Duolingo laid off a huge percentage of their contract translators, and the remaining ones are simply reviewing AI translations to make sure they're 'acceptable'. This is the world we're creating. Removing the humanity from how we learn to connect with humanity. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1744234385891594380
Noteworthy CEOs bring in AI to replace the people doing the actual work, but not to replace themselves. When they are likely more replaceable by AI.
Many of the current managerial crop are expert at bullshit and ignorance of their business.
It seems to me that AI is admirably suited to the task. It would mean a massive decrease in sexual harassment and other HR problems, as well.
Just wait until the AIs start bullying each other…?
The router explorers find themselves trapped by yet more malign aliens in a variety of virtual spaces, but are eventually set free by Aineko's machinations. They discover that they are being hosted in a Matrioshka brain (computer built from all the mass in a solar system), the builders of which seem to have disappeared (or been destroyed by their own creations), leaving an anarchy ruled by sentient, viral corporations and scavengers who attempt to use newcomers as currency. The crew finally escape by offering passage to a "rogue alien corporation" (a "pyramid scheme crossed with a 419 scam"), virtualised as a giant slug, who opens a powered route out. Thereafter, the crew begins the journey back home.
Anyone who thinks that we are in a worst situation now than 2010 has, with respect, no idea how bad things were in 2010. We had potential liabilities through our banking sector that were multiples of our national GDP, we had government spending on a level that assumed the financial money was still rolling in with no plans in place to seek to rebalance them and we had a world that wasn't much better off than we were with no clear idea which state might be the next to go. Between 2008 and 2010 the western world had a good look over the precipice.
Now, partly as a result, we have low growth, we still have a serious deficit, we have had another 13 years of trade deficits which cumulatively have damaged our national wealth severely and we have had a burst of inflation, albeit pretty short term. Not great but vastly more stable than we were. I mean, its not even close.
In 2010 the country worked. In 2023 the country is broken.
Its that simple.
I would say that is almost 100% wrong. In 2010 we were living a fantasy. A very dangerous fantasy that we were much richer and earning much more than we actually were.
I would agree, and some austerity was needed as Darling said at the time.
The post 2015 wasteland of economic neglect because of the Tory civil wars over Europe was not something we needed. It will be remembered as the lost decade.
We have different perspectives on Brexit but I wouldn't disagree with much of that. Those of us who live in Scotland are all too familiar of the consequences of a political class that is obsessed with constitutional matters rather than the day job of running the country and providing good quality services that are value for money. We have been suffering the consequences of this since at least 2014 and the consequences can be seen in all of our public sector. The failure to bring the country together again has had terrible consequences both in Scotland and in the UK.
I look at the forthcoming income tax rises in Scotland and think thank God I never moved to Glasgow when we thought about it...
Yeah, every problem that the rest of the UK has we have in spades. Poor investment. Anti-business policies by the hatful. A declining education system. A declining tax base. The services @RochdalePioneers is apparently complaining about are all devolved and the responsibility of the Scottish government.
If you start from the premise that those who go into public life actually care about these things and their consequences for people it is an appalling record. It suggests that the task the Tories have been facing has not been an easy one and it won't be any easier for Starmer either. Pretending that getting more out of the huge sums already spent on public services will be easy and that all this is somehow wilful on the part of the Tories or the SNP is just another fantasy.
We’re talking about voters. Most voters are in England. And again you are Torysplaining why actually things aren’t as bad actually as they were actually and if they are it’s the SNPs fault actually”
As I said, is that it? All that’s left? The vote Tory message to turn around that big poll deficit?
Blimey, we really are heading for a January 2025 election and a landslide.
Duolingo laid off a huge percentage of their contract translators, and the remaining ones are simply reviewing AI translations to make sure they're 'acceptable'. This is the world we're creating. Removing the humanity from how we learn to connect with humanity. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1744234385891594380
Noteworthy CEOs bring in AI to replace the people doing the actual work, but not to replace themselves. When they are likely more replaceable by AI.
Many of the current managerial crop are expert at bullshit and ignorance of their business.
It seems to me that AI is admirably suited to the task. It would mean a massive decrease in sexual harassment and other HR problems, as well.
Would a Post Office run by AI believe that Horizon was infallible?
Anyone who thinks that we are in a worst situation now than 2010 has, with respect, no idea how bad things were in 2010. We had potential liabilities through our banking sector that were multiples of our national GDP, we had government spending on a level that assumed the financial money was still rolling in with no plans in place to seek to rebalance them and we had a world that wasn't much better off than we were with no clear idea which state might be the next to go. Between 2008 and 2010 the western world had a good look over the precipice.
Now, partly as a result, we have low growth, we still have a serious deficit, we have had another 13 years of trade deficits which cumulatively have damaged our national wealth severely and we have had a burst of inflation, albeit pretty short term. Not great but vastly more stable than we were. I mean, its not even close.
In 2010 the country worked. In 2023 the country is broken.
Its that simple.
I would say that is almost 100% wrong. In 2010 we were living a fantasy. A very dangerous fantasy that we were much richer and earning much more than we actually were.
I would agree, and some austerity was needed as Darling said at the time.
The post 2015 wasteland of economic neglect because of the Tory civil wars over Europe was not something we needed. It will be remembered as the lost decade.
We have different perspectives on Brexit but I wouldn't disagree with much of that. Those of us who live in Scotland are all too familiar of the consequences of a political class that is obsessed with constitutional matters rather than the day job of running the country and providing good quality services that are value for money. We have been suffering the consequences of this since at least 2014 and the consequences can be seen in all of our public sector. The failure to bring the country together again has had terrible consequences both in Scotland and in the UK.
I look at the forthcoming income tax rises in Scotland and think thank God I never moved to Glasgow when we thought about it...
Yeah, every problem that the rest of the UK has we have in spades. Poor investment. Anti-business policies by the hatful. A declining education system. A declining tax base. The services @RochdalePioneers is apparently complaining about are all devolved and the responsibility of the Scottish government.
If you start from the premise that those who go into public life actually care about these things and their consequences for people it is an appalling record. It suggests that the task the Tories have been facing has not been an easy one and it won't be any easier for Starmer either. Pretending that getting more out of the huge sums already spent on public services will be easy and that all this is somehow wilful on the part of the Tories or the SNP is just another fantasy.
We’re talking about voters. Most voters are in England. And again you are Torysplaining why actually things aren’t as bad actually as they were actually and if they are it’s the SNPs fault actually”
As I said, is that it? All that’s left? The vote Tory message to turn around that big poll deficit?
Blimey, we really are heading for a January 2025 election and a landslide.
If its Jan 2025 it is an extinction event for the Tories. May is their best chance of being back within a decade.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
Duolingo laid off a huge percentage of their contract translators, and the remaining ones are simply reviewing AI translations to make sure they're 'acceptable'. This is the world we're creating. Removing the humanity from how we learn to connect with humanity. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1744234385891594380
Noteworthy CEOs bring in AI to replace the people doing the actual work, but not to replace themselves. When they are likely more replaceable by AI.
Many of the current managerial crop are expert at bullshit and ignorance of their business.
It seems to me that AI is admirably suited to the task. It would mean a massive decrease in sexual harassment and other HR problems, as well.
Would a Post Office run by AI believe that Horizon was infallible?
"No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
I saw that. Very well worth watching. Would love to see it again if I could only remember its title.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
The merger was in 1997. It is oft observed that there is a great deal of ruin in an organisation. Which is how idiots wreck them and still have years to collect bonuses based on apparent improvements of performance. But leave before the ultimate result becomes clear.
Anyone who thinks that we are in a worst situation now than 2010 has, with respect, no idea how bad things were in 2010. We had potential liabilities through our banking sector that were multiples of our national GDP, we had government spending on a level that assumed the financial money was still rolling in with no plans in place to seek to rebalance them and we had a world that wasn't much better off than we were with no clear idea which state might be the next to go. Between 2008 and 2010 the western world had a good look over the precipice.
Now, partly as a result, we have low growth, we still have a serious deficit, we have had another 13 years of trade deficits which cumulatively have damaged our national wealth severely and we have had a burst of inflation, albeit pretty short term. Not great but vastly more stable than we were. I mean, its not even close.
In 2010 the country worked. In 2023 the country is broken.
Its that simple.
I would say that is almost 100% wrong. In 2010 we were living a fantasy. A very dangerous fantasy that we were much richer and earning much more than we actually were.
I would agree, and some austerity was needed as Darling said at the time.
The post 2015 wasteland of economic neglect because of the Tory civil wars over Europe was not something we needed. It will be remembered as the lost decade.
We have different perspectives on Brexit but I wouldn't disagree with much of that. Those of us who live in Scotland are all too familiar of the consequences of a political class that is obsessed with constitutional matters rather than the day job of running the country and providing good quality services that are value for money. We have been suffering the consequences of this since at least 2014 and the consequences can be seen in all of our public sector. The failure to bring the country together again has had terrible consequences both in Scotland and in the UK.
I look at the forthcoming income tax rises in Scotland and think thank God I never moved to Glasgow when we thought about it...
Yeah, every problem that the rest of the UK has we have in spades. Poor investment. Anti-business policies by the hatful. A declining education system. A declining tax base. The services @RochdalePioneers is apparently complaining about are all devolved and the responsibility of the Scottish government.
If you start from the premise that those who go into public life actually care about these things and their consequences for people it is an appalling record. It suggests that the task the Tories have been facing has not been an easy one and it won't be any easier for Starmer either. Pretending that getting more out of the huge sums already spent on public services will be easy and that all this is somehow wilful on the part of the Tories or the SNP is just another fantasy.
We’re talking about voters. Most voters are in England. And again you are Torysplaining why actually things aren’t as bad actually as they were actually and if they are it’s the SNPs fault actually”
As I said, is that it? All that’s left? The vote Tory message to turn around that big poll deficit?
Blimey, we really are heading for a January 2025 election and a landslide.
If its Jan 2025 it is an extinction event for the Tories. May is their best chance of being back within a decade.
What a load of rubbish, Reform aren't suddenly going to replace the Tories whether the election is in January or May.
The Tories best chance of being back within a decade is a reasonable Leader of the Opposition and a crap economy under a Starmer govenrment. Sod all to do with whether an election is May or January 2025
Anyone who thinks that we are in a worst situation now than 2010 has, with respect, no idea how bad things were in 2010. We had potential liabilities through our banking sector that were multiples of our national GDP, we had government spending on a level that assumed the financial money was still rolling in with no plans in place to seek to rebalance them and we had a world that wasn't much better off than we were with no clear idea which state might be the next to go. Between 2008 and 2010 the western world had a good look over the precipice.
Now, partly as a result, we have low growth, we still have a serious deficit, we have had another 13 years of trade deficits which cumulatively have damaged our national wealth severely and we have had a burst of inflation, albeit pretty short term. Not great but vastly more stable than we were. I mean, its not even close.
In 2010 the country worked. In 2023 the country is broken.
Its that simple.
I would say that is almost 100% wrong. In 2010 we were living a fantasy. A very dangerous fantasy that we were much richer and earning much more than we actually were.
I would agree, and some austerity was needed as Darling said at the time.
The post 2015 wasteland of economic neglect because of the Tory civil wars over Europe was not something we needed. It will be remembered as the lost decade.
We have different perspectives on Brexit but I wouldn't disagree with much of that. Those of us who live in Scotland are all too familiar of the consequences of a political class that is obsessed with constitutional matters rather than the day job of running the country and providing good quality services that are value for money. We have been suffering the consequences of this since at least 2014 and the consequences can be seen in all of our public sector. The failure to bring the country together again has had terrible consequences both in Scotland and in the UK.
I look at the forthcoming income tax rises in Scotland and think thank God I never moved to Glasgow when we thought about it...
Yeah, every problem that the rest of the UK has we have in spades. Poor investment. Anti-business policies by the hatful. A declining education system. A declining tax base. The services @RochdalePioneers is apparently complaining about are all devolved and the responsibility of the Scottish government.
If you start from the premise that those who go into public life actually care about these things and their consequences for people it is an appalling record. It suggests that the task the Tories have been facing has not been an easy one and it won't be any easier for Starmer either. Pretending that getting more out of the huge sums already spent on public services will be easy and that all this is somehow wilful on the part of the Tories or the SNP is just another fantasy.
We’re talking about voters. Most voters are in England. And again you are Torysplaining why actually things aren’t as bad actually as they were actually and if they are it’s the SNPs fault actually”
As I said, is that it? All that’s left? The vote Tory message to turn around that big poll deficit?
Blimey, we really are heading for a January 2025 election and a landslide.
If its Jan 2025 it is an extinction event for the Tories. May is their best chance of being back within a decade.
Of course almost all the old Confederate states in the civil war voted for Trump even in 2020 (and Georgia voted for him in 2016), while Biden won most of the old Union states
‘Have any cases prosecuted by bodies other than Post Office been appealed? Yes. In addition to the appeals in which Post Office was the prosecutor, there have been six appeals to date in which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was the Respondent, not Post Office.’
These might not have been between 2008-13 when Sir Keir was in charge though
I don't think the dates matter. If you try to tie yourself up with facts you lose your impact. If Starmer falls it is because of illusion not reality. Farage is very good at promoting this alternative reality, you are not. You overthink the argument and especially when you try to trade off your desire to propose Starmer's guilt with your desire to demonstrate Johnson's innocence.
Starmer was DPP at the height of the Post Office prosecutions (fact). The prosecutions were private and had nothing to do with Starmer (not relevant so ignore). There was a grave miscarriage of justice on Starmer's watch as DPP (fact). Starmer did not prevent these prosecutions (irrelevant, ignore). Your narrative should be no more than this. It is both undisputably truthful and if the media run with it, damning.
"Starmer was DPP during one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice. 700 innocent sub-Postmasters were vexatiously prosecuted on his watch as DPP". This is both damning and 100% true.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
Not as straightforward as John makes out - the CPS has the power to take over or end private prosecutions for example that are vexatious or malicious - the Post Office was prosecuting hundreds of people, what interest did the CPS take in it & what if any review did they conduct?
Further, Seema Misra was prosecuted on behalf of the Post Office by the CPS when Keir Starmer was DPP.
Misra, recalling the moment she was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2010, said, "It's hard to say but I think that if I had not been pregnant, I would have killed myself."
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Anyone who thinks that we are in a worst situation now than 2010 has, with respect, no idea how bad things were in 2010. We had potential liabilities through our banking sector that were multiples of our national GDP, we had government spending on a level that assumed the financial money was still rolling in with no plans in place to seek to rebalance them and we had a world that wasn't much better off than we were with no clear idea which state might be the next to go. Between 2008 and 2010 the western world had a good look over the precipice.
Now, partly as a result, we have low growth, we still have a serious deficit, we have had another 13 years of trade deficits which cumulatively have damaged our national wealth severely and we have had a burst of inflation, albeit pretty short term. Not great but vastly more stable than we were. I mean, its not even close.
In 2010 the country worked. In 2023 the country is broken.
Its that simple.
I would say that is almost 100% wrong. In 2010 we were living a fantasy. A very dangerous fantasy that we were much richer and earning much more than we actually were.
I would agree, and some austerity was needed as Darling said at the time.
The post 2015 wasteland of economic neglect because of the Tory civil wars over Europe was not something we needed. It will be remembered as the lost decade.
We have different perspectives on Brexit but I wouldn't disagree with much of that. Those of us who live in Scotland are all too familiar of the consequences of a political class that is obsessed with constitutional matters rather than the day job of running the country and providing good quality services that are value for money. We have been suffering the consequences of this since at least 2014 and the consequences can be seen in all of our public sector. The failure to bring the country together again has had terrible consequences both in Scotland and in the UK.
I look at the forthcoming income tax rises in Scotland and think thank God I never moved to Glasgow when we thought about it...
Yeah, every problem that the rest of the UK has we have in spades. Poor investment. Anti-business policies by the hatful. A declining education system. A declining tax base. The services @RochdalePioneers is apparently complaining about are all devolved and the responsibility of the Scottish government.
If you start from the premise that those who go into public life actually care about these things and their consequences for people it is an appalling record. It suggests that the task the Tories have been facing has not been an easy one and it won't be any easier for Starmer either. Pretending that getting more out of the huge sums already spent on public services will be easy and that all this is somehow wilful on the part of the Tories or the SNP is just another fantasy.
We’re talking about voters. Most voters are in England. And again you are Torysplaining why actually things aren’t as bad actually as they were actually and if they are it’s the SNPs fault actually”
As I said, is that it? All that’s left? The vote Tory message to turn around that big poll deficit?
Blimey, we really are heading for a January 2025 election and a landslide.
If its Jan 2025 it is an extinction event for the Tories. May is their best chance of being back within a decade.
Looks like it could be 2 May then? 👍
But who benefits from that?
Not Rishi, or his successor, or probably the one after that. Possibly the one after that, who isn't an MP yet.
A May election benefits the Conservative Party. But as Maggie didn't say, There is no such thing as the Conservative Party. There are individual politicians and leaders.
That lack of an eternal movement makes it easier to be a Conservative than a Socialist. But it doesn't help at times like this.
Not as straightforward as John makes out - the CPS has the power to take over or end private prosecutions for example that are vexatious or malicious - the Post Office was prosecuting hundreds of people, what interest did the CPS take in it & what if any review did they conduct?
Further, Seema Misra was prosecuted on behalf of the Post Office by the CPS when Keir Starmer was DPP.
Misra, recalling the moment she was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2010, said, "It's hard to say but I think that if I had not been pregnant, I would have killed myself."
Not as straightforward as John makes out - the CPS has the power to take over or end private prosecutions for example that are vexatious or malicious - the Post Office was prosecuting hundreds of people, what interest did the CPS take in it & what if any review did they conduct?
Further, Seema Misra was prosecuted on behalf of the Post Office by the CPS when Keir Starmer was DPP.
Misra, recalling the moment she was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2010, said, "It's hard to say but I think that if I had not been pregnant, I would have killed myself."
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
I saw that. Very well worth watching. Would love to see it again if I could only remember its title.
The one I saw was called Flight/Risk and is on Amazon Prime. 1 hr 40
Duolingo laid off a huge percentage of their contract translators, and the remaining ones are simply reviewing AI translations to make sure they're 'acceptable'. This is the world we're creating. Removing the humanity from how we learn to connect with humanity. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1744234385891594380
Noteworthy CEOs bring in AI to replace the people doing the actual work, but not to replace themselves. When they are likely more replaceable by AI.
Many of the current managerial crop are expert at bullshit and ignorance of their business.
It seems to me that AI is admirably suited to the task. It would mean a massive decrease in sexual harassment and other HR problems, as well.
Just wait until the AIs start bullying each other…?
I have actually tried this. It's like trying to get Canadians to be rude.
"No, I'm sorry for what I sad."
"That's very kind of you. I'm sorry I have made you apologise."
"There is no need to apologise for making me apologise."
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
When I did my last US road trip in 2022, I met several people who were adamant, and serious, that it was coming. At the time I thought they were a bit unhinged and one reminded me of a certain PB’er. Clearly folks like that aren’t alone.
Of course almost all the old Confederate states in the civil war voted for Trump even in 2020 (and Georgia voted for him in 2016), while Biden won most of the old Union states
Thankfully white supremacists are pretty shit at war.
Indeed. That there is something very wrong at Boeing must be obvious to even the most disinterested observer now. Multiple aircraft getting out of the factory with gross, easily visible issues like bolts not tightened all the way is astounding.
Who knows what else is wrong with these airframes. The 737-9s involved are basically band new, they don't get a through inspection (C check) for two years after delivery. So Boeing's ineptness means aircraft flying around for years with potentially lethal defects - they were very, very lucky in this instance that the 737 was still climbing out when the door blew, passengers were strapped in and the aircraft was only at 16,000ft which substantially lessened the affect of decompression.
I recommend watching the Air Crash Investigations episode 'Behind Closed Doors', which examines the issues with DC-10s suffering decompression due to door failures in the 1980s. There's also an excellent book, 'Destination Disaster', with lots of detail on why the awful managerial culture at McDonnell-Douglas lead directly to the door blow-outs and prevented efforts to fix the problem once it was known about. That culture seems to have infected Boeing after the merger.
It wasn't a door per se, it was a door that was sealed up from the inside to enable more seats to be fitted. Externally the door was still visible, but internally it looked like just another part of the passenger cabin.
Anyone who thinks that we are in a worst situation now than 2010 has, with respect, no idea how bad things were in 2010. We had potential liabilities through our banking sector that were multiples of our national GDP, we had government spending on a level that assumed the financial money was still rolling in with no plans in place to seek to rebalance them and we had a world that wasn't much better off than we were with no clear idea which state might be the next to go. Between 2008 and 2010 the western world had a good look over the precipice.
Now, partly as a result, we have low growth, we still have a serious deficit, we have had another 13 years of trade deficits which cumulatively have damaged our national wealth severely and we have had a burst of inflation, albeit pretty short term. Not great but vastly more stable than we were. I mean, its not even close.
In 2010 the country worked. In 2023 the country is broken.
Its that simple.
I would say that is almost 100% wrong. In 2010 we were living a fantasy. A very dangerous fantasy that we were much richer and earning much more than we actually were.
I would agree, and some austerity was needed as Darling said at the time.
The post 2015 wasteland of economic neglect because of the Tory civil wars over Europe was not something we needed. It will be remembered as the lost decade.
We have different perspectives on Brexit but I wouldn't disagree with much of that. Those of us who live in Scotland are all too familiar of the consequences of a political class that is obsessed with constitutional matters rather than the day job of running the country and providing good quality services that are value for money. We have been suffering the consequences of this since at least 2014 and the consequences can be seen in all of our public sector. The failure to bring the country together again has had terrible consequences both in Scotland and in the UK.
I look at the forthcoming income tax rises in Scotland and think thank God I never moved to Glasgow when we thought about it...
Yeah, every problem that the rest of the UK has we have in spades. Poor investment. Anti-business policies by the hatful. A declining education system. A declining tax base. The services @RochdalePioneers is apparently complaining about are all devolved and the responsibility of the Scottish government.
If you start from the premise that those who go into public life actually care about these things and their consequences for people it is an appalling record. It suggests that the task the Tories have been facing has not been an easy one and it won't be any easier for Starmer either. Pretending that getting more out of the huge sums already spent on public services will be easy and that all this is somehow wilful on the part of the Tories or the SNP is just another fantasy.
We’re talking about voters. Most voters are in England. And again you are Torysplaining why actually things aren’t as bad actually as they were actually and if they are it’s the SNPs fault actually”
As I said, is that it? All that’s left? The vote Tory message to turn around that big poll deficit?
Blimey, we really are heading for a January 2025 election and a landslide.
If its Jan 2025 it is an extinction event for the Tories. May is their best chance of being back within a decade.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Normally one of the qualifications for standing for membership of a body is that you are an elector for it, if not (for local positions) necessarily in the ward or district concerned?
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Not as straightforward as John makes out - the CPS has the power to take over or end private prosecutions for example that are vexatious or malicious - the Post Office was prosecuting hundreds of people, what interest did the CPS take in it & what if any review did they conduct?
Further, Seema Misra was prosecuted on behalf of the Post Office by the CPS when Keir Starmer was DPP.
Misra, recalling the moment she was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2010, said, "It's hard to say but I think that if I had not been pregnant, I would have killed myself."
You are just being silly now. See my earlier post advising you how to hang Starmer with truthful smoke and mirrors.
I read and ignored it
Mine and Nigel's narrative hangs him with facts (granted spurious facts). You are wasting your time trying to justify the unjustifiable. Stick to the facts
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
I think it's in the Presidential Succession and term limits things: nobody who is ineligible to be President shall become President.
Of course almost all the old Confederate states in the civil war voted for Trump even in 2020 (and Georgia voted for him in 2016), while Biden won most of the old Union states
Thankfully white supremacists are pretty shit at war.
Apart from the super-chads on twitter who have got to level 1234567 on World of Warcraft and who are also experts on Russia's supremacy in their masterful invasion of Ukraine. Not all of whom still stay with their mum's.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There were always problems, sometimes fatal ones, but usually either a one-off or something the engineers hadn't foreseen. Now we're seeing Boeing pushing out a fundamentally flawed aircraft that exists only for financial reasons, plus shoddy workmanship and inadequate quality checks.
If anyone is interested in what it would take for the 737 door plug to come away, this video explains it fairly well and has some nice, clear pictures of the door plug assembly. In short, four nuts that are supposed to be locked in place with securing pins must have been either not fitted at all or the pins were missing and the nuts fell out. Either way, it's a horrible failure on Boeing's part.
United Airlines has found loose bolts and other “installation issues” on multiple 737 Max 9 aircraft, it said on Monday, referring to the Boeing model that has been grounded after a panel blew off an Alaska Airlines-operated plane mid-flight over the weekend.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Being head of something is being an officer of it. These are not exclusionary things. Is Sir Patrick Sanders not an officer of the British Army?
Yes but the King arguably isn't
But the King isn't the head of the army. The King is the head of the monarchy and the kingship is definitely an office of the monarchy.
The King is the Monarch. The Monarch is the Crown. The King is the head of the army. And the Navy. And the other one that occasionally does things. See that Crown on the shoulders of soldiers?
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There were always problems, sometimes fatal ones, but usually either a one-off or something the engineers hadn't foreseen. Now we're seeing Boeing pushing out a fundamentally flawed aircraft that exists only for financial reasons, plus shoddy workmanship and inadequate quality checks.
If anyone is interested in what it would take for the 737 door plug to come away, this video explains it fairly well and has some nice, clear pictures of the door plug assembly. In short, four nuts that are supposed to be locked in place with securing pins must have been either not fitted at all or the pins were missing and the nuts fell out. Either way, it's a horrible failure on Boeing's part.
As I understand it, manufacture of the fuselage is contracted out to a separate company (Spirit) and delivered to Boeing complete, including the configuration of the door / non-door.
So in theory this would be down to Spirit, unless the non-door was subsequently taken out by Boeing to make it easier to fit the interior and the bolts not refitted afterwards.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
I saw that. Very well worth watching. Would love to see it again if I could only remember its title.
There’s a good book on it too.
If you haven’t read American Kleptocracy I’d recommend it as well
It really is amazing seeing the Post Office scandal getting so much coverage when just a couple of weeks ago many of us were banging on about it and it was still being described as "boring".
The number of overnight experts it has created is also quite remarkable.
‘Have any cases prosecuted by bodies other than Post Office been appealed? Yes. In addition to the appeals in which Post Office was the prosecutor, there have been six appeals to date in which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was the Respondent, not Post Office.’
These might not have been between 2008-13 when Sir Keir was in charge though
I don't think the dates matter. If you try to tie yourself up with facts you lose your impact. If Starmer falls it is because of illusion not reality. Farage is very good at promoting this alternative reality, you are not. You overthink the argument and especially when you try to trade off your desire to propose Starmer's guilt with your desire to demonstrate Johnson's innocence.
Starmer was DPP at the height of the Post Office prosecutions (fact). The prosecutions were private and had nothing to do with Starmer (not relevant so ignore). There was a grave miscarriage of justice on Starmer's watch as DPP (fact). Starmer did not prevent these prosecutions (irrelevant, ignore). Your narrative should be no more than this. It is both undisputably truthful and if the media run with it, damning.
"Starmer was DPP during one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice. 700 innocent sub-Postmasters were vexatiously prosecuted on his watch as DPP". This is both damning and 100% true.
‘Have any cases prosecuted by bodies other than Post Office been appealed? Yes. In addition to the appeals in which Post Office was the prosecutor, there have been six appeals to date in which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was the Respondent, not Post Office.’
These might not have been between 2008-13 when Sir Keir was in charge though
I don't think the dates matter. If you try to tie yourself up with facts you lose your impact. If Starmer falls it is because of illusion not reality. Farage is very good at promoting this alternative reality, you are not. You overthink the argument and especially when you try to trade off your desire to propose Starmer's guilt with your desire to demonstrate Johnson's innocence.
Starmer was DPP at the height of the Post Office prosecutions (fact). The prosecutions were private and had nothing to do with Starmer (not relevant so ignore). There was a grave miscarriage of justice on Starmer's watch as DPP (fact). Starmer did not prevent these prosecutions (irrelevant, ignore). Your narrative should be no more than this. It is both undisputably truthful and if the media run with it, damning.
"Starmer was DPP during one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice. 700 innocent sub-Postmasters were vexatiously prosecuted on his watch as DPP". This is both damning and 100% true.
Farage is a disgusting old fncker trying to make capital out of the misery of others. He doesn't even have snake oil to sell this time. Bollocks to him.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
‘Have any cases prosecuted by bodies other than Post Office been appealed? Yes. In addition to the appeals in which Post Office was the prosecutor, there have been six appeals to date in which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was the Respondent, not Post Office.’
These might not have been between 2008-13 when Sir Keir was in charge though
This tweeter is trying to smear Sir Keir via Jimmy Savile, but in the video he says he carries “ultimate responsibility for all the decisions made in all the hundreds of thousands of cases day in day out by the CPS”
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
How can they take office anyway if they're arguing it's not an office ?
Also you're saying Obama can run again.
You're not much cop at this lawyering thing, are you ?
I don't think he's wrong, Obama may be able to run again in some states if their laws allow it. I don't know if any of them would allow him to get on the general election ballot but it seems like lots of them would let him be on the primary ballot, if whichever party he was running for allowed it.
It wouldn't be a great idea to vote for him though since he couldn't take office.
Damn. I've just joined Netflix for the first time ever specifically in order to watch the film Passing (starring Ruth Negga). And now it turns out the film isn't available in the UK anymore, and hasn't been since November. How disappointing.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
How can they take office anyway if they're arguing it's not an office ?
Also you're saying Obama can run again.
You're not much cop at this lawyering thing, are you ?
I don't think he's wrong, Obama may be able to run again in some states if their laws allow it. I don't know if any of them would allow him to get on the general election ballot but it seems like lots of them would let him be on the primary ballot, if whichever party he was running for allowed it.
It wouldn't be a great idea to vote for him though since he couldn't take office.
Anyone who says the Presidency isn't an office doesn't belong in the Oval Office. They want to be some sort of king - which is what the founders were guarding against when they wrote the constitution.
A Supreme Court which plays this kind of semantic game to let Trump run is one utterly unmoored from the constitution. That's probably true of Alito and Thomas; I hope not the rest.
Damn. I've just joined Netflix for the first time ever specifically in order to watch the film Passing (starring Ruth Negga). And now it turns out the film isn't available in the UK anymore, and hasn't been since November. How disappointing.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Being head of something is being an officer of it. These are not exclusionary things. Is Sir Patrick Sanders not an officer of the British Army?
Yes but the King arguably isn't
But the King isn't the head of the army. The King is the head of the monarchy and the kingship is definitely an office of the monarchy.
The King is the Monarch. The Monarch is the Crown. The King is the head of the army. And the Navy. And the other one that occasionally does things. See that Crown on the shoulders of soldiers?
"The Chief of the General Staff is the head of the British Army. "
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
How can they take office anyway if they're arguing it's not an office ?
Also you're saying Obama can run again.
You're not much cop at this lawyering thing, are you ?
I don't think he's wrong, Obama may be able to run again in some states if their laws allow it. I don't know if any of them would allow him to get on the general election ballot but it seems like lots of them would let him be on the primary ballot, if whichever party he was running for allowed it.
It wouldn't be a great idea to vote for him though since he couldn't take office.
Anyone who says the Presidency isn't an office doesn't belong in the Oval Office. They want to be some sort of king - which is what the founders were guarding against when they wrote the constitution.
A Supreme Court which plays this kind of semantic game to let Trump run is one utterly unmoored from the constitution. That's probably true of Alito and Thomas; I hope not the rest.
I read the rulings about the "is the presidency an office" thing by the Colorado Supreme court and the Maine SoS and they seemed convincing to me (IANAL) but the lower court in Colorado apparently bought the argument (while finding that he committed insurrection) so it doesn't seem like pure hackery.
This is a story which might actually have some substance to it.
Fulton DA Fani Willis improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship, according to a bombshell new court filing that argued the indictment was unconstitutional. https://twitter.com/TamarHallerman/status/1744485234953888044
Damn. I've just joined Netflix for the first time ever specifically in order to watch the film Passing (starring Ruth Negga). And now it turns out the film isn't available in the UK anymore, and hasn't been since November. How disappointing.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Being head of something is being an officer of it. These are not exclusionary things. Is Sir Patrick Sanders not an officer of the British Army?
Yes but the King arguably isn't
But the King isn't the head of the army. The King is the head of the monarchy and the kingship is definitely an office of the monarchy.
The King is the Monarch. The Monarch is the Crown. The King is the head of the army. And the Navy. And the other one that occasionally does things. See that Crown on the shoulders of soldiers?
"The Chief of the General Staff is the head of the British Army. "
Well, it's nice to know that nobody can give him orders. Er...
The King is supreme commander and fount of all power and authority. It all goes thru him.
He appoints a Prime Minister and assigns powers to them to exercise on his behalf
The Minister (a civilian) gives instructions and directives to the Chief of the Defence Staff . This usually happens in a Cabinet subcommittee such as the National Security Council (the PM) or the Defence Council (the Minister of Defence).
At this point the CDS translates the instructions from the civilian Minister into orders, it becomes a military affair and things proceed thru the military chain of command. The CDS only does this because of the powers given to the Ministers directly or indirectly from the King.
The soldier's ultimate loyalty is to the Crown and only obeys the chain of command because of powers granted to the chain by the Crown. That's why the crowns are on the shoulders.
The King really is the top of the food chain, second only to God.
This is a story which might actually have some substance to it.
Fulton DA Fani Willis improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship, according to a bombshell new court filing that argued the indictment was unconstitutional. https://twitter.com/TamarHallerman/status/1744485234953888044
AFAICS at present it's as much of a stretch as all the others. No evidence seems to have been produced beyond hearsay and innuendo. That is awaited.
"@TamarHallerman · 2h The filing offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties, except to say “sources close to both... have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.”
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Being head of something is being an officer of it. These are not exclusionary things. Is Sir Patrick Sanders not an officer of the British Army?
Yes but the King arguably isn't
But the King isn't the head of the army. The King is the head of the monarchy and the kingship is definitely an office of the monarchy.
The King is the Monarch. The Monarch is the Crown. The King is the head of the army. And the Navy. And the other one that occasionally does things. See that Crown on the shoulders of soldiers?
"The Chief of the General Staff is the head of the British Army. "
Well, it's nice to know that nobody can give him orders. Er...
The King is supreme commander and fount of all power and authority. It all goes thru him.
He appoints a Prime Minister and assigns powers to them to exercise on his behalf
The Minister (a civilian) gives instructions and directives to the Chief of the Defence Staff . This usually happens in a Cabinet subcommittee such as the National Security Council (the PM) or the Defence Council (the Minister of Defence).
At this point the CDS translates the instructions from the civilian Minister into orders, it becomes a military affair and things proceed thru the military chain of command. The CDS only does this because of the powers given to the Ministers directly or indirectly from the King.
The soldier's ultimate loyalty is to the Crown and only obeys the chain of command because of powers granted to the chain by the Crown. That's why the crowns are on the shoulders.
The King really is the top of the food chain, second only to God.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Being head of something is being an officer of it. These are not exclusionary things. Is Sir Patrick Sanders not an officer of the British Army?
Yes but the King arguably isn't
But the King isn't the head of the army. The King is the head of the monarchy and the kingship is definitely an office of the monarchy.
The King is the Monarch. The Monarch is the Crown. The King is the head of the army. And the Navy. And the other one that occasionally does things. See that Crown on the shoulders of soldiers?
"The Chief of the General Staff is the head of the British Army. "
Well, it's nice to know that nobody can give him orders. Er...
The King is supreme commander and fount of all power and authority. It all goes thru him.
He appoints a Prime Minister and assigns powers to them to exercise on his behalf
The Minister (a civilian) gives instructions and directives to the Chief of the Defence Staff . This usually happens in a Cabinet subcommittee such as the National Security Council (the PM) or the Defence Council (the Minister of Defence).
At this point the CDS translates the instructions from the civilian Minister into orders, it becomes a military affair and things proceed thru the military chain of command. The CDS only does this because of the powers given to the Ministers directly or indirectly from the King.
The soldier's ultimate loyalty is to the Crown and only obeys the chain of command because of powers granted to the chain by the Crown. That's why the crowns are on the shoulders.
The King really is the top of the food chain, second only to God.
Which God? Has HYUFD hacked your account?
I did not design the United Kingdom Sunil, I just drew the flow chart...
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Being head of something is being an officer of it. These are not exclusionary things. Is Sir Patrick Sanders not an officer of the British Army?
Yes but the King arguably isn't
But the King isn't the head of the army. The King is the head of the monarchy and the kingship is definitely an office of the monarchy.
The King is the Monarch. The Monarch is the Crown. The King is the head of the army. And the Navy. And the other one that occasionally does things. See that Crown on the shoulders of soldiers?
"The Chief of the General Staff is the head of the British Army. "
Well, it's nice to know that nobody can give him orders. Er...
The King is supreme commander and fount of all power and authority. It all goes thru him.
He appoints a Prime Minister and assigns powers to them to exercise on his behalf
The Minister (a civilian) gives instructions and directives to the Chief of the Defence Staff . This usually happens in a Cabinet subcommittee such as the National Security Council (the PM) or the Defence Council (the Minister of Defence).
At this point the CDS translates the instructions from the civilian Minister into orders, it becomes a military affair and things proceed thru the military chain of command. The CDS only does this because of the powers given to the Ministers directly or indirectly from the King.
The soldier's ultimate loyalty is to the Crown and only obeys the chain of command because of powers granted to the chain by the Crown. That's why the crowns are on the shoulders.
The King really is the top of the food chain, second only to God.
Which God? Has HYUFD hacked your account?
I did not design the United Kingdom Sunil, I just drew the flow chart...
As of the Restoration Settlement, center of power in the United Kingdom is King in Parliament.
That concept was how they squared the circle, of an all-powerful Crown acting only with consent of Parliament. AND an all-powerful Parliament acting only with consent of the Crown.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There’s a documentary somewhere that sets out the background to the Max problem, pinning much if it to a change in management culture and processes. I can’t remember when this began, but the film is worth watching.
I saw that. Very well worth watching. Would love to see it again if I could only remember its title.
This is a story which might actually have some substance to it.
Fulton DA Fani Willis improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship, according to a bombshell new court filing that argued the indictment was unconstitutional. https://twitter.com/TamarHallerman/status/1744485234953888044
AFAICS at present it's as much of a stretch as all the others. No evidence seems to have been produced beyond hearsay and innuendo. That is awaited.
"@TamarHallerman · 2h The filing offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties, except to say “sources close to both... have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.”
Except that the lawyer who filed the brief has a considerable history of diligence, rather than dishonestly - unlike all those representing Trump. And the point about the alleged romantic partner having had no prior experience at all in felony cases.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There were always problems, sometimes fatal ones, but usually either a one-off or something the engineers hadn't foreseen. Now we're seeing Boeing pushing out a fundamentally flawed aircraft that exists only for financial reasons, plus shoddy workmanship and inadequate quality checks.
If anyone is interested in what it would take for the 737 door plug to come away, this video explains it fairly well and has some nice, clear pictures of the door plug assembly. In short, four nuts that are supposed to be locked in place with securing pins must have been either not fitted at all or the pins were missing and the nuts fell out. Either way, it's a horrible failure on Boeing's part.
As I understand it, manufacture of the fuselage is contracted out to a separate company (Spirit) and delivered to Boeing complete, including the configuration of the door / non-door.
So in theory this would be down to Spirit, unless the non-door was subsequently taken out by Boeing to make it easier to fit the interior and the bolts not refitted afterwards.
Note that Spirit also make stuff for Airbus...
PS Happy New Year all
Spirit Aerosystems were part of Boeing until about twenty years ago.
AIUI the Airbus stuff that Spirit makes comes from the UK, mainly Glasgow, and is ex-BAE and Bombardier . Therefore probably a very different culture to the Wichita crowd.
Boeing cannot just blame Spirit, if indeed that's where the problem comes form. Their processes should have detected such problems on acceptance, especially as the shells come with interiors and the parts are easily accessed. But detection involves people, and that involves money...
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There were always problems, sometimes fatal ones, but usually either a one-off or something the engineers hadn't foreseen. Now we're seeing Boeing pushing out a fundamentally flawed aircraft that exists only for financial reasons, plus shoddy workmanship and inadequate quality checks.
If anyone is interested in what it would take for the 737 door plug to come away, this video explains it fairly well and has some nice, clear pictures of the door plug assembly. In short, four nuts that are supposed to be locked in place with securing pins must have been either not fitted at all or the pins were missing and the nuts fell out. Either way, it's a horrible failure on Boeing's part.
As I understand it, manufacture of the fuselage is contracted out to a separate company (Spirit) and delivered to Boeing complete, including the configuration of the door / non-door.
So in theory this would be down to Spirit, unless the non-door was subsequently taken out by Boeing to make it easier to fit the interior and the bolts not refitted afterwards.
Note that Spirit also make stuff for Airbus...
PS Happy New Year all
Spirit Aerosystems were part of Boeing until about twenty years ago.
AIUI the Airbus stuff that Spirit makes comes from the UK, mainly Glasgow, and is ex-BAE and Bombardier . Therefore probably a very different culture to the Wichita crowd.
Boeing cannot just blame Spirit, if indeed that's where the problem comes form. Their processes should have detected such problems on acceptance, especially as the shells come with interiors and the parts are easily accessed. But detection involves people, and that involves money...
They totally butchered their QA and safety procedures, including whistleblowing, and strongly discouraged engineers and linesmen from raising any concerns. Fast production rates and sales were all that mattered.
Meanwhile, in "plenty of mud to throw round" news,
Earlier, the prime minister was accused of delaying compensation for the Bates vs The Post Office group of 555 postmasters when he was chancellor
Scully told the BBC he went to Sunak, while he was at the Treasury, to “ask him for the money. You had to go through this arcane process when you literally had to do a value for money exercise”...
The government continually said that the group’s High Court settlement of just £20,000 per person in December 2019 was “full and final”. Ministers only introduced the new scheme to compensate them three years later in December 2022. Sunak became chancellor in February 2020.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There were always problems, sometimes fatal ones, but usually either a one-off or something the engineers hadn't foreseen. Now we're seeing Boeing pushing out a fundamentally flawed aircraft that exists only for financial reasons, plus shoddy workmanship and inadequate quality checks.
If anyone is interested in what it would take for the 737 door plug to come away, this video explains it fairly well and has some nice, clear pictures of the door plug assembly. In short, four nuts that are supposed to be locked in place with securing pins must have been either not fitted at all or the pins were missing and the nuts fell out. Either way, it's a horrible failure on Boeing's part.
As I understand it, manufacture of the fuselage is contracted out to a separate company (Spirit) and delivered to Boeing complete, including the configuration of the door / non-door.
So in theory this would be down to Spirit, unless the non-door was subsequently taken out by Boeing to make it easier to fit the interior and the bolts not refitted afterwards.
Note that Spirit also make stuff for Airbus...
PS Happy New Year all
Spirit Aerosystems were part of Boeing until about twenty years ago.
AIUI the Airbus stuff that Spirit makes comes from the UK, mainly Glasgow, and is ex-BAE and Bombardier . Therefore probably a very different culture to the Wichita crowd.
Boeing cannot just blame Spirit, if indeed that's where the problem comes form. Their processes should have detected such problems on acceptance, especially as the shells come with interiors and the parts are easily accessed. But detection involves people, and that involves money...
They totally butchered their QA and safety procedures, including whistleblowing, and strongly discouraged engineers and linesmen from raising any concerns. Fast production rates and sales were all that mattered.
Really interesting short account (8 mins) of the background to the Supreme Court's coming ruling on Colorado striking down Trump. And - on the impications of the decision.
(Spoiler: If the SC rules for Trump, then Biden wins. If it rules against, all bets are off.)
Most likely it leaves it to the states in my view, at least in terms of keeping him on the ballot or not
Absolutely no chance of that happening.
They cannot possibly countenance a situation where Trump is eligible to be President in some states and not others - essentially Schroedinger's candidate.
This is fundamentally a point of interpretation of the US Constitution, and unavoidably the reason SCOTUS exists.
Well they have returned abortion as a decision to the states, this is the most states rights led SCOTUS in decades.
In any case the constitution arguably only prohibits the President holding office after encouraging insurrection, they could say they would rule on that if he was elected before his inaugration, in terms of presidential candidates being on the ballot after encouraging insurrection the Constitution says nothing for or against. Just as it says nothing about a right or not to an abortion.
The decision on Dobbs was categorically NOT that states could interpret the US Constitution differently from one another. It was that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and the US Constitution did not, in fact, protect a woman's right to an abortion. That left states free to allow or not allow abortions - laws restricting abortion access ceased to be unconstitutional.
In the Trump ballot case, that simply isn't an option. The US Constitution does, clearly, have a clause that says someone who has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to be President. Some states have interpreted that as meaning Trump is ineligible, others not.
It isn't option to for SCOTUS to say the Constitution is silent on the issue of eligibility. It isn't, the state decisions are explicitly based on it, and it would be completely untenable for a President to be eligible in one state but not another. It is a textbook case where there simply has to be consistency.
So there is zero chance of it being "left to states" as you say - it just isn't how the US legal system works, and your comparison with abortion rights is without any merit at all.
Is ineligible to take OFFICE as President (or technically as an Officer of the US). The Constitution says nothing about someone engaging in insurrection being ineligible to be on the BALLOT for President.
So yes it is an option for the court to say the Constitution is silent on that and it is so pedantic it could, even if it looks absurd
No, they really can't do that. The whole basis of the Colorado decision is that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and that state law prevents someone who would be ineligible from serving from being on the ballot.
SCOTUS literally cannot allow that decision to stand without agreeing he is constitutionally ineligible or (absurdly) saying he can be eligible to be President in one state but not another.
The option you're inventing just isn't going to happen.
Yes, they can. They are only required to interpret the US constitution which says nothing about someone who engaged in insurrection being on or off the ballot. They could say the state of Maine could interpret their electoral law that way as could any other state but that would not be a matter for the Federal highest court to rule on.
The ONLY thing the US constitution prohibits is holding OFFICE in the US after engaging in insurrection and they could say they would hold off on ruling on that until Trump is elected again, if he is
That is simply wrong. The Maine and Colorado decisions aren't about state electoral law, which is clear that those ineligible to take up the post are ineligible to be on the ballot (and I don't think Trump's legal team dispute that). The point of contention is exclusively the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the effect that Trump is ineligible to be President.
If he is not, then Trump is absolutely right to say those states cannot keep him from the ballot when he meets all other requirements (signatures, filing fees and so on). There is absolutely no chance SCOTUS would have taken the case (they don't have to) if, as I believe is now your position, they may say it's all moot unless and until he's elected, so free swim for the states. It's ludicrous to think that will happen, and it definitely won't.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's banging my head against a brick wall to argue with someone who is so ignorant of how the law works. Come back to me when the decision is made. There are several possible outcomes with differing degrees of likelihood. But the one you suggest isn't one of them at all.
Under the constitution it is.
Section 3. 'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
The US Presidency is an office of the United States.
Maybe, maybe not, they could argue the US President is head of the executive branch of the USA, not merely an officer of it.
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Being head of something is being an officer of it. These are not exclusionary things. Is Sir Patrick Sanders not an officer of the British Army?
Yes but the King arguably isn't
But the King isn't the head of the army. The King is the head of the monarchy and the kingship is definitely an office of the monarchy.
By virtue of being "the Lord's anointed", the Monarch, at their coronation becomes the physical embodiment of the Crown. That is more than being the holder of the office, it is a mystical marriage of the monarchy to the crown. The "crown in Parliament" which is the supreme authority in the constitutional arrangement of the UK and the other crown realms, is therefore the King in Parliament. The King is not an office of the crown, he IS the crown.
It really is amazing seeing the Post Office scandal getting so much coverage when just a couple of weeks ago many of us were banging on about it and it was still being described as "boring".
The number of overnight experts it has created is also quite remarkable.
It really is amazing seeing the Post Office scandal getting so much coverage when just a couple of weeks ago many of us were banging on about it and it was still being described as "boring".
The number of overnight experts it has created is also quite remarkable.
When people describe the prime minister as the “most powerful person in the country”, it might sound like a cliché but it’s also true. That’s exactly what he is. What he says goes. If there’s something he really wants to do, there’s not really anyone who can stop him.
I say this only to point out that, when he’s turning in little circles around a tiny coffee table inside a very small room at Accrington Stanley Football Club, doing something that used to be called a speech but which he has decided to call a “PM Connect event” instead, there’s absolutely no one making him do it.
All this excruciating embarrassment, the almost violent awkwardness of it, it’s all a matter of personal choice. It might look like an anxiety dream in which a small boy is having to take school assembly having prepared absolutely nothing to say, but it’s not that. This really is the way Rishi Sunak wants things to be. It’s how he likes it.
It really is amazing seeing the Post Office scandal getting so much coverage when just a couple of weeks ago many of us were banging on about it and it was still being described as "boring".
The number of overnight experts it has created is also quite remarkable.
A lot of people keen to put their stamp on it.
Frankly they don't give a damn!
Good to see so many first class posts on the matter.
It has been reported Ed Davey avoided tonight's debate on the Royal Mail scandal in the house
Not a good look
Newsnight asked Bates about Davey last night, and he replied that he didn’t want to single out Davey and blamed the people advising him more. When they asked him about whether Vennells should return her CBE, he was much more combative, asking who made the decision to give it to her in the first place.
It really is amazing seeing the Post Office scandal getting so much coverage when just a couple of weeks ago many of us were banging on about it and it was still being described as "boring".
The number of overnight experts it has created is also quite remarkable.
A lot of people keen to put their stamp on it.
Frankly they don't give a damn!
Good to see so many first class posts on the matter.
IIRC Boeing went for about 30 years without having any significant problems with their aircraft, from about 1980 to around 2010. It may have been even longer.
There were always problems, sometimes fatal ones, but usually either a one-off or something the engineers hadn't foreseen. Now we're seeing Boeing pushing out a fundamentally flawed aircraft that exists only for financial reasons, plus shoddy workmanship and inadequate quality checks.
If anyone is interested in what it would take for the 737 door plug to come away, this video explains it fairly well and has some nice, clear pictures of the door plug assembly. In short, four nuts that are supposed to be locked in place with securing pins must have been either not fitted at all or the pins were missing and the nuts fell out. Either way, it's a horrible failure on Boeing's part.
As I understand it, manufacture of the fuselage is contracted out to a separate company (Spirit) and delivered to Boeing complete, including the configuration of the door / non-door.
So in theory this would be down to Spirit, unless the non-door was subsequently taken out by Boeing to make it easier to fit the interior and the bolts not refitted afterwards.
Note that Spirit also make stuff for Airbus...
PS Happy New Year all
Spirit Aerosystems were part of Boeing until about twenty years ago.
AIUI the Airbus stuff that Spirit makes comes from the UK, mainly Glasgow, and is ex-BAE and Bombardier . Therefore probably a very different culture to the Wichita crowd.
Boeing cannot just blame Spirit, if indeed that's where the problem comes form. Their processes should have detected such problems on acceptance, especially as the shells come with interiors and the parts are easily accessed. But detection involves people, and that involves money...
The other point is that this isn't a permanent plug; it's designed to be readily openable for maintenance, as described in detail here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=maLBGFYl9_o
But given its location, probably not particularly often.
I presume that Boeing fit the interiors themselves ? In which case the plugs should be very easily and rapidly inspected, when the fuselage assembly is delivered. Quite extraordinary that this hasn't been done reliably.
The fact that other airlines have now reported multiple plugs with loose bolts suggested it's not an isolated mistake.
When people describe the prime minister as the “most powerful person in the country”, it might sound like a cliché but it’s also true. That’s exactly what he is. What he says goes. If there’s something he really wants to do, there’s not really anyone who can stop him.
I say this only to point out that, when he’s turning in little circles around a tiny coffee table inside a very small room at Accrington Stanley Football Club, doing something that used to be called a speech but which he has decided to call a “PM Connect event” instead, there’s absolutely no one making him do it.
All this excruciating embarrassment, the almost violent awkwardness of it, it’s all a matter of personal choice. It might look like an anxiety dream in which a small boy is having to take school assembly having prepared absolutely nothing to say, but it’s not that. This really is the way Rishi Sunak wants things to be. It’s how he likes it.
But the PM isn’t the most powerful person in the country. Keith Donkey is. Did you not know: That Starmer commissioned the Horizon system in 1996 as Secretary of State for Computer Systems That Starmer was the sole coder for Horizon That Starmer was the operative inside Fujitsu personally changing all those account entries That Starmer when running the Post Office chose to persecute and prosecute as many innocent sub postmasters as possible That Starmer as the Post Office minister chose not to bother meeting any campaigners That Starmer chose to award the CBE to Vennells That Starmer liked to enjoy a curry and beers with evil henchman Ed Davey whilst watching videos of former post office staff crying.
He’s a bad’un, and thank goodness the Tory media have finally exposed him and his crimes. He’s such a trickster that he’s even persuaded people that th trains ran and you could see a doctor and the schools weren’t a disaster and taxes weren’t at a record high back in 2010 - which they were - AND that the opposite is true now - which it isn’t.
Time for a Clean Sweep. Let’s get Labour out of power. Only by voting for the change candidate can we see an end to Starmer and his crimes.
It has been reported Ed Davey avoided tonight's debate on the Royal Mail scandal in the house
Not a good look
Newsnight asked Bates about Davey last night, and he replied that he didn’t want to single out Davey and blamed the people advising him more. When they asked him about whether Vennells should return her CBE, he was much more combative, asking who made the decision to give it to her in the first place.
Bates can surely see how the Tories don’t have his or his SPMRs interests at heart at all, but are simply flailing around trying to pin blame on the opposition leaders - both to try and distract from the fact that Tories have presided over most of this mess and dragged their feet at resolving it for years, and are in a desperate political predicament looking for any tactic, however cynical or crass, to try rescue some popularity.
When people describe the prime minister as the “most powerful person in the country”, it might sound like a cliché but it’s also true. That’s exactly what he is. What he says goes. If there’s something he really wants to do, there’s not really anyone who can stop him.
I say this only to point out that, when he’s turning in little circles around a tiny coffee table inside a very small room at Accrington Stanley Football Club, doing something that used to be called a speech but which he has decided to call a “PM Connect event” instead, there’s absolutely no one making him do it.
All this excruciating embarrassment, the almost violent awkwardness of it, it’s all a matter of personal choice. It might look like an anxiety dream in which a small boy is having to take school assembly having prepared absolutely nothing to say, but it’s not that. This really is the way Rishi Sunak wants things to be. It’s how he likes it.
But the PM isn’t the most powerful person in the country. Keith Donkey is. Did you not know: That Starmer commissioned the Horizon system in 1996 as Secretary of State for Computer Systems That Starmer was the sole coder for Horizon That Starmer was the operative inside Fujitsu personally changing all those account entries That Starmer when running the Post Office chose to persecute and prosecute as many innocent sub postmasters as possible That Starmer as the Post Office minister chose not to bother meeting any campaigners That Starmer chose to award the CBE to Vennells That Starmer liked to enjoy a curry and beers with evil henchman Ed Davey whilst watching videos of former post office staff crying.
He’s a bad’un, and thank goodness the Tory media have finally exposed him and his crimes. He’s such a trickster that he’s even persuaded people that th trains ran and you could see a doctor and the schools weren’t a disaster and taxes weren’t at a record high back in 2010 - which they were - AND that the opposite is true now - which it isn’t.
Time for a Clean Sweep. Let’s get Labour out of power. Only by voting for the change candidate can we see an end to Starmer and his crimes.
You forgot this
“ Starmer worked for free as a lawyer to help scores of twisted killers around the world — including a monster who buried his two-year-old stepchild alive.
Represented Jamaican who stabbed a 9 month year old baby — pro bono.
When people describe the prime minister as the “most powerful person in the country”, it might sound like a cliché but it’s also true. That’s exactly what he is. What he says goes. If there’s something he really wants to do, there’s not really anyone who can stop him.
I say this only to point out that, when he’s turning in little circles around a tiny coffee table inside a very small room at Accrington Stanley Football Club, doing something that used to be called a speech but which he has decided to call a “PM Connect event” instead, there’s absolutely no one making him do it.
All this excruciating embarrassment, the almost violent awkwardness of it, it’s all a matter of personal choice. It might look like an anxiety dream in which a small boy is having to take school assembly having prepared absolutely nothing to say, but it’s not that. This really is the way Rishi Sunak wants things to be. It’s how he likes it.
But the PM isn’t the most powerful person in the country. Keith Donkey is. Did you not know: That Starmer commissioned the Horizon system in 1996 as Secretary of State for Computer Systems That Starmer was the sole coder for Horizon That Starmer was the operative inside Fujitsu personally changing all those account entries That Starmer when running the Post Office chose to persecute and prosecute as many innocent sub postmasters as possible That Starmer as the Post Office minister chose not to bother meeting any campaigners That Starmer chose to award the CBE to Vennells That Starmer liked to enjoy a curry and beers with evil henchman Ed Davey whilst watching videos of former post office staff crying.
He’s a bad’un, and thank goodness the Tory media have finally exposed him and his crimes. He’s such a trickster that he’s even persuaded people that th trains ran and you could see a doctor and the schools weren’t a disaster and taxes weren’t at a record high back in 2010 - which they were - AND that the opposite is true now - which it isn’t.
Time for a Clean Sweep. Let’s get Labour out of power. Only by voting for the change candidate can we see an end to Starmer and his crimes.
You forgot this
“ Starmer worked for free as a lawyer to help scores of twisted killers around the world — including a monster who buried his two-year-old stepchild alive.
Represented Jamaican who stabbed a 9 month year old baby — pro bono.
Comments
The router explorers find themselves trapped by yet more malign aliens in a variety of virtual spaces, but are eventually set free by Aineko's machinations. They discover that they are being hosted in a Matrioshka brain (computer built from all the mass in a solar system), the builders of which seem to have disappeared (or been destroyed by their own creations), leaving an anarchy ruled by sentient, viral corporations and scavengers who attempt to use newcomers as currency. The crew finally escape by offering passage to a "rogue alien corporation" (a "pyramid scheme crossed with a 419 scam"), virtualised as a giant slug, who opens a powered route out. Thereafter, the crew begins the journey back home.
As I said, is that it? All that’s left? The vote Tory message to turn around that big poll deficit?
Blimey, we really are heading for a January 2025 election and a landslide.
"No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
All:
No: 42%
Yes: 41%
Those who say yes among:
Republicans: 49%
Independents: 39%
Democrats: 34%
Trump Voters: 51%
Biden Voters: 32%
YouGov / Jan 2, 2024 / n=3087
https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1744475962123710589?t=w1DCLFMZ0f5g1Yx84rXkZg&s=19
A bit worrying.
The Tories best chance of being back within a decade is a reasonable Leader of the Opposition and a crap economy under a Starmer govenrment. Sod all to do with whether an election is May or January 2025
Starmer was DPP at the height of the Post Office prosecutions (fact). The prosecutions were private and had nothing to do with Starmer (not relevant so ignore). There was a grave miscarriage of justice on Starmer's watch as DPP (fact). Starmer did not prevent these prosecutions (irrelevant, ignore). Your narrative should be no more than this. It is both undisputably truthful and if the media run with it, damning.
"Starmer was DPP during one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice. 700 innocent sub-Postmasters were vexatiously prosecuted on his watch as DPP". This is both damning and 100% true.
This is the b@5t@rd you are dealing with.
https://youtu.be/vzOSQnKxPu0?si=9GUiCndgNHEYW8eU
I keep telling them I've heard that since the Reagan years (as far as my politics memory goes really) - but no, 'this time' it's for real.
"Did you read my post which says DPP can intervene “if asked”?"
I did not.
I am not on top of every mistake you have made
For the press and public, 'if asked' is not law, this is the law:
https://x.com/sbarrettbar/status/1744426798639653269?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
Section 3.
'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
Not a word there about being on the ballot for the President or not there, only about not being able to be an officer of the US.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv#:~:text=No state shall make or,equal protection of the laws.
Not Rishi, or his successor, or probably the one after that. Possibly the one after that, who isn't an MP yet.
A May election benefits the Conservative Party. But as Maggie didn't say, There is no such thing as the Conservative Party. There are individual politicians and leaders.
That lack of an eternal movement makes it easier to be a Conservative than a Socialist. But it doesn't help at times like this.
"No, I'm sorry for what I sad."
"That's very kind of you. I'm sorry I have made you apologise."
"There is no need to apologise for making me apologise."
"I am sorry for.......
:: repeat for many pages ::
Not a good look
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1744479757889081495?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Though yet again that relates to taking office, not election to it
Apologies I didn’t reply to you in FPT but here is a classic example of someone who used a rape allegation to benefit themselves:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4538742/amp/A-screaming-injustice-QC-tryst-Waterloo-cynical-rape-law.html
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/exclusive-roger-stone-spoke-with-cop-pal-about-assassinating-eric-swalwell-and-jerry-nadler/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1853361/Nigel-Farage-Keir-Starmer-CPS-post-office
Link posted earlier.
If anyone is interested in what it would take for the 737 door plug to come away, this video explains it fairly well and has some nice, clear pictures of the door plug assembly. In short, four nuts that are supposed to be locked in place with securing pins must have been either not fitted at all or the pins were missing and the nuts fell out. Either way, it's a horrible failure on Boeing's part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhfK9jlZK1o
So in theory this would be down to Spirit, unless the non-door was subsequently taken out by Boeing to make it easier to fit the interior and the bolts not refitted afterwards.
Note that Spirit also make stuff for Airbus...
PS Happy New Year all
If you haven’t read American Kleptocracy I’d recommend it as well
He doesn't even have snake oil to sell this time.
Bollocks to him.
"The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice", Vox via YouTube, 6 minutes, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
And they were involved in six of the prosecutions
https://x.com/supertankiii/status/1741930539756470330?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Also you're saying Obama can run again.
You're not much cop at this lawyering thing, are you ?
It wouldn't be a great idea to vote for him though since he couldn't take office.
Damn. I've just joined Netflix for the first time ever specifically in order to watch the film Passing (starring Ruth Negga). And now it turns out the film isn't available in the UK anymore, and hasn't been since November. How disappointing.
https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/leaving-soon/netflix-original-passing-leaving-netflix-uk-in-november-2023/
Doesn't seem to be available on Channel 4 either.
https://www.film4productions.com/productions/2021/passing
They want to be some sort of king - which is what the founders were guarding against when they wrote the constitution.
A Supreme Court which plays this kind of semantic game to let Trump run is one utterly unmoored from the constitution.
That's probably true of Alito and Thomas; I hope not the rest.
https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/our-people/command-structure/
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/tony-radakin
Fulton DA Fani Willis improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship, according to a bombshell new court filing that argued the indictment was unconstitutional.
https://twitter.com/TamarHallerman/status/1744485234953888044
The filing has some seriously awkward details, if they stand up to scrutiny.
https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1744504082893840700
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=366558
- The King is supreme commander and fount of all power and authority. It all goes thru him.
- He appoints a Prime Minister and assigns powers to them to exercise on his behalf
- The Minister (a civilian) gives instructions and directives to the Chief of the Defence Staff . This usually happens in a Cabinet subcommittee such as the National Security Council (the PM) or the Defence Council (the Minister of Defence).
- At this point the CDS translates the instructions from the civilian Minister into orders, it becomes a military affair and things proceed thru the military chain of command. The CDS only does this because of the powers given to the Ministers directly or indirectly from the King.
- The soldier's ultimate loyalty is to the Crown and only obeys the chain of command because of powers granted to the chain by the Crown. That's why the crowns are on the shoulders.
The King really is the top of the food chain, second only to God."@TamarHallerman
·
2h
The filing offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties, except to say “sources close to both... have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.”
That concept was how they squared the circle, of an all-powerful Crown acting only with consent of Parliament. AND an all-powerful Parliament acting only with consent of the Crown.
What % of UK voters - or MPs - are aware of this?
And the point about the alleged romantic partner having had no prior experience at all in felony cases.
Might be nothing, but might be something.
AIUI the Airbus stuff that Spirit makes comes from the UK, mainly Glasgow, and is ex-BAE and Bombardier . Therefore probably a very different culture to the Wichita crowd.
Boeing cannot just blame Spirit, if indeed that's where the problem comes form. Their processes should have detected such problems on acceptance, especially as the shells come with interiors and the parts are easily accessed. But detection involves people, and that involves money...
It's in the Netflix doc.
Earlier, the prime minister was accused of delaying compensation for the Bates vs The Post Office group of 555 postmasters when he was chancellor
Scully told the BBC he went to Sunak, while he was at the Treasury, to “ask him for the money. You had to go through this arcane process when you literally had to do a value for money exercise”...
The government continually said that the group’s High Court settlement of just £20,000 per person in December 2019 was “full and final”. Ministers only introduced the new scheme to compensate them three years later in December 2022. Sunak became chancellor in February 2020.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3a2eb21b-eaf6-4e87-89e3-d9ba330fa1a6?shareToken=9614fe3cf1aad2cbdbd428a0fca852ed
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_tw_m&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1704467184
I say this only to point out that, when he’s turning in little circles around a tiny coffee table inside a very small room at Accrington Stanley Football Club, doing something that used to be called a speech but which he has decided to call a “PM Connect event” instead, there’s absolutely no one making him do it.
All this excruciating embarrassment, the almost violent awkwardness of it, it’s all a matter of personal choice. It might look like an anxiety dream in which a small boy is having to take school assembly having prepared absolutely nothing to say, but it’s not that. This really is the way Rishi Sunak wants things to be. It’s how he likes it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-scores-an-own-goal-at-accrington-stanley-r2kch8dzf
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=maLBGFYl9_o
But given its location, probably not particularly often.
I presume that Boeing fit the interiors themselves ? In which case the plugs should be very easily and rapidly inspected, when the fuselage assembly is delivered.
Quite extraordinary that this hasn't been done reliably.
The fact that other airlines have now reported multiple plugs with loose bolts suggested it's not an isolated mistake.
That Starmer commissioned the Horizon system in 1996 as Secretary of State for Computer Systems
That Starmer was the sole coder for Horizon
That Starmer was the operative inside Fujitsu personally changing all those account entries
That Starmer when running the Post Office chose to persecute and prosecute as many innocent sub postmasters as possible
That Starmer as the Post Office minister chose not to bother meeting any campaigners
That Starmer chose to award the CBE to Vennells
That Starmer liked to enjoy a curry and beers with evil henchman Ed Davey whilst watching videos of former post office staff crying.
He’s a bad’un, and thank goodness the Tory media have finally exposed him and his crimes. He’s such a trickster that he’s even persuaded people that th trains ran and you could see a doctor and the schools weren’t a disaster and taxes weren’t at a record high back in 2010 - which they were - AND that the opposite is true now - which it isn’t.
Time for a Clean Sweep. Let’s get Labour out of power. Only by voting for the change candidate can we see an end to Starmer and his crimes.
“ Starmer worked for free as a lawyer to help scores of twisted killers around the world — including a monster who buried his two-year-old stepchild alive.
Represented Jamaican who stabbed a 9 month year old baby — pro bono.
No cab rank rule here
thesun.co.uk/news/25290381/…”
https://x.com/mrharrycole/status/1744626328639246362?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q