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.
I think it is. The Supreme Court could tie the whole thing up in process for years if it wants to. By which time Trump could have won the election and be well into his dictatorship.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
The young Senator in Georgia, Jon Ossoff, seemed impressive when the Georgian Senate elections were front and centre last time around. Is there any reason why not him? Go for youth as a direct contrast to the current lot. Plus he should carry Georgia, which would be a useful swing state to carry.
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.
This is the actual problem. The GOP establishment has sold out to Trump because they fear the mob in their backyards and tell themselves all sorts of stories to sleep at night.
Trump should have already been rejected by the right, but they didn't because there's not much left in that tank. So it falls once again to the Democrats and an octogenarian to defeat him.
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
The thing with the US is that they have, on both sides of the house, people running the party who are in their 70s and 80s. by the time of the next US election in 2028 there's going to be a change of guard. that'll shake things up more than people realise
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.
If I were feeling cynical, I would point out that while terrible for Ukraine that is also undoubtedly the scenario most crippling to Russia.
Not that I think Russia's allies in America or Germany are actually thinking strategically in that way.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
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.
One of the major reasons that there is 'no broad appetite' in the west is because of idiots who have continually, from the beginning, said that Ukraine could not hope to win.
Whereas whenever we have given Ukraine the tools, they've used them very well. I would have expected that this, along with Russia's non-escalation outside of Ukraine, to have changed a few people's minds on giving Ukraine what they need.
Please answer a question for me (and @NickPalmer, who liked your post, probably should also answer): how much of other people's territory and money - in fact, how many *people* - are you willing to hand over to Putin's fascist, imperialist state for your 'peace' - however temporary that might be?
If you throw the stupid "I doubt that any of you would join up to go in to WW1 style trench warfare in Ukraine" line, then I'll throw the opposite at you: why don't you go and live in the Donbass, in the same conditions you are willing to throw millions of Ukrainians, eastern Europeans and others, into?
And if you don't want to live in those conditions, why should Ukrainians?
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
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"
i will give you 180 -1 on littler becoming president
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"
i will give you 180 -1 on littler becoming president
Such an attitude would not be fair on Tiffany Darwish, it would be 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.
I think we can offer more support to Ukraine without triggering nuclear war. But we cannot sit back and allow Putin to win, he has unfinished territorial business elsewhere in Eastern Europe and appeasement doesn't work. He must be stopped here.
"It’s time to train our own doctors, and stop importing them Britain’s medical schools are some of the best in the world. Let them do their job unhindered Louise Perry"
"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
You are right but I do not think the American right would need this as a precedent before launching their own dodgy lawsuits if they thought it might help. See for instance, 2020.
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
The thing with the US is that they have, on both sides of the house, people running the party who are in their 70s and 80s. by the time of the next US election in 2028 there's going to be a change of guard. that'll shake things up more than people realise
It'll be Chuck Grassley up next. It's his turn, damnit, and he'll only be 95 come the 2028 election.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
"It’s time to train our own doctors, and stop importing them Britain’s medical schools are some of the best in the world. Let them do their job unhindered Louise Perry"
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.
Yes, comrade. I'm sure Putin will press the Big Red Button, as people like you said he would over any western aid to Ukraine, over ATACMS, over Storm Shadow, over.... welll, he's played that card over just about everything we've done, and it's not happened.
Perhaps Putin realises, as anyone sensible does, that actually pressing the button is not that advantageous to his regime or its aims, either tactically or strategically?
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.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
They took too long. Jack Smith actually seems to have worked pretty quickly, and obviously legal matters are complex, but Trump looks like he will succeed in pushing most of the trials back far enough.
"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
You are right but I do not think the American right would need this as a precedent before launching their own dodgy lawsuits if they thought it might help. See for instance, 2020.
Well yes. Both sides are advancing further into madness
The Dems need to draw a breath, realise that Trump is eminently beatable, democratically - without all this iffy legal stuff which is liable to backfire - then get on and beat him
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"
i will give you 180 -1 on littler becoming 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?
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
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.
They wouldn't as there are a number of voters who voted for Boris and won't vote Tory again now he is no longer Conservative leader.
Mainly working class and underrepresented on here. I know as I have canvassed them
One of the notable things in the judgments to date is that none of the courts have had any difficulty in concluding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Even the first instance court in Colorado concluded that but decided, slightly bizarrely, that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the President on the basis he is not an officer. The reasoning on that in both the appeal court and the decision from Maine looks quite compelling to me and I would be very surprised if Trump could prevail on that basis, even although he has been convicted of nothing yet.
That leaves him trying the argument that what he did did not amount to insurrection. The problem with that, as the Maine decision points out most clearly, is that this was not just a riot but a riot intended to interfere with Congress's certification of the results of the Presidential election and, at least temporarily, it succeeded in that purpose. If that is not an insurrection what is? The answer may be taking up arms against the United States in an organised way resulting in civil war. That is what this amendment was supposed to be for, after all. But the case law since does not seem to be favourable to Trump.
Call me old fashioned, but doesn’t English common law, and common sense, require that someone be convicted by a jury before the authorities go around barring people from office? If they can do that, why not just sling him in jail? Who needs trials anyway?
Here’s an idea. HAVE THE ELECTION. Let the American people decide
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.
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 assumed you'd need to be 35 to put in your nomination papers etc but maybe not. No doubt some lawyers would have opinions on it.
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.
Keeping Ukraine in the game is a much better policy than removing them from it.
From a purely “realist” viewpoint, grinding up the Russian army and navy makes excellent sense.
"It’s time to train our own doctors, and stop importing them Britain’s medical schools are some of the best in the world. Let them do their job unhindered Louise Perry"
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.
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.
I think we can offer more support to Ukraine without triggering nuclear war. But we cannot sit back and allow Putin to win, he has unfinished territorial business elsewhere in Eastern Europe and appeasement doesn't work. He must be stopped here.
It took them a fucking year to take Bakhmut which is a town the size of Stafford with only slightly less incest. They can't take Kharkov which is 20km from the border. How much more stopped do you need them to be?
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.
I think we can offer more support to Ukraine without triggering nuclear war. But we cannot sit back and allow Putin to win, he has unfinished territorial business elsewhere in Eastern Europe and appeasement doesn't work. He must be stopped here.
Is Putin still around? I’m sure I read on here that he was terminally ill and/or being sized up for a lamppost and/or out of favour with the oligarchs who actual rule Russia.
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 assumed you'd need to be 35 to put in your nomination papers etc but maybe not. No doubt some lawyers would have opinions on it.
The likelihood is she would only have to be aged 35 on the day the electoral college voted. Possibly even only when congress certify the results or indeed on inauguration day.
I think it most unlikely that anybody who is 35 on January 20, 2025 will be considered ineligible to serve.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
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.
They won't. They are cowards.
Yes, it's like Keir Starmer sitting in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
Then tell him to stop dicking around with vexatious procedural appeals.
That would take the wind out of these other lawsuits, and if cleared, he will,be eligible and can win.
After all, if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
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.
I think we can offer more support to Ukraine without triggering nuclear war. But we cannot sit back and allow Putin to win, he has unfinished territorial business elsewhere in Eastern Europe and appeasement doesn't work. He must be stopped here.
Is Putin still around? I’m sure I read on here that he was terminally ill and/or being sized up for a lamppost and/or out of favour with the oligarchs who actual rule Russia.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
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.
Who says there's anything intellectual about this? Short of outright defeat, Ukrainians have little incentive to stop fighting. Obviously they would like more weapons than fewer weapons, but they will fight with what they have. Their end game is to impose on Russia a cost for its invasion even that country is not prepared to pay. You don't actually need to invade neighbouring countries for no reason at all.
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.
I think we can offer more support to Ukraine without triggering nuclear war. But we cannot sit back and allow Putin to win, he has unfinished territorial business elsewhere in Eastern Europe and appeasement doesn't work. He must be stopped here.
It took them a fucking year to take Bakhmut which is a town the size of Stafford with only slightly less incest. They can't take Kharkov which is 20km from the border. How much more stopped do you need them to be?
There are no long term advantages for Russia if they consolidate all their gains, and thus no disadvantages for others if they do?
It's curious though, because it would seem from this comment you think their victories have been largely pyhrric and not worth much or much to worry about, but I'm sure you had been very dismissive of the concept previously.
I think in the end Russia will retain most if not all of what they currently hold, at least for this generation.
On my walk today I listened to Michael Portillo’s Desert Island Discs, recorded in 2000. A very abrasive interview from Sue Lawley, she really didn’t seem to like him at all. Unusually unsympathetic for DID
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
They took too long. Jack Smith actually seems to have worked pretty quickly, and obviously legal matters are complex, but Trump looks like he will succeed in pushing most of the trials back far enough.
That's the prosecutor's fault though.
Is it ? As far as I can see, the criminal cases against Trump have been managed as quickly as is possible.
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
Two scenarios: 1) Trump loses the GE. The insurrection against the government starts immediately this time. 2) Trump wins the GE. He announces all the things he will do with his self-described dictatorial powers from 20th January onwards. The insurrection against the incoming government starts immediately.
Either way, there is no realistic scenario where the Americans vote and the result is calmly accepted.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
Unless the army chiefs support Trump he won't be able to reverse an election defeat as he failed to do in 2020 nor would he be able to ignore the US constitution
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Likewise
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
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.
You assume 100% wrongly
I was using her as an example of someone who - without getting into the technicalities of it - failed the age criteria, in the way that Arnie fails the natural born citizen criteria.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
They took too long. Jack Smith actually seems to have worked pretty quickly, and obviously legal matters are complex, but Trump looks like he will succeed in pushing most of the trials back far enough.
That's the prosecutor's fault though.
Is it ? As far as I can see, the criminal cases against Trump have been managed as quickly as is possible.
Since charging they have been. But with all the resources at Federal Level and State was it inevitable the charging not take place until, in some cases, Summer of 2023?
Maybe it was, but even so if it is not their 'fault', it was still too late to make a difference if, as seems likely, the trials will not be completed in time for the election due to the inevitable delay tactics, not all of which require a friendly judge.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
Then tell him to stop dicking around with vexatious procedural appeals.
That would take the wind out of these other lawsuits, and if cleared, he will,be eligible and can win.
After all, if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
There are fairly clearly a number of judges who don't understand that the constitutional right to speedy trials is one which apples on both sides in U.S. law. 'The people' have as much right to justice being done in a reasonable timeframe as does a defendant.
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"
I suspect this will be the bit that is challenged and effectively dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus making the rest of the arguments moot
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
We know that nobody has succeeded yet. Which isn't quite the same thing.
He seems to have learned from the Kennedys. No open-top motorcades or visits to hotel kitchens.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
I am too. Plenty of extremist people with guns who are not his supporters after all.
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?
There is something utterly batshit about all of this. Trump is ineligible. He doesn't need a criminal conviction because it isn't a criminal penalty. He simply cannot take the office of President.
I get the argument of "let the voters decide". But the voters can't decide on Arnold Schwarzenegger - he's ineligible. He may be the preferred candidate but *he's ineligible*. Democracy only works within the framework created to support it.
Either you support the constitution or you don't. You can't use textural and "what did the founders" arguments to support the 2nd Amendment, then say "to hell with textural and founders" to ignore the 14th Amendment.
Well you can. If you have no interest in the things you claim to have an interest in. And that is the reality. The GOP have decided to overturn the republic they claim to be defending.
I had his books as a teenager, shame he ended up being a boot-licker for Assange and Putin.
He was a fantastic journalist & film maker in his time. There now seems to be a weird place that firebrand progressives go to in old age, perhaps the mirror image of those crusty old reactionaries spouting all sorts of unacceptable crap in their dotage. Of course nowadays it’s often a starting point rather than an end state, cf the Spectator 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.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Likewise
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
It's odd that seems to be a regular fantasy of non Democrats. And our resident revolution enthusiast.
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.
You assume 100% wrongly
I was using her as an example of someone who - without getting into the technicalities of it - failed the age criteria, in the way that Arnie fails the natural born citizen criteria.
Well, in that case we were both 100% wrong, because as I've pointed out, she doesn't fail the age criteria.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Likewise
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
He spends a lot of time cheating on the golf course where a hypothetical sniper has a lot of flags to help estimate wind speed.
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.
I don’t think they would dismiss the case in that scenario. Wouldn’t they just refer it to the 10th circuit for their decision?
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Likewise
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
He spends a lot of time cheating on the golf course where a hypothetical sniper has a lot of flags to help estimate wind speed.
Does he have red flags to show his behaviour or yellow flags to match his personal integrity?
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Have there even been attempts? Pretty sure Trump and his supporters would be screaming martyr from the rooftops if somebody had even had a half hearted pop at 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.
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.
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?
There is something utterly batshit about all of this. Trump is ineligible. He doesn't need a criminal conviction because it isn't a criminal penalty. He simply cannot take the office of President.
I get the argument of "let the voters decide". But the voters can't decide on Arnold Schwarzenegger - he's ineligible. He may be the preferred candidate but *he's ineligible*. Democracy only works within the framework created to support it.
Either you support the constitution or you don't. You can't use textural and "what did the founders" arguments to support the 2nd Amendment, then say "to hell with textural and founders" to ignore the 14th Amendment.
Well you can. If you have no interest in the things you claim to have an interest in. And that is the reality. The GOP have decided to overturn the republic they claim to be defending.
This chap, a former MAGA Republican turned virulent anti-Trumper, was vocally opposed to the cases to take Trump off the ballot, even just for primaries, because people should vote for who they choose and it would only make him more popular, but I think he makes the point well at 7 that really no option is is going to go 'well' here.
1. The Constitution matters. Someone who engaged in insurrection cannot be President every bit as much as someone who isn’t at least 35 yrs old.
2. I believe Trump engaged in insurrection, but what I believe doesn’t matter. Each state, or Congress, or ultimately the federal court system makes that determination.
3. Each state runs their elections & determines who qualifies for the ballot. Maine & Colorado had the authority to do what they did.
4. Trump has the right to appeal. He’s entitled to due process.
5. I’d rather kick Trump’s ass at the ballot box than kick him off the ballot, but if the courts determine he’s not eligible, so be it. We are a nation of laws. The courts (ultimately SCOTUS) will decide this issue. And we all must accept that decision.
6. Yes, this is unprecedented. Well, what Trump did in 2020 was fucking unprecedented too.
7. Yes, kicking Trump off the ballot might tear this country apart. But so might convicting Trump of a crime. So what. Does that mean we don’t hold him accountable for crimes he committed? No. We can’t do that. Because in this country no one is above the 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
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
What do I have to do with it? Trump is ineligible. If the SC rules otherwise they are rewriting the 14th - which is their right to do so.
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
They took too long. Jack Smith actually seems to have worked pretty quickly, and obviously legal matters are complex, but Trump looks like he will succeed in pushing most of the trials back far enough.
That's the prosecutor's fault though.
Is it ? As far as I can see, the criminal cases against Trump have been managed as quickly as is possible.
Since charging they have been. But with all the resources at Federal Level and State was it inevitable the charging not take place until, in some cases, Summer of 2023?
Maybe it was, but even so if it is not their 'fault', it was still too late to make a difference if, as seems likely, the trials will not be completed in time for the election due to the inevitable delay tactics, not all of which require a friendly judge.
Yes, it was more or less inevitable. I gave the example a week or so back of judges taking two years to rule on the FBI accessing phone evidence in relation to Jan 6th. It's not a coincidence that Trump spent well over $100m on legal fees before he was criminally indicted.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
What do I have to do with it? Trump is ineligible. If the SC rules otherwise they are rewriting the 14th - which is their right to do so.
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
And as I’ve shown you, there are plenty of people - experts - non Trumpites - who think the US Constitution is far from clear on this “insurrection without trial” jigggery-pokery. So it will be left to SCOTUS to decide
It may turn out these Democrat legal maneuvers are stupid, dangerous AND illegal. Not ideal
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"
I suspect this will be the bit that is challenged and effectively dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus making the rest of the arguments moot
What is then to prevent (for example) presidents standing for a third term, if they punt on the issue, and say that states can't exclude constitutionally barred 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
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Likewise
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
He spends a lot of time cheating on the golf course where a hypothetical sniper has a lot of flags to help estimate wind speed.
You're giving this a disturbing amount of thought.
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?
There is something utterly batshit about all of this. Trump is ineligible. He doesn't need a criminal conviction because it isn't a criminal penalty. He simply cannot take the office of President.
I get the argument of "let the voters decide". But the voters can't decide on Arnold Schwarzenegger - he's ineligible. He may be the preferred candidate but *he's ineligible*. Democracy only works within the framework created to support it.
Either you support the constitution or you don't. You can't use textural and "what did the founders" arguments to support the 2nd Amendment, then say "to hell with textural and founders" to ignore the 14th Amendment.
Well you can. If you have no interest in the things you claim to have an interest in. And that is the reality. The GOP have decided to overturn the republic they claim to be defending.
This chap, a former MAGA Republican turned virulent anti-Trumper, was vocally opposed to the cases to take Trump off the ballot, even just for primaries, because people should vote for who they choose and it would only make him more popular, but I think he makes the point well at 7 that really no option is is going to go 'well' here.
1. The Constitution matters. Someone who engaged in insurrection cannot be President every bit as much as someone who isn’t at least 35 yrs old.
2. I believe Trump engaged in insurrection, but what I believe doesn’t matter. Each state, or Congress, or ultimately the federal court system makes that determination.
3. Each state runs their elections & determines who qualifies for the ballot. Maine & Colorado had the authority to do what they did.
4. Trump has the right to appeal. He’s entitled to due process.
5. I’d rather kick Trump’s ass at the ballot box than kick him off the ballot, but if the courts determine he’s not eligible, so be it. We are a nation of laws. The courts (ultimately SCOTUS) will decide this issue. And we all must accept that decision.
6. Yes, this is unprecedented. Well, what Trump did in 2020 was fucking unprecedented too.
7. Yes, kicking Trump off the ballot might tear this country apart. But so might convicting Trump of a crime. So what. Does that mean we don’t hold him accountable for crimes he committed? No. We can’t do that. Because in this country no one is above the law.
What is fascinating reading the various rulings is the way the Trump campaign manage their affairs. They seem to object to everything - such as the president being an office, or the definition of insurrection" - but never put forward their own counter definitions or arguments.
The entire argument is that any action against Trump is biased. Thats it. Or some spurious legal nitpick which gets batted away. On the fundamentals they don't seem to put up a defence at all. The Maine ruling points at this repeatedly.
Trump knows he is guilty. Except that with the 14th, "guilt" is not required. Arnie is not "guilty" of being foreign-born. He just is. And the same with insurrection. There is no requirement for conviction.
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?
There is something utterly batshit about all of this. Trump is ineligible. He doesn't need a criminal conviction because it isn't a criminal penalty. He simply cannot take the office of President.
I get the argument of "let the voters decide". But the voters can't decide on Arnold Schwarzenegger - he's ineligible. He may be the preferred candidate but *he's ineligible*. Democracy only works within the framework created to support it.
Either you support the constitution or you don't. You can't use textural and "what did the founders" arguments to support the 2nd Amendment, then say "to hell with textural and founders" to ignore the 14th Amendment.
Well you can. If you have no interest in the things you claim to have an interest in. And that is the reality. The GOP have decided to overturn the republic they claim to be defending.
AIUI the US system is that this decision on eligibility is for States, so we have 50 States following their 50 unique legal procedures, so in Colorado the State Supreme Court determined the answer, in Michigan (Democrat State with Democrat appointed Judges at the level that made the decision) they said "not for us", and in Maine the process was that the Maine Secretary of State made the ruling after following the evaluation process.
MAGA are allegedly enthusiasts for States' Rights, so perhaps if they had a principled bone in the bodies they would not Appeal it. See, for example, the Roe vs Wade ruling being overturned.
But they don't have any principled bones, because they are a cynical group of Machiavellians who will do whatever is necessary to further their interests.
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"
I suspect this will be the bit that is challenged and effectively dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus making the rest of the arguments moot
What is then to prevent (for example) presidents standing for a third term, if they punt on the issue, and say that states can't exclude constitutionally barred candidates ?
Are you saying Biden will try it ? He'd be really old by that time.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
Then tell him to stop dicking around with vexatious procedural appeals.
That would take the wind out of these other lawsuits, and if cleared, he will,be eligible and can win.
After all, if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
There are fairly clearly a number of judges who don't understand that the constitutional right to speedy trials is one which apples on both sides in U.S. law. 'The people' have as much right to justice being done in a reasonable timeframe as does a defendant.
Given that the Events took place three years ago...
Can anyone point me towards a Janet and John version of why this stuff hasn't made it to a judgement yet?
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?
There is something utterly batshit about all of this. Trump is ineligible. He doesn't need a criminal conviction because it isn't a criminal penalty. He simply cannot take the office of President.
I get the argument of "let the voters decide". But the voters can't decide on Arnold Schwarzenegger - he's ineligible. He may be the preferred candidate but *he's ineligible*. Democracy only works within the framework created to support it.
Either you support the constitution or you don't. You can't use textural and "what did the founders" arguments to support the 2nd Amendment, then say "to hell with textural and founders" to ignore the 14th Amendment.
Well you can. If you have no interest in the things you claim to have an interest in. And that is the reality. The GOP have decided to overturn the republic they claim to be defending.
This chap, a former MAGA Republican turned virulent anti-Trumper, was vocally opposed to the cases to take Trump off the ballot, even just for primaries, because people should vote for who they choose and it would only make him more popular, but I think he makes the point well at 7 that really no option is is going to go 'well' here.
1. The Constitution matters. Someone who engaged in insurrection cannot be President every bit as much as someone who isn’t at least 35 yrs old.
2. I believe Trump engaged in insurrection, but what I believe doesn’t matter. Each state, or Congress, or ultimately the federal court system makes that determination.
3. Each state runs their elections & determines who qualifies for the ballot. Maine & Colorado had the authority to do what they did.
4. Trump has the right to appeal. He’s entitled to due process.
5. I’d rather kick Trump’s ass at the ballot box than kick him off the ballot, but if the courts determine he’s not eligible, so be it. We are a nation of laws. The courts (ultimately SCOTUS) will decide this issue. And we all must accept that decision.
6. Yes, this is unprecedented. Well, what Trump did in 2020 was fucking unprecedented too.
7. Yes, kicking Trump off the ballot might tear this country apart. But so might convicting Trump of a crime. So what. Does that mean we don’t hold him accountable for crimes he committed? No. We can’t do that. Because in this country no one is above the law.
What is fascinating reading the various rulings is the way the Trump campaign manage their affairs. They seem to object to everything - such as the president being an office, or the definition of insurrection" - but never put forward their own counter definitions or arguments.
The entire argument is that any action against Trump is biased. Thats it. Or some spurious legal nitpick which gets batted away. On the fundamentals they don't seem to put up a defence at all. The Maine ruling points at this repeatedly.
Trump knows he is guilty. Except that with the 14th, "guilt" is not required. Arnie is not "guilty" of being foreign-born. He just is. And the same with insurrection. There is no requirement for conviction.
It is curious that many of his team's legal submissions are getting more and more into repeating arguments that have already been ruled on (really pissing off judges) or escalating the language to more closely resemble the way his campaign rally talk goes.
Previously it seemed more that his lawyers would say things on TV, but not necessarily follow that up in legal submissions, or least temper the language to be the more usual kind of legal verbiage.
Obviously the legal battles are as much a part of the campaigning as anything else, but in court and in writing his lawyers seem to be leaning into that more, where before they saved that more for broadcast purposes.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
What do I have to do with it? Trump is ineligible. If the SC rules otherwise they are rewriting the 14th - which is their right to do so.
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
And as I’ve shown you, there are plenty of people - experts - non Trumpites - who think the US Constitution is far from clear on this “insurrection without trial” jigggery-pokery. So it will be left to SCOTUS to decide
It may turn out these Democrat legal maneuvers are stupid, dangerous AND illegal. Not ideal
They aren't 'Democrat manoeuvres', in that they were proposed by both Democrats and Republicans, aren't sanctioned by the national party, are are strongly opposed by a significant number of Democrats.
Though it's fair to say that those in favour are predominantly Democrats.
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?
Then put him on trial, in front of a jury. SimpleZ
They are...
Then get him convicted by the jury, of insurrection, put him in jail, and there is every possible reason to bar him as a candidate, and very very few will complain. The SCOTUS will agree. End of problem
Then tell him to stop dicking around with vexatious procedural appeals.
That would take the wind out of these other lawsuits, and if cleared, he will,be eligible and can win.
After all, if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
There are fairly clearly a number of judges who don't understand that the constitutional right to speedy trials is one which apples on both sides in U.S. law. 'The people' have as much right to justice being done in a reasonable timeframe as does a defendant.
Given that the Events took place three years ago...
Can anyone point me towards a Janet and John version of why this stuff hasn't made it to a judgement yet?
first delay caused by the politicians investigating what happened. second delay caused by the investigations by the authorities of the people who actually invaded the capitol. third delay caused because they are going to a novel (or unused for 150 years) approach to what happened.
Addressing the header, I think there are other aspects which are equally important.
On Presidential Immunity, one of the planks of MAGA argumentation in defence of Trump is that both a sitting and former President cannot be held responsible for criminal acts ie Trump is above the law. This is already in Appeals to the Supreme Court of the US.
This 'complete Presidential Immunity' will never be upheld by any Supreme Court of the US, because in doing so they undermine their own legitimacy as being the ultimate determinative body.
SCOTUS has integrity problems itself, however - consider all the "gifts" from "billionaires" received by Clarence Thomas over 20 years, for example.
That is the downside of seeking to stick resolutely to aspects of a system designed in the 18C; you end up behind the times.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
What do I have to do with it? Trump is ineligible. If the SC rules otherwise they are rewriting the 14th - which is their right to do so.
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
And as I’ve shown you, there are plenty of people - experts - non Trumpites - who think the US Constitution is far from clear on this “insurrection without trial” jigggery-pokery. So it will be left to SCOTUS to decide
It may turn out these Democrat legal maneuvers are stupid, dangerous AND illegal. Not ideal
They are not illegal. They may be wrong. Which is different.
Trying to overthrow the government is both wrong and illegal, but that's never stopped Trump. It's why he's in trouble now.
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.
It seems like a classic case of a bad law written in a hurry in general wording to achieve a particular aim.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
What do I have to do with it? Trump is ineligible. If the SC rules otherwise they are rewriting the 14th - which is their right to do so.
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
And as I’ve shown you, there are plenty of people - experts - non Trumpites - who think the US Constitution is far from clear on this “insurrection without trial” jigggery-pokery. So it will be left to SCOTUS to decide
It may turn out these Democrat legal maneuvers are stupid, dangerous AND illegal. Not ideal
They may well lose at trial, and/or be based on faulty legal theories, but it is not "illegal" to take a case to court and lose...
I know very little about America, aside from the fact that it seems a political mess from this side of the pond.
But yesterday I listened to an In Our Time on the Federalist Papers; something I'd heard about in passing, but not really gone into any depth about. The program gave the impression that some of the ambiguities and problems with the constitution were deliberately put in to try to get it passed by the thirteen states.
The US constitution and its history is stuff I should probably read up a little more on. Does anyone have any suggestions (aside from the constitution itself, obvs.)?
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
What do I have to do with it? Trump is ineligible. If the SC rules otherwise they are rewriting the 14th - which is their right to do so.
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
And as I’ve shown you, there are plenty of people - experts - non Trumpites - who think the US Constitution is far from clear on this “insurrection without trial” jigggery-pokery. So it will be left to SCOTUS to decide
It may turn out these Democrat legal maneuvers are stupid, dangerous AND illegal. Not ideal
On the latter point - how is petitioning a court "illegal".
On the substantive point, I have read quite a bit of stuff from either side - its fascinating to see 160 year old cases being cited.
On "insurrection without trial" there is no debate. No trial or conviction is required. You can describe that as "jiggery-pokery" but if you tret the Constitution as the GOP do it is clear what both the text and the authors say about it.
I agree with you that the legal proceedings are dangerous. But so is not proceeding. Set aside the candidate and the politics and step all the way back. Principles.
Does the will of a mob overturn the rule of law? Or the law itself? Or the constitution that creates the framework for laws?
Discard the word mob is that offends you. "A mass of people". Call them patriots if you like. Can a large number of patriots act to overturn the constitution and laws and the rule of law because they want something?
Can a politician expect to escape laws because they are a politician? Whatever happened to "all men are created equal?"
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
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
What do I have to do with it? Trump is ineligible. If the SC rules otherwise they are rewriting the 14th - which is their right to do so.
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
And as I’ve shown you, there are plenty of people - experts - non Trumpites - who think the US Constitution is far from clear on this “insurrection without trial” jigggery-pokery. So it will be left to SCOTUS to decide
It may turn out these Democrat legal maneuvers are stupid, dangerous AND illegal. Not ideal
They aren't 'Democrat manoeuvres', in that they were proposed by both Democrats and Republicans, aren't sanctioned by the national party, are are strongly opposed by a significant number of Democrats.
Though it's fair to say that those in favour are predominantly Democrats.
That is correct (and imo Leon is off his trolley on this issue) - for example one of the petitions in Maine was by 3 former members of the Maine Legislature, comprising one former Democrat member, and two former Republican members. They are now aiui one Dem, one GOP, and one Indy voters in their registration.
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"
i will give you 180 -1 on littler becoming 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
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Likewise
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
He spends a lot of time cheating on the golf course where a hypothetical sniper has a lot of flags to help estimate wind speed.
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.
It has the potential to: 1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection. 2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
And exactly how far do you go to exclude Trump?
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
I am reasonably surprised that somebody hasn't tried to kill him yet.
Likewise
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
He spends a lot of time cheating on the golf course where a hypothetical sniper has a lot of flags to help estimate wind speed.
Nah, he could just hide in a bunker.
OGH's bet on Haley would be a fair way to being all green though.
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
But the lying clown could very easily have led them to an even worse spot
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.
Keeping Ukraine in the game is a much better policy than removing them from it.
From a purely “realist” viewpoint, grinding up the Russian army and navy makes excellent sense.
Indeed from a cynical financial perspective it is the best value out of our defence budget. Russia is defanged, its equipment and command structures shown to be inadequate. What fighting capacity Russia has remaining is bogged down in an intractable morass that at some point will break it, as did Aghanistan.
We should fund the Ukranians as long as they want to fight.
Comments
Go for youth as a direct contrast to the current lot. Plus he should carry Georgia, which would be a useful swing state to carry.
Trump should have already been rejected by the right, but they didn't because there's not much left in that tank. So it falls once again to the Democrats and an octogenarian to defeat him.
But for too many, it's been another tough year financially and a time of insecurity internationally.
In 2024, Labour is ready to renew politics so it serves our country again.
Let's make this the year we get Britain’s future back.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1741368595190341731
SKS going for next PM vibes.
Not that I think Russia's allies in America or Germany are actually thinking strategically in that way.
Whereas whenever we have given Ukraine the tools, they've used them very well. I would have expected that this, along with Russia's non-escalation outside of Ukraine, to have changed a few people's minds on giving Ukraine what they need.
Please answer a question for me (and @NickPalmer, who liked your post, probably should also answer): how much of other people's territory and money - in fact, how many *people* - are you willing to hand over to Putin's fascist, imperialist state for your 'peace' - however temporary that might be?
If you throw the stupid "I doubt that any of you would join up to go in to WW1 style trench warfare in Ukraine" line, then I'll throw the opposite at you: why don't you go and live in the Donbass, in the same conditions you are willing to throw millions of Ukrainians, eastern Europeans and others, into?
And if you don't want to live in those conditions, why should Ukrainians?
Anthony Blinken and Lloyd Austin were somewhat better suggestions.
Britain’s medical schools are some of the best in the world. Let them do their job unhindered
Louise Perry"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/31/its-time-to-train-our-own-doctors-and-stop-importing-them/
Perhaps Putin realises, as anyone sensible does, that actually pressing the button is not that advantageous to his regime or its aims, either tactically or strategically?
That's the prosecutor's fault though.
The Dems need to draw a breath, realise that Trump is eminently beatable, democratically - without all this iffy legal stuff which is liable to backfire - then get on and beat him
Mainly working class and underrepresented on here. I know as I have canvassed them
From a purely “realist” viewpoint, grinding up the Russian army and navy makes excellent sense.
I think it most unlikely that anybody who is 35 on January 20, 2025 will be considered ineligible to serve.
1) Trump loses the election despite the best efforts of GOP officials and armed miltias. We know what comes next - a full scale insurrection.
2) Trump wins the election and tells America all the things he will do on day 1 of assuming dictatorial powers. Full-blown constitutional crisis as officials from the Joint Chiefs down say they won't obey, whilst others denounce these "traitors" and demand their arrest. After noon EST on 20th January 2025, all hell breaks loose.
The only ways to prevent this are for the crazies to calm down, or for Trump to be excluded from the GE.
I don't think we're poles apart on this.
That would take the wind out of these other lawsuits, and if cleared, he will,be eligible and can win.
After all, if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
As several prosecutors are doing.
If this latest dodgy legal nonsense is stymied by SCOTUS (as I believe it will be), then what?
It's curious though, because it would seem from this comment you think their victories have been largely pyhrric and not worth much or much to worry about, but I'm sure you had been very dismissive of the concept previously.
I think in the end Russia will retain most if not all of what they currently hold, at least for this generation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00949py
As far as I can see, the criminal cases against Trump have been managed as quickly as is possible.
1) Trump loses the GE. The insurrection against the government starts immediately this time.
2) Trump wins the GE. He announces all the things he will do with his self-described dictatorial powers from 20th January onwards. The insurrection against the incoming government starts immediately.
Either way, there is no realistic scenario where the Americans vote and the result is calmly accepted.
If this courtroom wankery fails, then I reckon someone will have a pop
I was using her as an example of someone who - without getting into the technicalities of it - failed the age criteria, in the way that Arnie fails the natural born citizen criteria.
Maybe it was, but even so if it is not their 'fault', it was still too late to make a difference if, as seems likely, the trials will not be completed in time for the election due to the inevitable delay tactics, not all of which require a friendly judge.
'The people' have as much right to justice being done in a reasonable timeframe as does a defendant.
https://twitter.com/DSFireUpdates/status/1628394515563270146
He seems to have learned from the Kennedys. No open-top motorcades or visits to hotel kitchens.
I get the argument of "let the voters decide". But the voters can't decide on Arnold Schwarzenegger - he's ineligible. He may be the preferred candidate but *he's ineligible*. Democracy only works within the framework created to support it.
Either you support the constitution or you don't. You can't use textural and "what did the founders" arguments to support the 2nd Amendment, then say "to hell with textural and founders" to ignore the 14th Amendment.
Well you can. If you have no interest in the things you claim to have an interest in. And that is the reality. The GOP have decided to overturn the republic they claim to be defending.
And our resident revolution enthusiast.
1. The Constitution matters. Someone who engaged in insurrection cannot be President every bit as much as someone who isn’t at least 35 yrs old.
2. I believe Trump engaged in insurrection, but what I believe doesn’t matter. Each state, or Congress, or ultimately the federal court system makes that determination.
3. Each state runs their elections & determines who qualifies for the ballot. Maine & Colorado had the authority to do what they did.
4. Trump has the right to appeal. He’s entitled to due process.
5. I’d rather kick Trump’s ass at the ballot box than kick him off the ballot, but if the courts determine he’s not eligible, so be it. We are a nation of laws. The courts (ultimately SCOTUS) will decide this issue. And we all must accept that decision.
6. Yes, this is unprecedented. Well, what Trump did in 2020 was fucking unprecedented too.
7. Yes, kicking Trump off the ballot might tear this country apart. But so might convicting Trump of a crime. So what. Does that mean we don’t hold him accountable for crimes he committed? No. We can’t do that. Because in this country no one is above the law.
https://nitter.net/WalshFreedom/status/1741187511890661709#m
https://davidallengreen.com/2023/12/the-coming-constitutional-excitements-in-the-united-states/
You keep describing this as "dodgy legal nonsense". It is the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it nonsense when being used as intended to bar insurrectionists, but not nonsense when being used as never conceived to justify why AR15s and other assault weapons should be freely available?
I fully expect Trump to be on the ballot. Whether you think invoking the constitution is smart politically for the Dems or not (and it isn't), the Constitution remains there. It doesn't care who Trump is or how many support him. It just states the conditions which govern who can be a candidate.
I gave the example a week or so back of judges taking two years to rule on the FBI accessing phone evidence in relation to Jan 6th.
It's not a coincidence that Trump spent well over $100m on legal fees before he was criminally indicted.
It may turn out these Democrat legal maneuvers are stupid, dangerous AND illegal. Not ideal
punt on the issue, and say that states can't exclude constitutionally barred candidates ?
What is fascinating reading the various rulings is the way the Trump campaign manage their affairs. They seem to object to everything - such as the president being an office, or the definition of insurrection" - but never put forward their own counter definitions or arguments.
The entire argument is that any action against Trump is biased. Thats it. Or some spurious legal nitpick which gets batted away. On the fundamentals they don't seem to put up a defence at all. The Maine ruling points at this repeatedly.
Trump knows he is guilty. Except that with the 14th, "guilt" is not required. Arnie is not "guilty" of being foreign-born. He just is. And the same with insurrection. There is no requirement for conviction.
MAGA are allegedly enthusiasts for States' Rights, so perhaps if they had a principled bone in the bodies they would not Appeal it. See, for example, the Roe vs Wade ruling being overturned.
But they don't have any principled bones, because they are a cynical group of Machiavellians who will do whatever is necessary to further their interests.
The Judgement by the Maine Secretary of State is a very informative read:
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions.pdf
Can anyone point me towards a Janet and John version of why this stuff hasn't made it to a judgement yet?
Previously it seemed more that his lawyers would say things on TV, but not necessarily follow that up in legal submissions, or least temper the language to be the more usual kind of legal verbiage.
Obviously the legal battles are as much a part of the campaigning as anything else, but in court and in writing his lawyers seem to be leaning into that more, where before they saved that more for broadcast purposes.
Though it's fair to say that those in favour are predominantly Democrats.
second delay caused by the investigations by the authorities of the people who actually invaded the capitol.
third delay caused because they are going to a novel (or unused for 150 years) approach to what happened.
On Presidential Immunity, one of the planks of MAGA argumentation in defence of Trump is that both a sitting and former President cannot be held responsible for criminal acts ie Trump is above the law. This is already in Appeals to the Supreme Court of the US.
This 'complete Presidential Immunity' will never be upheld by any Supreme Court of the US, because in doing so they undermine their own legitimacy as being the ultimate determinative body.
SCOTUS has integrity problems itself, however - consider all the "gifts" from "billionaires" received by Clarence Thomas over 20 years, for example.
That is the downside of seeking to stick resolutely to aspects of a system designed in the 18C; you end up behind the times.
Trying to overthrow the government is both wrong and illegal, but that's never stopped Trump. It's why he's in trouble now.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/31/want-to-woo-the-fashion-crowd-show-your-knickers-off
But yesterday I listened to an In Our Time on the Federalist Papers; something I'd heard about in passing, but not really gone into any depth about. The program gave the impression that some of the ambiguities and problems with the constitution were deliberately put in to try to get it passed by the thirteen states.
The US constitution and its history is stuff I should probably read up a little more on. Does anyone have any suggestions (aside from the constitution itself, obvs.)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
On the substantive point, I have read quite a bit of stuff from either side - its fascinating to see 160 year old cases being cited.
On "insurrection without trial" there is no debate. No trial or conviction is required. You can describe that as "jiggery-pokery" but if you tret the Constitution as the GOP do it is clear what both the text and the authors say about it.
I agree with you that the legal proceedings are dangerous. But so is not proceeding. Set aside the candidate and the politics and step all the way back. Principles.
Does the will of a mob overturn the rule of law? Or the law itself? Or the constitution that creates the framework for laws?
Discard the word mob is that offends you. "A mass of people". Call them patriots if you like. Can a large number of patriots act to overturn the constitution and laws and the rule of law because they want something?
Can a politician expect to escape laws because they are a politician? Whatever happened to "all men are created equal?"
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions.pdf
We should fund the Ukranians as long as they want to fight.