Trump's Card

[San Bernardhinault]

Anyway, if I were a betting man:

Jones, Collins and Gardner are pretty likely to lose their seats unless it's a massive landslide one way or the other, making it R52-48D

In a very good year for Democrats, McSally and Tillis are in trouble, which would make it 50-50, but I can't see that happening without a Presidential Candidate with massive widespread support, so we'd have a Democrat for President.

In an absolute monster wave year, Ernst might lose her seat in Iowa. And Texas and Georgia would do their thing of being briefly competitive as the demographics shift a bit more, but they probably won't go all the way for another decade.

[ursus arctos]

Collins not on your list, Ursus?

She won by 36 points. It is certainly possible, but it would be a hell of a swing.

[San Bernardhinault]

Wowsers! I assumed it was marginal.

[anton pulisov]

If the Dems retook the Senate and cared about integrity, they'd re-impeach and convict him. He remains guilty and the people who elected them and threw out the Republicans would presumably support it. Not that it will ever happen.

Supreme Court would have a field day surely. If he's already been acquitted then he can't be re-impeached for the same crime. I'd expect even the 'Democratic' supremes to err on that side of judgement. At least in any normal country.

[Nocturnal Submission]

I'm hugely ignorant of and confused, possibly bemused, by the US political system in all its facets, so apologies in advance if the following question has been discussed before or the answer is patently obvious.

Why does a partisan body like the Senate judge and rule on the impeachment process rather than the Supreme Court (though I'm aware that that body is hardly impartial) or some sort of specially convened court comprised of constitutional experts? Is it because the Founding Fathers thought that the Senate would act without fear or favour to uphold the constitution on such occasions?

[ursus arctos]

The Founders didn't think that the Supreme Court would become anything like as powerful as it now is.

Impeachment was left to the Senate because it was seen as an inherently political decision that was best made by the most deliberative (and least democratic) legislative body. Giving the responsibility to a legislative body also followed British precedent, which was all that they had

Recall that at the time, Senators were elected by state legislatures (who were themselves elected by a resticted, white male electorate).

[WOM]

It was all underpinned by the assumption that people had a sense of duty, responsibility and shame about them.

[Bruno]

Supreme Court would have a field day surely. If he's already been acquitted then he can't be re-impeached for the same crime. I'd expect even the 'Democratic' supremes to err on that side of judgement. At least in any normal country.

He was acquitted in a show trial i.e. mistrial that excluded witnesses whose testimony would have disproved the main thrust of the defense.

[San Bernardhinault]

Gym Jordan looks like he's about to become ranking Republican on the judiciary committee. Somehow it seems appropriate at this current moment that the bloke who looked the other way while his friend was massively abusing his power and position of trust to be the guy in charge of judicial oversight.

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1225883722102296576

[ursus arctos]

[URL="https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1225930642661220352?s=21"]https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1225930642661220352[/URL]

[WOM]

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1225883722102296576

Even more outrageous is that Vindman's twin brother - also a WH staffer and distinguished career man - was sacked and escorted out, too.

[Sporting]

Disgraceful.

[DCI Harry Batt]

So I get that it's unlikely, but what do people think the mechanism is by which Trump would be stopped from running in 2024?

[ursus arctos]

State court challenges to keep him off the primary ballot in the first instance

[Tactical Genius]

Disgraceful.

Why is it disgraceful. If you made unsubstantiated accusation against you boss for which he was exonerated, would you expect to keep your job. He was never going to be found guilty and people should keep bellyaching, this was always going to be a piece of political theatre and did nothing more than filling dead air on those 24 hour news Channels.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Yeah federal elections not being federal is a bit of a defence against it. What's to stop the Republicans nominating him anyway?

[ursus arctos]

One could likely get state court injunctions against state parties voting to do so, but I still believe that it would ultimately be shot down by the Supreme Court, which values its own legitimacy above any political affiliation.

On the other hand, should he win in November, I expect that there would be a race among the Trumpiest states to be the first to vote for a Constitutional amendment abolishing the two term limit.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Yeah, I'm not sure I'd rely on the SC.

[ursus arctos]

I realise that I'm very much in the minority on here in that regard.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Why haven't they appointed extra SC justices, by the way? What's to stop that?

[ursus arctos]

There's no Congressional majority for it, and wasn't even when the Republicans controlled the House

[DCI Harry Batt]

That would need a law or something then would it?

[ursus arctos]

Yes, changing the number of justices requires a law or Constitutional amendment

[DCI Harry Batt]

Ta.