Trump's Card

[San Bernardhinault]

There are red and red-purple states with nuts state supremes, aren’t there?

[ursus arctos]

Not that nuts. You need a state like Texas.

No one even tried formally to keep Obama off the ballot on the basis of him not being a natural born citizen.

[San Bernardhinault]

I love your optimism.

[Plodder]

Dunno

If there is a difference in USisn, I think "should not be allowed" is more accurate here, as the ruling prevents him from being on the primary ballot. At least to me, "disallowed" has more of a sense of negating something that has already happened.

I guess I must be misunderstanding your original post. You said that there is "an obvious civil libertarian argument that one should not be allowed access to the ballot when no judicial process has ruled on the underlying facts."

I would have thought that civil libertarians would think that one should be allowed (or that one should not be disallowed) access to the ballot when the judiciary haven't ruled otherwise.

Is that not what you intended?

[ursus arctos]

You are absolutely correct.

Sorry about that.

[Plodder]

No worries. I'd started to think there was some more complicated point of law that I hadn't grasped.

[ursus arctos]

Your off ramp argument is interesting.

I'm quite certain that the likes of Leo and Harlan Crow would much prefer a Trumpist candidate other than Trump (Leo has already fallen out with him)..

But I still struggle to see Thomas taking this particular off ramp (though he confounds me quite regularly).

[Plodder]

Yeah, I mean, all the Supremes have to do is literally nothing. I would think (but I'm often wrong) that if you can't get your candidate on the ballot in one state, you need to change candidates. Surely there's one swing state would follow suit?

[ursus arctos]

There's a tracker of the various cases here:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current...gation-tracker

Michigan would probably be the best short term candidate, if not necessarily likely.

Though I also think all kinds of hell would break loose if SCOTUS declined to hear the case or affirmed the decision.

[Plodder]

Yeah, I don't think either option is likely. I just mean that if Conservatives wanted to advance their agenda without Trump as an anchor, this is their chance.

[Amor de Cosmos]

David Frum agrees:

"The present Supreme Court is highly attuned to the wishes of conservative America. If the conservative majority senses permission from Republicans to save Republicans from themselves, they might do it. If they sense a veto from Republicans, they may not. What is said and done in the next days and hours may matter a great deal. If Republicans want rescue, they must stop pretending they object." — The Atlantic

[Plodder]

My sense is that most Republicans don't want rescuing (or even think there's anything needing rescue). Donors and senior politicians/justices might be another issue.

[ursus arctos]

Very much so.

The elite and donors may wish for rescue from the base, but they don't have a reliable path to power without them.

That all played out in the days immediately following 6 January..

[scratchmonkey]

Additionally, Frum is writing about his own personal desires and narratives, rather than the actual facts of the matter, or even the desires and narratives of the electorate, such as it is. I'm not surprised at that level of myopic navel-gazing masquerading as political insight from the man who popularized the phrase "axis of evil" though.

[Plodder]

Yep, that's what he does.


Tl;DR: Frum gonna Frum.

[ad hoc]

Arguing that the clause in the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency, as some of his supporters seem to be doing... Is that not tantamount to agreeing that he did start an insurrection?

[Amor de Cosmos]

Additionally, Frum is writing about his own personal desires and narratives, rather than the actual facts of the matter, or even the desires and narratives of the electorate, such as it is.

Oh sure, political journalism is in his DNA, it's the family business. But, as I've mentioned before, I find the traditional/moderate conservative reactions to Trump more interesting than those of either extreme, whether left or right. Which isn't to say I agree with them at all.

[ad hoc]

But moderate conservatives seem, without exception, to write head shaking tut tutting pieces about trump and then proceed to do absolutely fuck all. I'd find it worth paying attention to moderate republicans if there were any evidence that they wanted to reclaim the party

[scratchmonkey]

I find couching Frum in any sort of centrism belies the fact that aside from being a crummy journalist, he's also got blood on his hands. Which is why I will rarely if ever skip a chance to put the boot into him.

[ursus arctos]

Arguing that the clause in the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency, as some of his supporters seem to be doing... Is that not tantamount to agreeing that he did start an insurrection?

That was exactly the ruling in the lower court in Colorado - that he had engaged in insurrection, but was exempt from disqualication because he was President.

It was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court.

It had originally been advanced by Trump's lawyers as one of a number of alternative ways he could win the case. They did not concede that get had engaged in insurrection.

[Satchmo Distel]

I'm avoiding reading this thread daily and only got this news via Law Dork's circular.

My only response at this stage is that SCOTUS's least risky strategy is to not take the case. Treat it as a state issue. There's no outcome that won't get blowback for the Justices but the one with the least blowback seems to be the one where they don't commit yes or no on the merits.

As to Plodder's point, I cannot see the GOP changing course on Trump. That ship sailed in January 2021 (as Ursus notes) and they are stuck with that choice until Nov 2024. I don't see any other path; lose Trump's base = lose both houses and tons of local offices. The donors might be less enthusiastic than usual but they still don't want a Dem POTUS.

But I'm intentionally not giving it that much thought because I don't want this cunt in my head for another year.

[San Bernardhinault]

I think treating it as a “States Rights” issue might be a coherent position for the current court given their position on other matters.

But given their coherence on other matters, I wouldn’t be placing many bets.

I think Ursus’s argument that the liberals might be concerned with applying sanctions before any legal case has been won seems very reasonable. And perhaps I actually go along with it no matter how satisfyingly entertaining this ruling is.

[ursus arctos]

I don't think that allowing state courts to issue conflicting rulings on ballot access for a national election is really tenable, especially when the basis for those rulings is an application of a provision of the federal Constitution.

It would be marginally more tenable if we were talking about bars grounded in state constitutions, but even there, there are significant issues of federal supremacy in national elections.

Not taking the case would also generate lots of negative comment. It is the nature of the court's position in the system.

[Amor de Cosmos]

But moderate conservatives seem, without exception, to write head shaking tut tutting pieces about trump and then proceed to do absolutely fuck all. I'd find it worth paying attention to moderate republicans if there were any evidence that they wanted to reclaim the party

I'm not really interested in whether they can reclaim the party or not. I'm mainly there for the rhetoric. Which, given the level of political discourse in most English speaking countries these days, is more articulate and authentically passionate than anywhere else I'm aware of.

[WOM]

Can I just say how aggravating it is to hear the 'it's not up to the courts to decide...it's up to the voters to decide' argument all over again.

How utterly fucked up. If someone is not legally qualified or constitutionally qualified to run for office, they don't get to run. Letting them run so that the voters get to decide is simply not a part of the equation.