Trump's Card

[ursus arctos]

Because they want further tax cuts and the dismantlement of what regulatory state we have been able to construct (which is risible to much of the developed world).

[ad hoc]

I think I'm talking about both pundits and politicians. I don't see any evidence that any of these so called moderates are trying to alter the course of the party beyond whining about it. Biden's hardly a left winger, so just tell people to vote for him, have a landslide and finally get rid of the toxic magascum. But no, they don't really care about the Republican party or the USA

[Amor de Cosmos]

Amor is talking about columnists/pundits. ad hoc is focused on legislators.

True.

Like scratchmonkey, I see Frum as inherently duplicitous, and therefore really don't care that he can write.

He's been consistent on Trump since day one, no?

Also an individual's skills are separate from the their beliefs and behaviour. Or so I believe. It's why we still marvel at Degas or Caravaggio. Or, more relevantly, Churchill's writing and rhetoric.

[ursus arctos]

I think that partially arises from the fact that "engaged in insurrection" isn't as clear cut a grounds for ineligibility as either "35 years old" or "natural born citizen" (though the history of the latter shows a lot of contentious disagreement over its precise meaning").

One didn't see the same arguments when Schwarzenegger or Kissinger were being discussed as potential candidates.

Of course, another (likely larger) part of it is simple Trump cultism.

Speaking of which, it seems to me that there is a bit of talking past each other going on above.

Amor is talking about columnists/pundits. ad hoc is focused on legislators.

I can't think of a single member of Congress with any rhetorical chops. Similarly, I think we would all be wary of a system in which pundits could directly determine policy outcomes.

Like scratchmonkey, I see Frum as inherently duplicitous, and therefore really don't care that he can write. YMMV.

I would also say that there are exactly zero "moderate Republicans" in Congress, and that that has been the case since Cheney, Kinzinger et al were drummed out after the 6 January hearings.

Some GOP lawmakers are more batshit than others, but they are all Trumpist (see, e.g., the Senate holding Ukraine funding hostage for "border security" cosplay). And the opening of the impeachment inquiry is evidence of the entire House caucus being batshit (though an actual impeachment would be better evidence).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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?

[Plodder]

Yep, that's what he does.


Tl;DR: Frum gonna Frum.

[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.

[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..

[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.

[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]

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.

[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 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]

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]

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

[ursus arctos]

You are absolutely correct.

Sorry about that.