn’t a criminal conviction and will not result in jail time. It’s a qualification criteria based on balance of probabilities - a lower bar than a criminal case
"A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution.[1] It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.
Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments)."
If you care about the future of right-wing politics, you would be better served spending your talents to confront and defeat Trump within the right-wing community, rather than Googling ways to use the US Constitution to get him off so that he might be free to undermine it still further.
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.
I doubt that any of you would join up to go in to WW1 style trench warfare in Ukraine or send your family to do it, or send our own regular troops there to die. That is what the war is at the moment and Ukraine has run out of men. So what you are actually saying is that we should throw everything in to a technical escalation of the conflict through supplying trillions of pounds worth of planes, missiles, bombs etc to try and give the Ukrainians an advantage. But then we encounter the 'Russia has a nuclear bomb' problem once again and it goes around in circles forever like this.
The strategic problem is that there is no broad appetite in the west for the current situation to carry on indefinitely, it is a destabilising situation, whereas for Putin the opposite is true, the current iteration of the war is a stabilising thing, it can run on and on forever.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
The entire purpose of the clause was that you didn’t need a trial. Have you read any of the articles that people have helpfully posted or are you just fulminating?
It wasn’t a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado. The judges happen to have been appointed by a democrat governor but they are of mixed registered affiliation/independent status
And another state court would need to convince the judges and, ultimately SCOTUS, that they are justified in their actions
The clause looks deeply ambiguous to me, and common sense says that you need a conviction. By a jury. Before you can fuck around with the democratic process to the extent of excluding candidates you don't like
This is hardly a radical position. Here's a NYT opinion piece that says exactly this - the clause is ambiguous and this particular attempt to bar Trump is wrong - and perilously divisive
"The Supreme Court Should Overturn the Colorado Ruling Unanimously"
"Some aspects of American election law are perfectly clear — like the rule that prohibits candidates from becoming president before they turn 35 — but many others are invitations to judges to resolve uncertainty as they see fit, based in part on their own politics. Take Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which blocks insurrectionists from running for office, a provision originally aimed at former Confederates in the wake of the Civil War. There may well be some instances in which the very survival of a democratic regime is at stake if noxious candidates or parties are not banned, as in West Germany after World War II. But in this case, what Section 3 requires is far from straightforward. Keeping Mr. Trump off the ballot could put democracy at more risk rather than less.
"Part of the danger lies in the fact that what actually happened on Jan. 6 — and especially Mr. Trump’s exact role beyond months of election denial and entreaties to government officials to side with him — is still too broadly contested. The Colorado court deferred to a lower court on the facts, but it was a bench trial, meaning that no jury ever assessed what happened, and that many Americans still believe Mr. Trump did nothing wrong. A Supreme Court that affirms the Colorado ruling would have to succeed in constructing a consensual narrative where others — including armies of journalists, the Jan. 6 commission and recent indictments — have failed."
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.
Smeaton was also responsible for designing and building the causeway across the Trent flood plain north of Newark. It is known as Smeaton's Arches and is still in use today as the old Great North Road (although the A1 now bypasses Newark and the arches further to the East).
It is a remarkble feat of engineering given the massive floods that periodically sweep the Trent valley every decade or so.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
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.
I doubt that any of you would join up to go in to WW1 style trench warfare in Ukraine or send your family to do it, or send our own regular troops there to die. That is what the war is at the moment and Ukraine has run out of men. So what you are actually saying is that we should throw everything in to a technical escalation of the conflict through supplying trillions of pounds worth of planes, missiles, bombs etc to try and give the Ukrainians an advantage. But then we encounter the 'Russia has a nuclear bomb' problem once again and it goes around in circles forever like this.
The strategic problem is that there is no broad appetite in the west for the current situation to carry on indefinitely, it is a destabilising situation, whereas for Putin the opposite is true, the current iteration of the war is a stabilising thing, it can run on and on forever.
I agree with the assessment of the strategic problem you present about the lack of broad appetite in the West and accordingly that this is a thonry geopolitical issue to realistically confront, but are we really still at the stage where going 'Bwah, you wouldn't go die in a Ukrainian trench yourself!' is seen as some kind of great argument?
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.
Smeaton was also responsible for designing and building the causeway across the Trent flood plain north of Newark. It is known as Smeaton's Arches and is still in use today as the old Great North Road (although the A1 now bypasses Newark and the arches further to the East).
It is a remarkble feat of engineering given the massive floods that periodically sweep the Trent valley every decade or so.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS needs to rule very soon, and I am pretty certain which way it will go
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
Trump won the biggest majority in the EC for the GOP since Reagan in 2016, as Boris won the biggest Conservative majority since Thatcher in 2019.
Like them or not there are many white working class voters who only voted Conservative when led by Boris and will only vote Republican when led by Trump
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
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.
I don't know the answers to this, but it'd be interesting to know the relative amount of taxation on a rich person like John Passmore Edwards back then, and on a person with similar income/business nowadays. My instinct was that it was much less.
ISTR that in the US, which in general has a much smaller tax burden on the rich, rates of philanthropy per capita is much higher. Might it be the more you tax someone, the less they feel able or morally due to give to charity, because you have less, and the money you pay as tax means the state should sort it out? P'haps.
You may well be right and in the 18th and 19th centuries, "the State" was much less than it is now and philanthrophy was a double edge sword. Providing factory workers with decent accommodation and a rudimentary level of education made them more productive and therefore brought in more profit so it wasn't entirely charitable.
Arguably, it was the Asquith Liberal Government which instigated the first aspects of the "welfare state" though it was the first World War which really saw the State expand its control over people and their lives as the requirement to mobilise and maintain and manage a modern industrial warfare required resources on a hitherto unprecedented scale.
That being said, I don't see those looking to reduce the size of the State arguing for a more philanthropic culture among the wealthy to plug the gaps left by the retreating State. One aspect of this is privatisation but as we've seen private companies can't or won't operate to the same profit or loss levels as local councils. In effect, privatisation has become State subsidy especially in the transport sector - it's also my experience the private sector only wants to do the profitable work - the stuff that doesn't make money, for example, running a service to a local village or negotiating a lease for a daycare charity to take space at a village hall, is neglected or poorly understood.
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
"A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution.[1] It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.
Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments)."
If you care about the future of right-wing politics, you would be better served spending your talents to confront and defeat Trump within the right-wing community, rather than Googling ways to use the US Constitution to get him off so that he might be free to undermine it still further.
I don't think American rightwing politics pivots on the opinions of a humble flint-knapper on an obscure UK politics blog
I am simply pointing out constitutional facts, as I see them; and plenty of centrists and lefty Americans agree with me: this legal chicanery is misguided and dangerous
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
He doesn't think he lost and spins yarns to convince millions of voters (on which GOP leaders depend) of the same opinion. The moment that you describe cannot happen. When Trump loses again, there will be another bullshit reason. There will be further unrest. The cycle will repeat and deepen. Donald Jnr will pick up the baton.
By failing to stand up to Trump the right constructed a cage for themselves.
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.
They had no need to, since the President is an officer (it literally says so dozens of times in the document) so it would be redundant to say so. He's covered by the term officer, which members of Congress are not.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follow
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
It would be pretty ridiculous to argue someone holding an office is not an officer, but I'm fairly confident jurists have decided even more ridiculous interpretations are the case before.
Feels like Roberts at least would prefer something a bit more robust than that to get around this problem though.
There are other texts that refer to an “Officer of the US” as someone appointed by the President, as opposed to necessarily including the President himself.
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.
And was always pretty likely to.
It was designed to. How can you repatriate powers if you have nobody to administer them? Billions spent on replicating existing and more efficient EU structures by the party of small government!
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
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?
Whether a UK general election is held next May or autumn, whether Trump is on most state ballots or not, GOP nominee or not and whether Biden is re elected or not the next US President will not be inaugurated until January 2025.
So almost certainly months after the UK general election whoever is the PM after it and has to deal with that President
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
She isn't 35. Born October 13 1989.
She’s 34 now, and would be eligible by Election Day in November 2024.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
he barely won in 2016 remember. both Clinton and Biden got more votes than him.
While Biden would have lost with 40000ish votes swinging to Trump in only 3 states a similar swing of about 80000 votes in 3 states in 2016 to Clinton would have changed that outcome.
I am not convinced at all that the Supreme Court will decide against Trump. Not because of some partisan party-political leaning (which is often overstated as opposed to ideological leaning) but because it will not be keen to wade into electoral politics, and I suspect that given there is ambiguity and debate it will err on the side of caution. But stranger things have happened.
What I disagree with is that the courts have no ability (or should have no ability) to decide a candidate's eligibility for office in a constitutional democracy. It is not anti-democratic or an abuse of power for properly constituted courts to bar candidates if the law of the land suggests they may do so. If the people do not like it, then they can elect politicians (or change the constitution) to amend the law.
See also Rwanda. It is not anti-democratic for courts to rule against the democratically elected government for failure to consider legal obligations to which it is subject. Now if the public elect a government to amend those obligations then that government has a mandate, but it must also amend them in such a way as to allow the courts to put its will into effect.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
He doesn't think he lost and spins yarns to convince millions of voters (on which GOP leaders depend) of the same opinion. The moment that you describe cannot happen. When Trump loses again, there will be another bullshit reason. There will be further unrest. The cycle will repeat and deepen. Donald Jnr will pick up the baton.
By failing to stand up to Trump the right constructed a cage for themselves.
The damage from Trump will be lasting, I think people underestimate just how devastating normalising refusing to concede and seeking to prevent transfer of power really was, but I am more confident Don jr won't be able to sustain things.
I don't understand why so many people adore Trump, who is astonishingly thin skinned, snowkflakey, and self obsessed, but they do adore (and fear) him, in some way he charismatically draws them to him.
Junior? When he tries to act like his dad he seems like he is pretending. He'd have a following, but the minority of anti-Trump Republicans would find it much easier to draw people from him.
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
She's 34. You have to be 35 or older.
She'll be 35 by the inauguration.
I'm assuming given they mentioned Arnie as well that the poster thinks AOC as a Puerto Rican isn't a 'natural born citizen.'
As it happens, however, she is (even Fox News accepts that) because any Puerto Rican born after 1899 is treated as a natural born US citizen.
I do hope she never becomes President or close to it though. She's not as bad as Trump (would be quite hard!) but she still has a distasteful 'if the voters don't agree with me the voters are wrong and must be ignored' which I don't think would serve the US in good stead.
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.
I doubt that any of you would join up to go in to WW1 style trench warfare in Ukraine or send your family to do it, or send our own regular troops there to die. That is what the war is at the moment and Ukraine has run out of men. So what you are actually saying is that we should throw everything in to a technical escalation of the conflict through supplying trillions of pounds worth of planes, missiles, bombs etc to try and give the Ukrainians an advantage. But then we encounter the 'Russia has a nuclear bomb' problem once again and it goes around in circles forever like this.
The strategic problem is that there is no broad appetite in the west for the current situation to carry on indefinitely, it is a destabilising situation, whereas for Putin the opposite is true, the current iteration of the war is a stabilising thing, it can run on and on forever.
It's not clear that Ukraine HAS run out of men. No-one has suggested spending trillions. The UK and France have already sent long range missiles without any escalation to nuclear weapons by Putin. I expect the same when it comes to modern aircraft. What means is there to stop the fighting? Ukraine capitulate? Fanciful. Ukraine accept the loss of currently occupied territories and be demilitarised so Putin could walk in again whenever he feels like it? Ludicrous.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.
A mistake the Americans appear to have made with their own constitutional setup, and one they overlooked when they sent a swarm of young economists to advise Russia post-1990.
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.
Smeaton was also responsible for designing and building the causeway across the Trent flood plain north of Newark. It is known as Smeaton's Arches and is still in use today as the old Great North Road (although the A1 now bypasses Newark and the arches further to the East).
It is a remarkble feat of engineering given the massive floods that periodically sweep the Trent valley every decade or so.
Good morning all.
York seems to need one !
(Incidentally that incident where 3 people died in the River Esk near Glaisdale near turns out to be members of a 4x4 club out on a jaunt in the dangerous weather who chose to try and drive across a 4ft deep ford across a swollen - maybe in spate - river.
All the stuff about "tragic accident" and "4x4 plunged into a river" is - as usual - garbage, though I'd accept "tragic incident".
IMO it's important to question these false narratives.
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
She isn't 35. Born October 13 1989.
She’s 34 now, and would be eligible by Election Day in November 2024.
Yeah. I thought that too. Would she be eligible to take part in the Primaries though? Not wishing to open up another legal front...
"A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution.[1] It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.
Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments)."
If you care about the future of right-wing politics, you would be better served spending your talents to confront and defeat Trump within the right-wing community, rather than Googling ways to use the US Constitution to get him off so that he might be free to undermine it still further.
I don't think American rightwing politics pivots on the opinions of a humble flint-knapper on an obscure UK politics blog
I am simply pointing out constitutional facts, as I see them; and plenty of centrists and lefty Americans agree with me: this legal chicanery is misguided and dangerous
Of course, you are one voice, but one of many that could be used to find a way out of the maze for the right rather than deepen its woes.
Sometimes, you steer very close to being a Trump apologist. Folks like yourself need to rediscover the energy of the right from the 1980s. Watch a bit of Reagan to see the difference and where you need to be. It's a world apart from where the right are today.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
Trump won the biggest majority in the EC for the GOP since Reagan in 2016, as Boris won the biggest Conservative majority since Thatcher in 2019.
Like them or not there are many white working class voters who only voted Conservative when led by Boris and will only vote Republican when led by Trump
It's not a question of whether I like them or not - I'm well aware had Boris Johnson formed his own party or joined with Farage they would have posed an existential threat to the Conservatives. Likewise, an independent Trump candidature would, as happened with Theodore Roosevelt, likely lead to a Democratic landslide.
The question for both the Republican and Conservative parties is where do you go from Trump and Johnson respectively? The Conservative Parliamentary Party threw out Johnson (and we know grassroots Conservatives still resent and regret it much as they did the ousting of Thatcher in 1990).
Assuming there's a defeat, the scale of that defeat will be the key factor in determining where the Conservative Party goes after the next election. There's a world of difference between 150 seats and 250 seats and the perspective that would bring.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS needs to rule very soon, and I am pretty certain which way it will go
I think I agree with Leon here. We are so used to democracy that we take it for granted, but if up to half the US population thinks that their preferred candidate has been barred from standing by the assessment of judges of his behaviour, a significant number will be disillusioned with the system altogether, and that's a very bad thing. It would narrow the difference from Russia, where anyone seriously critical of Putin is prevented on flimsy grounds from standing at all. The fact that most of us here think Trump is dangerous and nuts shouldn't blind us to the fact that a large chunk of the electorate would like to vote for him.
A pragmatic reason for hoping it doesn't get to SCOTUS before the election is that if they rule in his favo(u)r it will give his candidacy a significant boost. "The Supreme Court says he's OK, what's your problem?" will be the take of supporters, even if the ruling is on narrow legal grounds.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
She isn't 35. Born October 13 1989.
She’s 34 now, and would be eligible by Election Day in November 2024.
Yeah. I thought that too. Would she be eligible to take part in the Primaries though? Not wishing to open up another legal front...
Yes. She would be OK as eligible by Election Day.
Technically, she could still be elected even if under age and the Veep serve as acting president until her 35th birthday under the terms of the 22nd Amendment. But that would be even sillier than this nonsense about the President not being an officer.
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
She isn't 35. Born October 13 1989.
She’s 34 now, and would be eligible by Election Day in November 2024.
Yeah. I thought that too. Would she be eligible to take part in the Primaries though? Not wishing to open up another legal front...
Yes the only thing that matters is your age at the day of the inauguration..
AOC won't be running though her currently plan is a senate seat...
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.
How can you know?
The fact the Tories are polling worse now than when Boris resigned and polled even worse than now when Truss resigned
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS needs to rule very soon, and I am pretty certain which way it will go
I think I agree with Leon here. We are so used to democracy that we take it for granted, but if up to half the US population thinks that their preferred candidate has been barred from standing by the assessment of judges of his behaviour, a significant number will be disillusioned with the system altogether, and that's a very bad thing. It would narrow the difference from Russia, where anyone seriously critical of Putin is prevented on flimsy grounds from standing at all. The fact that most of us here think Trump is dangerous and nuts shouldn't blind us to the fact that a large chunk of the electorate would like to vote for him.
It is time for the Right to attack Trump. They have gone along with it for too long. That's the answer. It has always been the answer.
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.
How can you know?
The fact the Tories are polling worse now than when Boris resigned and polled even worse than now when Truss resigned
If the election is in the autumn I expect you will look back of the polling now and think what might have been...
Remember your typical Tory vote is dying at a faster rate than any other party simply because they are older and mainly retired....
It's amazing to realise we're only a year and a week away from another riot in DC (I'm assuming whether Trump wins or loses his supporters will lose control, albeit one will be a celebratory riot on certification day).
Brazil provides an analogous case. Its political apparatus is all modelled on the US's, and without any fannying about its Supreme Court banned Bolsonaro from standing for political office for eight years. For me, it shows that Brazil takes threats to its democracy rather more seriously than the USA does.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
It has to be a court. That court might include a jury of 12 randoms or it might be (for example) the 9 most senior judges in the land.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
As pointed out above, that was considered and the fact that some States have laws banning candidates who are unable to serve is settled law in the US (p31 and 32 from the Colorado judgement):
"Moreover, several courts have expressly upheld states’ ability to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from their presidential ballots. See id. (upholding California’s refusal to place a twenty-seven-year-old candidate on the presidential ballot); Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 947, 948–49 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming the Secretary’s decision to exclude a naturalized citizen from the presidential ballot); Socialist Workers Party of Ill. v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 109, 113 (N.D. Ill. 1972) (per curiam) (affirming Illinois’s exclusion of a thirty-one- year-old candidate from the presidential ballot).
As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” 495 F. App’x at 948"
Brazil provides an analogous case. Its political apparatus is all modelled on the US's, and without any fannying about its Supreme Court banned Bolsonaro from standing for political office for eight years. For me, it shows that Brazil takes threats to its democracy rather more seriously than the USA does.
And just to add that ruling came in around just six months after the Brazilian equivalent of the Capital riot.
Brazil provides an analogous case. Its political apparatus is all modelled on the US's, and without any fannying about its Supreme Court banned Bolsonaro from standing for political office for eight years. For me, it shows that Brazil takes threats to its democracy rather more seriously than the USA does.
The US Supreme court hasn't even ruled yet on Trump's eligibility to stand again
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.
How can you know?
The fact the Tories are polling worse now than when Boris resigned and polled even worse than now when Truss resigned
If the election is in the autumn I expect you will look back of the polling now and think what might have been...
Remember your typical Tory vote is dying at a faster rate than any other party simply because they are older and mainly retired....
However, younger voters tend not to be registered or actually vote at all, so Windsor, Bournemouth etc will safely stay blue
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS needs to rule very soon, and I am pretty certain which way it will go
I think I agree with Leon here. We are so used to democracy that we take it for granted, but if up to half the US population thinks that their preferred candidate has been barred from standing by the assessment of judges of his behaviour, a significant number will be disillusioned with the system altogether, and that's a very bad thing. It would narrow the difference from Russia, where anyone seriously critical of Putin is prevented on flimsy grounds from standing at all. The fact that most of us here think Trump is dangerous and nuts shouldn't blind us to the fact that a large chunk of the electorate would like to vote for him.
It is time for the Right to attack Trump. They have gone along with it for too long. That's the answer. It has always been the answer.
Some few do, but very very few. In terms of people who have recently been members of congress or the senate (or still are) it's the same names who speak out, the Liz Cheneys etc.
You have others who do speak out, like pretty much everyone who served in Trump's Cabinet, but most of those are still going to vote for him. Then there are other office holders who he often attacks like Kemp or DeSantis, but again they will be voting for him too.
So rather worringly the number of anti-Trump Republicans does not appear to be growing at all, not in any practical sense.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
I wonder about Lloyd Austin the Secretary of Defense. He looks pretty formidable and surely wouldn't take any cr*p from Donald.
From Wiki: "Austin holds the unique distinction of having commanded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the one-, two-, three- and four-star levels, and was the first African American to command a division, corps, and field army in combat. He is a recipient of the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for valor, for his actions during the Iraq invasion, as well as five Defense Distinguished Service Medal"
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.
The workaround to the Supreme Court having to decide on whether Trump should be barred from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment for which the arguments are compelling is, I'm suggesting, not to consider that point at all. Keep the scope of the judgment narrow and to the division of powers between states and the federal government. And then dismiss the case by ruling the state courts are not competent to decide who gets to be a candidate for president.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
That would show the Democrats in their true colours.
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.
How can you know?
The fact the Tories are polling worse now than when Boris resigned and polled even worse than now when Truss resigned
If the election is in the autumn I expect you will look back of the polling now and think what might have been...
Remember your typical Tory vote is dying at a faster rate than any other party simply because they are older and mainly retired....
A rather ludicrous comment considering in 1997 New Labour even won over 65s as well as most voters in every other age group.
By 2010 however the Tories won all age groups over 25.
Governments become unpopular and swing voters change their votes again, the fact old people lean more Tory and die off doesn't change 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
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.
The workaround to the Supreme Court having to decide on whether Trump should be barred from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment for which the arguments are compelling is, I'm suggesting, not to consider that point at all. Keep the scope of the judgment narrow and to the division of powers between states and the federal government. And then dismiss the case by ruling the state courts are not competent to decide who gets to be a candidate for president.
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.
How can you know?
The fact the Tories are polling worse now than when Boris resigned and polled even worse than now when Truss resigned
counterfactual: Boris (or Truss) weren't removed when they were.
For Boris, the sitting prime minister would have been suspended by the house of commons leading to a recall petition and a more chaotic change of leadership.
For Truss, the economy properly crashes leading to a VoNC in the government which passes marginally.
in either case (pick your own possible scenario if they didn't get kicked out) I would argue that the polls now would be worse for the Tories than they currently are.
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.
The workaround to the Supreme Court having to decide on whether Trump should be barred from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment for which the arguments are compelling is, I'm suggesting, not to consider that point at all. Keep the scope of the judgment narrow and to the division of powers between states and the federal government. And then dismiss the case by ruling the state courts are not competent to decide who gets to be a candidate for president.
But then it will be appealed to them anyway.
So I don't see that being a viable workaround.
They only need to forge a decision which will push any other questions beyond November 2023.
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.
The workaround to the Supreme Court having to decide on whether Trump should be barred from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment for which the arguments are compelling is, I'm suggesting, not to consider that point at all. Keep the scope of the judgment narrow and to the division of powers between states and the federal government. And then dismiss the case by ruling the state courts are not competent to decide who gets to be a candidate for president.
But then it will be appealed to them anyway.
So I don't see that being a viable workaround.
They only need to forge a decision which will push any other questions beyond November 2023.
They're two months too late already then.
But actually I think it would have to be January 2025 with the swearing in. I'm not sure they could punt it that far forward.
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.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS needs to rule very soon, and I am pretty certain which way it will go
I think I agree with Leon here. We are so used to democracy that we take it for granted, but if up to half the US population thinks that their preferred candidate has been barred from standing by the assessment of judges of his behaviour, a significant number will be disillusioned with the system altogether, and that's a very bad thing. It would narrow the difference from Russia, where anyone seriously critical of Putin is prevented on flimsy grounds from standing at all. The fact that most of us here think Trump is dangerous and nuts shouldn't blind us to the fact that a large chunk of the electorate would like to vote for him.
A pragmatic reason for hoping it doesn't get to SCOTUS before the election is that if they rule in his favo(u)r it will give his candidacy a significant boost. "The Supreme Court says he's OK, what's your problem?" will be the take of supporters, even if the ruling is on narrow legal grounds.
So what are you supposed to do if you're a judge hearing a challenge to his eligibility, just make up a spurious reason to throw it 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.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
I wonder about Lloyd Austin the Secretary of Defense. He looks pretty formidable and surely wouldn't take any cr*p from Donald.
From Wiki: "Austin holds the unique distinction of having commanded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the one-, two-, three- and four-star levels, and was the first African American to command a division, corps, and field army in combat. He is a recipient of the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for valor, for his actions during the Iraq invasion, as well as five Defense Distinguished Service Medal"
No problem with bone spurs there.
I think I have the right candidate to beat Trump
Tiffany Darwish, responsible for the 80s "shopping mall hit" - and number 1 single "I think we're alone now"; she is only 51, and has a completely unblemished political record
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.
The workaround to the Supreme Court having to decide on whether Trump should be barred from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment for which the arguments are compelling is, I'm suggesting, not to consider that point at all. Keep the scope of the judgment narrow and to the division of powers between states and the federal government. And then dismiss the case by ruling the state courts are not competent to decide who gets to be a candidate for president.
but, in colorado at least, it's the ability to appear on the primary ballot which is a state matter. I suspect that the SCOTUS will say 'it's the power of the individual states to determine who appears on the primary but the power of the federal courts to bar people from the GE ballot'
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS needs to rule very soon, and I am pretty certain which way it will go
I think I agree with Leon here. We are so used to democracy that we take it for granted, but if up to half the US population thinks that their preferred candidate has been barred from standing by the assessment of judges of his behaviour, a significant number will be disillusioned with the system altogether, and that's a very bad thing. It would narrow the difference from Russia, where anyone seriously critical of Putin is prevented on flimsy grounds from standing at all. The fact that most of us here think Trump is dangerous and nuts shouldn't blind us to the fact that a large chunk of the electorate would like to vote for him.
A pragmatic reason for hoping it doesn't get to SCOTUS before the election is that if they rule in his favo(u)r it will give his candidacy a significant boost. "The Supreme Court says he's OK, what's your problem?" will be the take of supporters, even if the ruling is on narrow legal grounds.
I understand your point Nick, but the very point of the system is that the law is made and applied fairly.
If people don't like the law then they have the right to try and change it, but there is a democratic and constitutional process to follow.
In the UK, there are a great many people who would support lots of things that a vast web of obligations (in our case, generally international) would prevent. Rwanda is a good example of this. People have every right to support politicians who want to change that, but the fact that people wish the obligation were not there is not enough to make it so.
I have no doubt that the US election will, one way or the other, create a number of catalysts for civil unrest in the US. But maybe people need to think more about persuading others to effect the change each side wants (at least in part), rather than pulling at both ends of the rope and tightening the knot.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
Trump won the biggest majority in the EC for the GOP since Reagan in 2016, as Boris won the biggest Conservative majority since Thatcher in 2019.
Like them or not there are many white working class voters who only voted Conservative when led by Boris and will only vote Republican when led by Trump
It's not a question of whether I like them or not - I'm well aware had Boris Johnson formed his own party or joined with Farage they would have posed an existential threat to the Conservatives. Likewise, an independent Trump candidature would, as happened with Theodore Roosevelt, likely lead to a Democratic landslide.
The question for both the Republican and Conservative parties is where do you go from Trump and Johnson respectively? The Conservative Parliamentary Party threw out Johnson (and we know grassroots Conservatives still resent and regret it much as they did the ousting of Thatcher in 1990).
Assuming there's a defeat, the scale of that defeat will be the key factor in determining where the Conservative Party goes after the next election. There's a world of difference between 150 seats and 250 seats and the perspective that would bring.
Once Trump goes I expect the GOP to be out of office for a generation much as the Tories may be out of power for a generation having removed Boris unless the likely next Labour government sees resurgent inflation and/or recession. Like him or not Boris would likely have lost much more narrowly than Sunak will and Truss would even if he had not won again as like Trump he appeals to blue-collar and working class voters other Conservative leaders wouldn't do.
Eugene Debs famously fought a Presidential campaign while in prison so even if Trump were incarcerated that wouldn't stop him.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
Trump was defeated. The electoral stake was put through still beating heart already. Didn't make an ounce of difference because he does not respect the ballot box or the US Constitution. That's the actual problem here. The idea that this man would give up after a second defeat is optimistic.
The man might not but the party might.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
Trump won the biggest majority in the EC for the GOP since Reagan in 2016, as Boris won the biggest Conservative majority since Thatcher in 2019.
Like them or not there are many white working class voters who only voted Conservative when led by Boris and will only vote Republican when led by Trump
It's not a question of whether I like them or not - I'm well aware had Boris Johnson formed his own party or joined with Farage they would have posed an existential threat to the Conservatives. Likewise, an independent Trump candidature would, as happened with Theodore Roosevelt, likely lead to a Democratic landslide.
The question for both the Republican and Conservative parties is where do you go from Trump and Johnson respectively? The Conservative Parliamentary Party threw out Johnson (and we know grassroots Conservatives still resent and regret it much as they did the ousting of Thatcher in 1990).
Assuming there's a defeat, the scale of that defeat will be the key factor in determining where the Conservative Party goes after the next election. There's a world of difference between 150 seats and 250 seats and the perspective that would bring.
Once Trump goes I expect the GOP to be out of office for a generation much as the Tories may be out of power for a generation having removed Boris unless the likely next Labour government sees resurgent inflation and/or recession. Like him or not Boris would likely have lost much more narrowly than Sunak will and Truss would even if he had not won again as like Trump he appeals to blue-collar and working class voters other Conservative leaders wouldn't
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
I wonder about Lloyd Austin the Secretary of Defense. He looks pretty formidable and surely wouldn't take any cr*p from Donald.
From Wiki: "Austin holds the unique distinction of having commanded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the one-, two-, three- and four-star levels, and was the first African American to command a division, corps, and field army in combat. He is a recipient of the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for valor, for his actions during the Iraq invasion, as well as five Defense Distinguished Service Medal"
No problem with bone spurs there.
I think I have the right candidate to beat Trump
Tiffany Darwish, responsible for the 80s "shopping mall hit" - and number 1 single "I think we're alone now"; she is only 51, and has a completely unblemished political record
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 know Arnie isn't eligible but why is AOC not eligible?
Isn't that perhaps a perceived question around her age - being born in October 2019, so currently 34, she would be 35 and a couple of months at the election?
I don't know of any hard rule that excludes her.
Technically OK as I read the US Constitution, but inexperienced. Also AOC is quite a divisive character, is she 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
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
I wonder about Lloyd Austin the Secretary of Defense. He looks pretty formidable and surely wouldn't take any cr*p from Donald.
From Wiki: "Austin holds the unique distinction of having commanded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the one-, two-, three- and four-star levels, and was the first African American to command a division, corps, and field army in combat. He is a recipient of the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for valor, for his actions during the Iraq invasion, as well as five Defense Distinguished Service Medal"
No problem with bone spurs there.
I think I have the right candidate to beat Trump
Tiffany Darwish, responsible for the 80s "shopping mall hit" - and number 1 single "I think we're alone now"; she is only 51, and has a completely unblemished political record
She's also half Irish half Lebanese, so would be a unifying figure in multiple ways
That's my epiphany: IT HAS TO BE TIFFANY
What about Donald Trump ? He used to be a leading Democrat and if he were wearing a blue rosette again all the Dems would vote for him and tell us what a great guy he is.
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.
How can you know?
The fact the Tories are polling worse now than when Boris resigned and polled even worse than now when Truss resigned
counterfactual: Boris (or Truss) weren't removed when they were.
For Boris, the sitting prime minister would have been suspended by the house of commons leading to a recall petition and a more chaotic change of leadership.
For Truss, the economy properly crashes leading to a VoNC in the government which passes marginally.
in either case (pick your own possible scenario if they didn't get kicked out) I would argue that the polls now would be worse for the Tories than they currently are.
I think there is a case the Tories would be polling better than now had they stuck with Boris. Mostly on the basis that I think the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharoo was as lot more fundamentally damaging to their reputation and core support than I think they realised.
However, I also think we cannot assume they would have remained at around where they were when Boris was ousted, because the whole reason behind his ousting was that he personally kept getting the party and government into damaging situations, and there's little reason to believe that would not have continued. That he was unable to prevent his ousting also argues against the idea that Boris's inherent political skills are so much better than he would definitely have been able to restore confidence and support significantly, since clearly he had lost a lot of his mojo, hence losing his position.
So ultimately the disruption caused and the inability of Sunak to lead a recovery means they may be worse off now, but probably not as worse off as Boris fans would like to imagine, since they tend to do so on the basis things would be frozen in time or he would have seen a recovery.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
I wonder about Lloyd Austin the Secretary of Defense. He looks pretty formidable and surely wouldn't take any cr*p from Donald.
From Wiki: "Austin holds the unique distinction of having commanded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the one-, two-, three- and four-star levels, and was the first African American to command a division, corps, and field army in combat. He is a recipient of the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for valor, for his actions during the Iraq invasion, as well as five Defense Distinguished Service Medal"
No problem with bone spurs there.
I think I have the right candidate to beat Trump
Tiffany Darwish, responsible for the 80s "shopping mall hit" - and number 1 single "I think we're alone now"; she is only 51, and has a completely unblemished political record
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
On that we agree. SCOTUS needs to rule ASAFP and squash this insane idea
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
Until the last week or two it feels like most were pretty confident the SC will squash the idea. Nothing I've read leads me to doubt that now, given it is primarily a political question and they, being very intelligent judges, will have ways to thread the legal needle.
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
At this late desperate hour, they should think outside the box
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
I wonder about Lloyd Austin the Secretary of Defense. He looks pretty formidable and surely wouldn't take any cr*p from Donald.
From Wiki: "Austin holds the unique distinction of having commanded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the one-, two-, three- and four-star levels, and was the first African American to command a division, corps, and field army in combat. He is a recipient of the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for valor, for his actions during the Iraq invasion, as well as five Defense Distinguished Service Medal"
No problem with bone spurs there.
I think I have the right candidate to beat Trump
Tiffany Darwish, responsible for the 80s "shopping mall hit" - and number 1 single "I think we're alone now"; she is only 51, and has a completely unblemished political record
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.
How can you know?
The fact the Tories are polling worse now than when Boris resigned and polled even worse than now when Truss resigned
If the election is in the autumn I expect you will look back of the polling now and think what might have been...
Remember your typical Tory vote is dying at a faster rate than any other party simply because they are older and mainly retired....
IIUC the number of people entering the population of "old people" thru aging is bigger than the number of people leaving the population of "old people" thru death. So the number of olds is going up, not down. This will be the case for a few years yet until it reverses.
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.
Well, yes. But who decides when and where someone has "demonstrated a disregard for this process" - ie, supported insurrection?
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
All of which argues for a speedy SC ruling on the matter.
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
This really is a key point. The law is stupid sometimes, but it's the law. It has to be changed, not ignored. If various states are interpreting the 14th Amendment in a particular way and it is wrong, or even if it is correct but people think that is a bad thing, there's only one body that can swiftly decide it and, effectively, change what the law means and requires if they think that is appropriate.
I think we can all agree that the SCOTUS needs to rule very soon, and I am pretty certain which way it will go
I think I agree with Leon here. We are so used to democracy that we take it for granted, but if up to half the US population thinks that their preferred candidate has been barred from standing by the assessment of judges of his behaviour, a significant number will be disillusioned with the system altogether, and that's a very bad thing. It would narrow the difference from Russia, where anyone seriously critical of Putin is prevented on flimsy grounds from standing at all. The fact that most of us here think Trump is dangerous and nuts shouldn't blind us to the fact that a large chunk of the electorate would like to vote for him.
A pragmatic reason for hoping it doesn't get to SCOTUS before the election is that if they rule in his favo(u)r it will give his candidacy a significant boost. "The Supreme Court says he's OK, what's your problem?" will be the take of supporters, even if the ruling is on narrow legal grounds.
So what are you supposed to do if you're a judge hearing a challenge to his eligibility, just make up a spurious reason to throw it out?
Indeed. I really get what people are saying about not excluding someone and how that would be bad, which it would, but that's why people bring up the other eligibility criteria, or talk about criminal sanctions, because the same argument 'people want to vote for x, you should not exclude them' would apply in those situations even if the candidate is definitely not able to stand.
And it is why the Court will come up with a reason, spurious or otherwise, to throw it out, to avoid having to make that call.
They'd have to find a workaround for the age thing, and the fact he's British, but legal technicalities don't seem to worry Democrats, as they bar any candidate they don't like, so they could shoe-horn him in, and make him the new Dem Prez candidate in a fortnight
Also offers the obvious contrast with the much older, more authoritarian Trump
"Don't vote for Hitler, hit a bullseye with Littler"
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.
I doubt that any of you would join up to go in to WW1 style trench warfare in Ukraine or send your family to do it, or send our own regular troops there to die. That is what the war is at the moment and Ukraine has run out of men. So what you are actually saying is that we should throw everything in to a technical escalation of the conflict through supplying trillions of pounds worth of planes, missiles, bombs etc to try and give the Ukrainians an advantage. But then we encounter the 'Russia has a nuclear bomb' problem once again and it goes around in circles forever like this.
The strategic problem is that there is no broad appetite in the west for the current situation to carry on indefinitely, it is a destabilising situation, whereas for Putin the opposite is true, the current iteration of the war is a stabilising thing, it can run on and on forever.
There are only two intellectually coherent positions on the SMO: all in or all out.
If the west wants Ukraine to win then go all in and wear the risks. This is the Death Cult option favoured by some on here wherein we turn our faces to the glow of the thermonuclear firestorm wearing the beatific smiles of the righteous.
The all out option is self-interested apathy in which we ponder what the fuck an oligarch turf war in a particularly unlovely corner of Eastern Europe has got to do with us. This position is occasionally clad in the motley of principled pacifism for purposes of presentation.
The current median policy position, which the west embraces, of just enough of everything to keep Ukraine in the game without any articulation of a strategic goal is a recipe for years of endless carnage.
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.
Stopping the Putins of this world reduces the likelihood of us having to fight and die. Letting them get away with aggression only teaches them to be more aggressive in the future.
They'd have to find a workaround for the age thing, and the fact he's British, but legal technicalities don't seem to worry Democrats, as they bar any candidate they don't like, so they could shoe-horn him in, and make him the new Dem Prez candidate in a fortnight
Also offers the obvious contrast with the much older, more authoritarian Trump
"Don't vote for Hitler, hit a bullseye with Littler"
Have the Democrats proposed banning de Santis, or Cruz, or whoever the Libertarians put up to replace Gary Johnson?
No?
So maybe, and I just throw this out there as a possibility, the issue they have with Trump is not that he's a twat with policies they don't like but that he's a violent criminal and a threat to the American government?
Comments
It has to be a jury. That is the most basic principle of English common law. Trump has not been convicted by a jury of insurrection, therefore this is all a load of wanky and very dodgy legal sophistry dedicated to getting Trump off the ballot because the Left doesn't like him - it was a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado which struck him down, likewise Maine
This way leads to madness, and civil war. Because - I say again - what is to stop a Republican Supreme Court in Idaho or Wyoming from deciding that they don't like the cut of some Democrat's jib, so he/she must be struck off the ballot in the same way? They won't need a criminal conviction by a jury to do that, just a hunch, and a bunch of senators that don't like said Democrat
It's fucking insane
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follow
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
But either way, as I note below, I don't think being barred for insurrection from serving as president automatically means a bar to being elected to be president, which is surely the only issue at this stage in terms of whether Trump should be listed as a candidate in the Republican primary, assuming he's met all other obligations.
"Appeasement, in an international context, is a diplomatic policy of making political, material, or territorial concessions to an aggressive power to avoid conflict."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
What happened before WW2 was an example of appeasement, but not its definition.
And what we are hearing from many of the non-funders *is* appeasement - the Ukrainians should give up territory for peace. Not the appeasers' territory, obviously. It's easy to tell someone else to give up *their* stuff...
Feels like Roberts at least would prefer something a bit more robust than that to get around this problem though.
At the moment the government is forcing them to sell equities and buy uk government debt. That has hamstrung the uk equity markets/
I did make that point downthread about state law varying from place to place. But no, I've not read the judgement or studied either state's law in that depth.
I tend to agree with those who think Trump, rather like Dracula, needs to be defeated and an electoral stake put through his still beating heart. That said, if there are no barriers to Trump being a candidate, there should be no barriers to anyone being able to freely and fairly cast a ballot so voter suppression (usually instigated by pro-Trump officials at State levels) should also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Including postal ballots if sent on the day of the vote seems reasonable - we don't here but that's not a hill I'd choose to die on - and making sure people can access a polling station also seems entirely reasonable. There's more than a hint (as with the legislation over here) of the Right trying to stifle or suppress opposition voting. The notion if you can't win the vote change the electorate seems curious but the preservation of power (or office) trumps (so to speak) all other motivations.
The right to a jury trial is actually in the US Bill of Rights:
"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"
You can’t just wish away laws, particularly those encoded in the Constitution (not a few would argue the Second Amendment is equally insane, for example).
The key actors there are very much Trumpists, but that in itself causes a reaction among opponents which is injurious to democracy.
No, the USA is not about to collapse, and honestly their system has held up remarkably well considering all the travails of the last 250 years, but its also in a much worse state than I think many of them like to admit.
Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_the_United_States
It wasn’t a Democrat Supreme Court in Colorado. The judges happen to have been appointed by a democrat governor but they are of mixed registered affiliation/independent status
And another state court would need to convince the judges and, ultimately SCOTUS, that they are justified in their actions
ISTR that in the US, which in general has a much smaller tax burden on the rich, rates of philanthropy per capita is much higher. Might it be the more you tax someone, the less they feel able or morally due to give to charity, because you have less, and the money you pay as tax means the state should sort it out? P'haps.
The strategic problem is that there is no broad appetite in the west for the current situation to carry on indefinitely, it is a destabilising situation, whereas for Putin the opposite is true, the current iteration of the war is a stabilising thing, it can run on and on forever.
It's hard to know what a second defeat (especially if it's a bigger defeat than 2020) will do for the GOP just as the scale of any defeat will define what happens to the Conservative (or Labour or indeed LD, Green and other) parties over here as well. There's a world of difference between 250 seats and 150 seats over here. In America, if the 2024 election takes the Republicans not only from the White House but from Congress as well, it will leave them in a weakened position. Why would a two-time loser like Trump (as he would be) be given a third chance to lose?
This is hardly a radical position. Here's a NYT opinion piece that says exactly this - the clause is ambiguous and this particular attempt to bar Trump is wrong - and perilously divisive
"The Supreme Court Should Overturn the Colorado Ruling Unanimously"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/opinion/trump-colorado-ballot-ban.html
Quote:
"Some aspects of American election law are perfectly clear — like the rule that prohibits candidates from becoming president before they turn 35 — but many others are invitations to judges to resolve uncertainty as they see fit, based in part on their own politics. Take Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which blocks insurrectionists from running for office, a provision originally aimed at former Confederates in the wake of the Civil War. There may well be some instances in which the very survival of a democratic regime is at stake if noxious candidates or parties are not banned, as in West Germany after World War II. But in this case, what Section 3 requires is far from straightforward. Keeping Mr. Trump off the ballot could put democracy at more risk rather than less.
"Part of the danger lies in the fact that what actually happened on Jan. 6 — and especially Mr. Trump’s exact role beyond months of election denial and entreaties to government officials to side with him — is still too broadly contested. The Colorado court deferred to a lower court on the facts, but it was a bench trial, meaning that no jury ever assessed what happened, and that many Americans still believe Mr. Trump did nothing wrong. A Supreme Court that affirms the Colorado ruling would have to succeed in constructing a consensual narrative where others — including armies of journalists, the Jan. 6 commission and recent indictments — have failed."
It is a remarkble feat of engineering given the massive floods that periodically sweep the Trent valley every decade or so.
There are other ways to beat Trump. Getting that old fool Biden to stand down for a better Dem candidate would be a start
York seems to need one !
Like them or not there are many white working class voters who only voted Conservative when led by Boris and will only vote Republican when led by Trump
On the Biden point the problem has always been, well, who? There might have been someone who would have been better, but it's the classic problem of not being able to tell that in advance. A lot of people seem to dislike Harris, Governors all come with baggage, unknown figures are, well, unknown.
I feel for them, I really do - if only Biden had felt in a position to run in 2016 this all probably could have been avoided.
Arguably, it was the Asquith Liberal Government which instigated the first aspects of the "welfare state" though it was the first World War which really saw the State expand its control over people and their lives as the requirement to mobilise and maintain and manage a modern industrial warfare required resources on a hitherto unprecedented scale.
That being said, I don't see those looking to reduce the size of the State arguing for a more philanthropic culture among the wealthy to plug the gaps left by the retreating State. One aspect of this is privatisation but as we've seen private companies can't or won't operate to the same profit or loss levels as local councils. In effect, privatisation has become State subsidy especially in the transport sector - it's also my experience the private sector only wants to do the profitable work - the stuff that doesn't make money, for example, running a service to a local village or negotiating a lease for a daycare charity to take space at a village hall, is neglected or poorly understood.
I am simply pointing out constitutional facts, as I see them; and plenty of centrists and lefty Americans agree with me: this legal chicanery is misguided and dangerous
By failing to stand up to Trump the right constructed a cage for themselves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States has lots of links exploring arguments on both sides.
I suspect the Supreme Court will find a way to not set a precident*, but that allows Trump to stand.
*Don’t, as Richard Nixon once did, make the mistake of saying “disgraceful president”, when meaning “disgraceful precident”.
Born October 13 1989.
So almost certainly months after the UK general election whoever is the PM after it and has to deal with that President
While Biden would have lost with 40000ish votes swinging to Trump in only 3 states a similar swing of about 80000 votes in 3 states in 2016 to Clinton would have changed that outcome.
What I disagree with is that the courts have no ability (or should have no ability) to decide a candidate's eligibility for office in a constitutional democracy. It is not anti-democratic or an abuse of power for properly constituted courts to bar candidates if the law of the land suggests they may do so. If the people do not like it, then they can elect politicians (or change the constitution) to amend the law.
See also Rwanda. It is not anti-democratic for courts to rule against the democratically elected government for failure to consider legal obligations to which it is subject. Now if the public elect a government to amend those obligations then that government has a mandate, but it must also amend them in such a way as to allow the courts to put its will into effect.
I don't understand why so many people adore Trump, who is astonishingly thin skinned, snowkflakey, and self obsessed, but they do adore (and fear) him, in some way he charismatically draws them to him.
Junior? When he tries to act like his dad he seems like he is pretending. He'd have a following, but the minority of anti-Trump Republicans would find it much easier to draw people from him.
As it happens, however, she is (even Fox News accepts that) because any Puerto Rican born after 1899 is treated as a natural born US citizen.
I do hope she never becomes President or close to it though. She's not as bad as Trump (would be quite hard!) but she still has a distasteful 'if the voters don't agree with me the voters are wrong and must be ignored' which I don't think would serve the US in good stead.
A mistake the Americans appear to have made with their own constitutional setup, and one they overlooked when they sent a swarm of young economists to advise Russia post-1990.
All the stuff about "tragic accident" and "4x4 plunged into a river" is - as usual - garbage, though I'd accept "tragic incident".
IMO it's important to question these false narratives.
https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2023-12-29/men-trapped-in-4x4-were-swept-away-by-river-says-man-who-tried-to-rescue-them)
Would she be eligible to take part in the Primaries though?
Not wishing to open up another legal front...
Sometimes, you steer very close to being a Trump apologist. Folks like yourself need to rediscover the energy of the right from the 1980s. Watch a bit of Reagan to see the difference and where you need to be. It's a world apart from where the right are today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd7X_eTF0tU
The question for both the Republican and Conservative parties is where do you go from Trump and Johnson respectively? The Conservative Parliamentary Party threw out Johnson (and we know grassroots Conservatives still resent and regret it much as they did the ousting of Thatcher in 1990).
Assuming there's a defeat, the scale of that defeat will be the key factor in determining where the Conservative Party goes after the next election. There's a world of difference between 150 seats and 250 seats and the perspective that would bring.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/30/biden-wont-run-labour-wont-win-landslide-middle-east-peace/
A pragmatic reason for hoping it doesn't get to SCOTUS before the election is that if they rule in his favo(u)r it will give his candidacy a significant boost. "The Supreme Court says he's OK, what's your problem?" will be the take of supporters, even if the ruling is on narrow legal grounds.
What about Antony Blinken? He seems to have been an excellent SoS, he's a centrist, sensible, only 61! Very experienced, pretty good on camera, an insider who knows the party - served under Obama etc
NOMINATE BLINKEN!
if not him, how about 80s popster Cindy Lauper?
Technically, she could still be elected even if under age and the Veep serve as acting president until her 35th birthday under the terms of the 22nd Amendment. But that would be even sillier than this nonsense about the President not being an officer.
AOC won't be running though her currently plan is a senate seat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion_in_the_United_States#New_York
Remember your typical Tory vote is dying at a faster rate than any other party simply because they are older and mainly retired....
"Moreover, several courts have expressly upheld states’ ability to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from their presidential ballots. See id. (upholding California’s refusal to place a twenty-seven-year-old candidate on the presidential ballot); Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 947, 948–49 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming the Secretary’s decision to exclude a naturalized citizen from the presidential ballot); Socialist Workers Party of Ill. v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 109, 113 (N.D. Ill. 1972) (per curiam) (affirming Illinois’s exclusion of a thirty-one-
year-old candidate from the presidential ballot).
As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” 495 F. App’x at 948"
You have others who do speak out, like pretty much everyone who served in Trump's Cabinet, but most of those are still going to vote for him. Then there are other office holders who he often attacks like Kemp or DeSantis, but again they will be voting for him too.
So rather worringly the number of anti-Trump Republicans does not appear to be growing at all, not in any practical sense.
From Wiki: "Austin holds the unique distinction of having commanded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the one-, two-, three- and four-star levels, and was the first African American to command a division, corps, and field army in combat. He is a recipient of the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for valor, for his actions during the Iraq invasion, as well as five Defense Distinguished Service Medal"
No problem with bone spurs there.
By 2010 however the Tories won all age groups over 25.
Governments become unpopular and swing voters change their votes again, the fact old people lean more Tory and die off doesn't change that
So I don't see that being a viable workaround.
For Boris, the sitting prime minister would have been suspended by the house of commons leading to a recall petition and a more chaotic change of leadership.
For Truss, the economy properly crashes leading to a VoNC in the government which passes marginally.
in either case (pick your own possible scenario if they didn't get kicked out) I would argue that the polls now would be worse for the Tories than they currently are.
But actually I think it would have to be January 2025 with the swearing in. I'm not sure they could punt it that far forward.
Tiffany Darwish, responsible for the 80s "shopping mall hit" - and number 1 single "I think we're alone now"; she is only 51, and has a completely unblemished political record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Darwish
She's also half Irish half Lebanese, so would be a unifying figure in multiple ways
That's my epiphany: IT HAS TO BE TIFFANY
Not mourned much on PB I imagine.
If people don't like the law then they have the right to try and change it, but there is a democratic and constitutional process to follow.
In the UK, there are a great many people who would support lots of things that a vast web of obligations (in our case, generally international) would prevent. Rwanda is a good example of this. People have every right to support politicians who want to change that, but the fact that people wish the obligation were not there is not enough to make it so.
I have no doubt that the US election will, one way or the other, create a number of catalysts for civil unrest in the US. But maybe people need to think more about persuading others to effect the change each side wants (at least in part), rather than pulling at both ends of the rope and tightening the knot.
Once Trump goes I expect the GOP to be out of office for a generation much as the Tories may be out of power for a generation having removed Boris unless the likely next Labour government sees resurgent inflation and/or recession.
Like him or not Boris would likely have lost much more narrowly than Sunak will and Truss would even if he had not won again as like Trump he appeals to blue-collar and working class voters other Conservative leaders wouldn't do.
Think about that: Rugeley.
What manner of person chooses to live in Rugeley?
I don't know of any hard rule that excludes her.
Technically OK as I read the US Constitution, but inexperienced. Also AOC is quite a divisive character, is she not?
However, I also think we cannot assume they would have remained at around where they were when Boris was ousted, because the whole reason behind his ousting was that he personally kept getting the party and government into damaging situations, and there's little reason to believe that would not have continued. That he was unable to prevent his ousting also argues against the idea that Boris's inherent political skills are so much better than he would definitely have been able to restore confidence and support significantly, since clearly he had lost a lot of his mojo, hence losing his position.
So ultimately the disruption caused and the inability of Sunak to lead a recovery means they may be worse off now, but probably not as worse off as Boris fans would like to imagine, since they tend to do so on the basis things would be frozen in time or he would have seen a recovery.
"I'm not bougie, I lived in Rugeley"
Does that count?
Correct Horse Batteries for all!
The Boomer Ascendancy still rises...
And it is why the Court will come up with a reason, spurious or otherwise, to throw it out, to avoid having to make that call.
They'd have to find a workaround for the age thing, and the fact he's British, but legal technicalities don't seem to worry Democrats, as they bar any candidate they don't like, so they could shoe-horn him in, and make him the new Dem Prez candidate in a fortnight
Also offers the obvious contrast with the much older, more authoritarian Trump
"Don't vote for Hitler, hit a bullseye with Littler"
If the west wants Ukraine to win then go all in and wear the risks. This is the Death Cult option favoured by some on here wherein we turn our faces to the glow of the thermonuclear firestorm wearing the beatific smiles of the righteous.
The all out option is self-interested apathy in which we ponder what the fuck an oligarch turf war in a particularly unlovely corner of Eastern Europe has got to do with us. This position is occasionally clad in the motley of principled pacifism for purposes of presentation.
The current median policy position, which the west embraces, of just enough of everything to keep Ukraine in the game without any articulation of a strategic goal is a recipe for years of endless carnage.
No?
So maybe, and I just throw this out there as a possibility, the issue they have with Trump is not that he's a twat with policies they don't like but that he's a violent criminal and a threat to the American government?