I just wish they’d be honest and say “We overturn the ruling because we want to and we can.”
I’ll be curious to see how Gorsuch rules given that his own opinion was used in support of CO.
I’m disgusted by the process that got Gorsuch on SCOTUS, but while he has a definite conservative bent he doesn’t seem particularly partisan nor corrupt.
I read something that there is a specific law that has been passed by congress regarding insurrection, amd that Trump would have to be convicted under that statute (which he has not been charged under) to be removed under the 14th amendment. One of the CO SC dissents called that out. If true, i am not sure how the majority opinion was reached.
Everything I have read is in contradiction to this, but I am not a lawyer. In fact, everything I’m reading specifically claims there is not a requirement of conviction to use the 14th in this manner.
Perhaps the context was a little bit different, like removing a sitting President?
3 Likes
I thought the Constitution, and I’ll have to the use the word here, trumped specific laws, anyway. Isn’t that kind of the whole idea of amendments to the Constitution?
3 Likes
Yeah it doesn’t pass my sniff test that “insurrection against the United States” is limited to a law passed by Congress.
Also, when was that law passed? It definitionally can’t be what the authors of the 14th amendment intended if the law passed after 1865. But I suppose insurrection has probably been illegal for quite a bit longer than that, so it’s possible.
Regardless, if the 14th amendment was intended to mean “insurrection as defined by USRC statute 12345 subsection 6 paragraph 7 then they did a 
job writing the amendment.
But… IANAL.
1 Like
I agree with this. It is frankly a bit too murky how much Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion … or given aid or comfort to the enemies” that a conviction is probably warranted.
(Note, I certainly think Trump belongs in jail. And arguably for insurrection. But it’s not 100% obvious like several of his other crimes.)
1 Like
Okay, found it.
This is the statute in question:
One of the dissenting CO SC justices’s dissent was based on the concept that only a conviction under this statute qualifies as insurrection for the purpose of 14.3
But, I am REALLY not a lawyer, and just read some of this shit yesterday
2 Likes
If the law was first written in 1948 it’s obviously not what the authors of the 14th amendment had in mind in 1865. 
Again… IANAL.
1 Like
The “No Labels” folks are still around:
1 Like
I’ve never even heard of them, but it sounds like Gary Johnson’s strategy in 2016: win New Mexico, no one gets a majority so the House decides from among the top three candidates… compromising on him. But he only got 9% in New Mexico.
I suppose that was also Evan McMullin’s strategy: carry Utah and send it to the House. He fared someone better at 22%, but still finished 3rd (Clinton had 27%).
Had they both succeeded in carrying their home states then Johnson would have been shut out of the House race by virtue of New Mexico having 1 less EV than Utah. Unclear what happens if there is a tie for third place.
Thinking they could get the Vice-Presidency betrays a lack of understanding of the Constitution though.
The newly elected Senate chooses the VPOTUS from the top two vote-getters, with the sitting VPOTUS casting the tie-breaking vote (presumably for herself) should there be a tie, so only Harris and Ramaswamy could be considered.
Easier to do with Representatives in Congress as well as a presidential nominee.
No one wants to do that hard work at the grass roots, something that the GOP has taken over, down to city councils deciding on liberries (their pronunciation).
1 Like
The New York Times is taking advantage of a slow news period to report on what could be in store for us should we get Trump 2 Electric Boogaloo:
For the tl;dr, here are the headings in the article:
- Use the Justice Department to take vengeance on political adversaries
- Extreme immigration crackdown
- Go beyond first-term trade wars
- Undercut NATO, retreat from Europe, but use military force in Mexico
- Use troops domestically (via the insurrection act)
- Greater control over federal bureaucracy
- Fewer checks on his power
There’s another article looking at his trade agenda:
Included in that article – a universal minimum tariff, with a 10% figure thrown out, possibly implemented using emergency powers to avoid needing Congressional approval.
Maybe I’ll crunch those numbers again on what would be involved in moving to Canada, just in case…
1 Like
WSJ has an article today on No Labels – specifically the Dems being frustrated again with Joe Lieberman, who one of the leaders of the group:
The article mentions that Lieberman wrote an op-ed for the WSJ in October, one that I missed because the WSJ’s op-ed section is a little too toxic for my tastes: https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-labels-wont-help-trump-win-presidential-election-third-party-candidate-aa8fca37?st=dzdn6fus7xeqpz5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Quoting from the op-ed, collapsed for length
Hmmm, maybe if it was like Chris Christie and Joe Manchin (in that order) that would peel off some of the moderate Republicans and not nearly as many moderate Democrats.
They need to concentrate on red states with a lot of no-trumpers-but-won’t-vote-Democrat.
Dumping “Trumpers” from Congress is far more important IMO. Easier to impeach and convict.
1 Like
What wonderful choices the Republicans have in their primary.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/27/haley-slavery-cause-of-civil-war-00133254
5 Likes
And Boebert has decided that she will lose the rematch to Frisch so has changed from the 3rd to the 4th district in Colorado. (4th was Ken Buck’s district, but he is stepping down). Part of what makes this funny is the 3rd district is the western side of the state, and the 4th is the eastern side. It isn’t possible to pick 2 districts in Colorado whose centroids are farther apart.
1 Like
How long does she have to gave lived there? Guessing the state is lax on this.