BREAKING NEWS: Trump v. Anderson Ostensibly Saved Trump’s Presidential Campaign. In Fact It Ended It—As a New Federal Lawsuit That Could Be Filed At Any Moment Would Quickly Establish.
BREAKING NEWS: Trump v. Anderson Ostensibly Saved Trump’s Presidential Campaign. In Fact It Ended It—As a New Federal Lawsuit That Could Be Filed At Any Moment Would Quickly Establish.
Media misreadings of the Trump v. Anderson decision frame it as a victory for Trump. That’s only because no one yet sees that the Anderson Court created a catch-22 for itself that it can’t now escape.
Do you think the Anderson litigants will do this: « The Anderson litigants should therefore file for a rehearing in the case on precisely these grounds: that their understanding of Section 3 enforcement post-Anderson now incorporates not just the Trump filings in Trump v. United States but the decision of the Supreme Court to hear those latter arguments rather than dismiss them outright. » ?
The goal of Libertarian Fascists is to chain and bind democracy into an unworkable, PRO-capitalist, obstructive mess. Hence, Nancy MacLean describes how this was done to Chile under Pinochet in her book, “Democracy in Chains.” Chile never recovered and investigators are still finding hidden caches of money stolen from its people. Pinochet was directly advised by the same, radical economist backed by Charles Koch. Trump interfaces with Libertarian agenda because BOTH aim to misinterpret, bind up the court system in order to do essentially criminal activity: They STEAL.
I’m glad you have the fortitude to weigh into the legal haggling. I’m just a Big Picture person, and I know tRump from his origins in NYC. He is a racist, a thief, a fraud. He rapes, he is a serial adulterer. He is a drug addict with long-term amphetamine use. He uses the legal system to evade justice. He is a perversion of everything he touches. A Village Voice article once quoted a NYC contractor (who wished to remain anonymous) with this revealing sentence: “Trump won’t do a deal unless there’s something extra — a kind of moral larceny — in it. He’s not satisfied with a profit. He has to take something more. Otherwise, there’s no thrill.”
This is very clever and I follow the reasoning. But if congress has already found trump unqualified (as you say, with their majority votes in 2021) why would the court say Colorado was in error to remove him? Your parsing of their language might be logically correct but if this had been the courts intention, wouldn’t that have added “and congress has already so found” to the end of their opinion? I don’t understand how this could be actionable. The court will just swat it down again.
Do they contradict themselves? Then they contradict themselves. You have to look no further than bush v gore to see that the court is perfectly capable of that.
Seth, could you please add a summary at the beginning of each of your posts? I often get lost in the weeds and fail to understand your major points. Sometimes it is better to savor the sausage at the end than to see it made.
Is anyone concerned that the Anderson standard could lead to bad faith disqualifications of candidates? If the GOP had a majority in both houses, couldn’t it pass a law saying that Joe Biden was an insurrectionist because he gave aid and comfort to our enemy by not enforcing our border laws or some such thing?
It required an intense and quiet setting (as a non-lawyer) to read and fully grok this analysis but.....brilliant! I now see that one more step must be taken, since the SCOTUS has only now brought forth their decision, in essence elucidating a way for Section 3 to spring into action (much like a springing durable power of attorney) but in a rather sly manner in which the liberal three apparently weren't even aware of its implications vis-a-vis majority votes already taken regarding impeachment/removal. You've developed a fully vetted persuasive argument. My only question at this point is who is the party with the greatest "standing" to bring it back to the court?
I too found this to be a brilliant review of the decision. It does provide hope. However, I wonder, based on your "bewilderment," in Sotormayer's statement, could she have been addressing the closed door discussions/negotiations about the ruling? Based on the prior observation of the wile of the current SCOTUS should we have new fear that this invitation to further litigate leads to an outcome that is counter to your supposition? What is the downside risk of further litigation?
I hope you've passed your analysis onto those who might be able to do something with it.
Do you think the Anderson litigants will do this: « The Anderson litigants should therefore file for a rehearing in the case on precisely these grounds: that their understanding of Section 3 enforcement post-Anderson now incorporates not just the Trump filings in Trump v. United States but the decision of the Supreme Court to hear those latter arguments rather than dismiss them outright. » ?
Layperson here.
Summary: Trump has a disability.
The impeachment in Feb 2021 established, by simple majority in both houses of Congress, that Trump engaged in insurrection.
Congress, therefore, already *officially* established he is ineligible to run for office.
To remedy this, Congress would need a 2/3rds majority vote to put Trump back on the ballot.
A state election official needs to ask the Supreme Court to acknowledge this and either uphold the law or throw the Constitution in the garbage.
Did I follow correctly?
The goal of Libertarian Fascists is to chain and bind democracy into an unworkable, PRO-capitalist, obstructive mess. Hence, Nancy MacLean describes how this was done to Chile under Pinochet in her book, “Democracy in Chains.” Chile never recovered and investigators are still finding hidden caches of money stolen from its people. Pinochet was directly advised by the same, radical economist backed by Charles Koch. Trump interfaces with Libertarian agenda because BOTH aim to misinterpret, bind up the court system in order to do essentially criminal activity: They STEAL.
I’m glad you have the fortitude to weigh into the legal haggling. I’m just a Big Picture person, and I know tRump from his origins in NYC. He is a racist, a thief, a fraud. He rapes, he is a serial adulterer. He is a drug addict with long-term amphetamine use. He uses the legal system to evade justice. He is a perversion of everything he touches. A Village Voice article once quoted a NYC contractor (who wished to remain anonymous) with this revealing sentence: “Trump won’t do a deal unless there’s something extra — a kind of moral larceny — in it. He’s not satisfied with a profit. He has to take something more. Otherwise, there’s no thrill.”
That is trump in a nutshell.
I rarely find someone more wordy than me, but good words? He's already been convicted, take him off the Ballot!
(I'm not done reading all of it yet).
Problem is we can't expect the Supreme Court to do anything properly, they're too corrupt.
This is very clever and I follow the reasoning. But if congress has already found trump unqualified (as you say, with their majority votes in 2021) why would the court say Colorado was in error to remove him? Your parsing of their language might be logically correct but if this had been the courts intention, wouldn’t that have added “and congress has already so found” to the end of their opinion? I don’t understand how this could be actionable. The court will just swat it down again.
Do they contradict themselves? Then they contradict themselves. You have to look no further than bush v gore to see that the court is perfectly capable of that.
Brilliant analysis. I wonder if this plays out and he is disqualified (and not relieved), prior to November, how (if) will we conduct an "election?"
So I’m not crazy after all! I was thinking this exact same thing. Thanks for writing it out. As they say, “Reading is fundamental.”
Seth, could you please add a summary at the beginning of each of your posts? I often get lost in the weeds and fail to understand your major points. Sometimes it is better to savor the sausage at the end than to see it made.
Is anyone concerned that the Anderson standard could lead to bad faith disqualifications of candidates? If the GOP had a majority in both houses, couldn’t it pass a law saying that Joe Biden was an insurrectionist because he gave aid and comfort to our enemy by not enforcing our border laws or some such thing?
It required an intense and quiet setting (as a non-lawyer) to read and fully grok this analysis but.....brilliant! I now see that one more step must be taken, since the SCOTUS has only now brought forth their decision, in essence elucidating a way for Section 3 to spring into action (much like a springing durable power of attorney) but in a rather sly manner in which the liberal three apparently weren't even aware of its implications vis-a-vis majority votes already taken regarding impeachment/removal. You've developed a fully vetted persuasive argument. My only question at this point is who is the party with the greatest "standing" to bring it back to the court?
Wow!!! Thank you for the education! Now, let us just “Get ‘er done”! Onward!!!
I too found this to be a brilliant review of the decision. It does provide hope. However, I wonder, based on your "bewilderment," in Sotormayer's statement, could she have been addressing the closed door discussions/negotiations about the ruling? Based on the prior observation of the wile of the current SCOTUS should we have new fear that this invitation to further litigate leads to an outcome that is counter to your supposition? What is the downside risk of further litigation?
C'