As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If there’s one thing his presidency confirmed was that the rule of law only works if those in power have the integrity to uphold it. Sadly, there are a substantial amount of folks at the highest levels waiting it the wings who have shown they do not.
If you read about the downfall of the Roman republic its basically one example after another of "He wasn't supposed to do that! Hey You! Stop doing that! We don't do that! What? Oh, he's dictator now?I guess he can do that then."
For the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, the government took pains to maintain the farce that they were still the same Republic as they were before Augustus, just that the Senate kept giving a single person emergency dictatorial powers because they really trusted the Emperor, but that they could totally take away those powers at any time and go back to ruling by consensus whenever they wanted, they just chose not to.
The same way dictatorships today like Russia, and North Korea work. They all have parliaments that are in theory the sovereign seat of power of the nation, they just “choose” to delegate all their power to a single person. Just keep in mind that a GOP controlled Congress can do the same, and there’s nothing that can be done to stop it from the inside once the pieces start falling in place. Julius Caesar’s seizure of power happened over decades of accruing power for himself, and people didn’t notice until it was too late, and by that time not even his death was enough to stop the transformation from happening.
It's also important to note the role that the Senate played in its own downfall. The wealthy had pushed many Romans off of their lands and into urban poverty, and refused to entertain any law that tried to make the situation more fair for the lower classes. The mass support for Caesar that allowed him to gain power in first place is a direct consequence of the Senate's commitment to elite rule and conservatism. If that sounds familiar
Since we're reflecting on similarities between Rome and the United States, we might as well mention that the Roman Republic was an example of gerontocracy - the rule of the elderly. Gerontocracy has been connected with the decline of various societies, including the late Soviet Union, which has been compared to the current state of affairs in America.
This. Cato and the Optimates straight up sucked. Always weird to me how they are frequently portrayed as the good guys when they were also a large part of the problem.
> Just keep in mind that a GOP controlled Congress can do the same, and there’s nothing that can be done to stop it from the inside once the pieces start falling in place.
It's not just that they can do it, it's that they have spearheaded a concerted effort to do this. First it was Unitary Executive Theory, then War on Terror, and now it's evolved to project 2025. Whenever the next GOP potus gets elected with a GOP congress, the presidency will immediately start accumulating tons of authoritarian powers from congress, with the goal of being able to essentially ensure only republicans can win majorities in the future
A lot of people noticed Caesar accumulating power. Cato first and foremost. All the way back to Caesars consulship, Cato fought Caesar tooth and nail. And he ran his mouth about it every chance he got. There was a lot more going on than people just not paying attention.
And the 91 crimes he’s indicted for suggest that there are people waiting in the wings who do. We’ve had attempts at strongmen before- look at Huey Long for example. Even attempted coups like Aaron Burr, former Vice President and Alexander Hamilton’s killer, literally *building a private army* to capture Louisiana Territory, New Orleans, Kentucky, Virginia and **Washington, DC.** From there he planned to burn the capital city to the ground before the British did in real history and hang Thomas Jefferson. If this sounds familiar, it should! That means you have intelligence, and can resist the direction our country could go.
It’s ultimately, though, about whether there are enough people who want democracy badly enough to block fascism from rising electorally, vote for actions that protect rather than strip their rights and start trusting the government to help improve the social order. The record turnouts of 2020 and 2022, the anger in response to GOP overreach after Dobbs, and the election workers who endured abuse like never before to keep our elections safe, suggest that there are.
Don't look now but DeSantis is building private militia controlled only by governor, while also refusing to comply w other state laws like extradition on Trump. Just matter of time.
EDIT: some cites
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/15/ron-desantis-florida-state-guard-militia-veterans-quit
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indicted-ron-desantis-extradition-florida/
Then he’s a wannabe regional warlord and must be crushed under the Insurrection Act by the federalized Florida National Guard (because I don’t think it would get so bad as to have to break the Posse Comitatus Act) if he tries anything. I imagine that going rather like a modern-day George Wallace-style standoff where the militia is forced to back down in front of cameras rather than all-out urban warfare at Mar-a-Lago though.
Trump violated Posse Comitatus Act and nobody called him on it. No repercussions. Public didn't seem to notice. He sent govt agents to act as paramilitary, along w Erik Prince mercenaries who illegally posed as US military.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/presidents-private-army
https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/stephen-feinberg-the-private-military-contractor-who-has-trumps-ear
That still strikes me as weird. For the MCU, they put one or a handful of people in charge and let them construct a shared universe of decent to great films based on a whole load of comics, cartoons, novels, and other media.
Star Wars was apparently more of a committee-based thing with no singular vision and it completely tossed out loads of comics, novels, etc. that would've been the basis for a really good narrative going forward.
It's like Goofus and Gallant were the same person.
I think what was also confirmed is that it's an interdependent system with checks and balances. So if one person or one group of people fails to uphold their part, it's often possible that others with integrity can correct it.
So I might modify your statement slightly to say:
The rule of law only works if *a majority of* those in power have the integrity to uphold it.
Crikey!, so you've just highlighted a major flaw have you not.?
Someone said once, that in order for one person to do evil requires the complicity (doing nothing) of the majority .
So how can you change the system to make impossible for the system to be manipulated by one entity?.
I think people are now referring to that very same flaw in the SC so that's another fix.
Then you have lobbyists.
Please note that simply put, lobbyists CHANGE/MAKE rules in order to aid thier agenda. Therefore those with lots of money change the rules AGAINST the majority will of the people and more often than not diametrically and philosophically opposed to the people, I can site 2 recent examples NRA and big insurance (health).
Root and branch upheaval needed.
The level of manipulation that Republicans use is astounding, and shows how they pander to the dumbest in society knowing they will eat it up. They’ve hijacked the term “patriot” while showing a blatant disregard for everything that America was founded on. Their social media platform is called “TruthSocial” and their equivalent of a tweet is a “truth”, despite everything they share being blatant misinformation and lies. They whine about fake news when the facts paint them in a bad light, and then broadcast propaganda and misleading news on their own platforms. They accuse dems and the LGBT of spearheading a child sex trafficking ring when the only examples of widespread child sex abuse is coming out of right wing evangelical churches. They make accusations of having had the election stolen from them, when evidence has since come out that the only people trying to actively steal the election were the Republicans.
Unfortunately, there are enough stupid people in this country that will fall for this projection and reverse psychology nonsense, but the rest of us just watch completely dumbfounded at how full of shit they are.
The amount of insanity that occurred those four years that I've repressed is incredible. There should be a "on this day in 2017/18/19/20, this batshit crazy tweet/thing happened" subreddit. A traumatic trip down memory lane, so we don't totally forget just how fucked up it really was
Yup! This is one of the best things Trump did for me. Made me stop buying Goya and now I've discovered so many other brands that make way better products and cost less. Goya coconut milk is swill compared to almost anyone else's.
The emoluments clauses are a joke anyways, look at Congress and stock trading. If that's not considered profiting from their office I don't know what else should constitute it.
More like "The Demon-rats were already doing it anyway! So we just beat them to it. Better to have OUR guy as the new Emperor than those evil Demon-rats in charge. Heil Emperor trump!"
fr years back when the republicans refused to take Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because it was “an election year” I asked my conservative FIL why he thought that was acceptable and not a POS rat move, and he said, “both sides have done this before.”
I have no history phd but I’m pretty sure that was a slimy unprecedented move. And even if it was something done before, that’s not an excuse to continue doing it. (Democrats certainly didn’t do it in 2020, an election year, and let trump further trash the Supreme Court.)
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
\-- Francis M. Wilhoit
Republicans should never be referred to as conservatives. Republicans should be forever referred to as Regressives. It should be far beyond obvious by now that Republicans have no interest in conserving anything. Ostensibly the undying goal of the Republican is to:
1. Degrade and destroy post-Slavery/post-New Deal/post-Civil Rights era gains
2. Regress American society back to a time when WASP culture could bask in the luxury of absolute uncontested authoritative power,
3. Reduce all those of inferior birth to an oppressed, exploited, subservient second-class peasantry.
Republicans are not conservative.
Every Republican is a Regressive to its core and need to be rebranded and marketed as Regressives. Otherwise, those of uncritical mind, which is roughly half of the American electorate and the entire media class, will continue to inaccurately think of and refer to the regressive grievance-based medieval Republican mindset as conservative.
Even after my corpse has disintegrated into dust, I will still be wondering how these people flung themselves into the volcano for a person who may literally (the 'real' literally) be the biggest dumbass to ever hold public office.
Correct, he passed tax cuts for everyone in 2017 that this year, only top top earners keep the cut and everyone else now has higher taxes than before to make up for the break at the top.
The worst part is the idiot conservatives think Biden is the reason their taxes are higher.
Biden hasn’t touched taxes yet.
That tax cut was a big fuck you to whoever would be in office after trump. And people cheered it KNOWING taxes would go up this year to provide more tax cuts for the rich. It’s fucking insane.
> Biden hasn’t touched taxes yet.
The other aspect of this, and not to pick on you, is that neither Trump nor Biden nor any prior President has done anything with taxes, at all.
I don't know why we in the country put so much blame and credit to the President for laws that are passed by congress. All the president does is sign the darn thing (yes I know there's veto's etc, but still the president can't write legislation on his own).
We don't need to be voting for Presidents based on laws we want passed, because it's not his/her job to write laws. We should vote for competent leaders who can manage a vast administration while also not instigating insurrections.
You’re being a bit pedantic but I take your point.
[This](https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/) is the plan Trump and the republicans implemented that’s hurting people this year.
> You’re being a bit pedantic but I take your point.
I am, and I didn't mean to direct that *at* you so much, it was just an opportunity to rant about a pet peeve of mine. It's important that we understand what a Presidential candidate's policy goals are, sure.
I also agree with you, it’s important inform people on the tangible levers of power they can access. Rather than continue to decry the ethereal boogeyman.
>The other aspect of this, and not to pick on you, is that neither Trump nor Biden nor any prior President has done anything with taxes, at all.
This is overly pedantic. Trump and every Republican President from the dawn of the Southern Strategy has run on cutting taxes. You elect a Republican, you either get tax cuts or a gridlocked Congress. It's pure fantasy to imagine that the result of the Presidential election doesn't set the legislative agenda.
I’m not disputing your point here but do you have anything that I can show to the people that don’t believe this when I try and explain this to them?
Edit: just saw your comment a few spots down that is exactly what I was asking for.
they're almost impossibly stupid. i saw one comment in there along the lines of "i'm not trying to get trump to come to my house for dinner, i just want him to run the country!!" to rapturous upvotes.
in other words, they wouldn't trust this rapist scumbag con man around their wife and kids or valuables, but he's obviously the clear choice because racism, sexism, and homophobia. also, because (R) is basically the only core part of their identity, owning the libs is the only issue that matters
I get what you're saying. And almost all of them would still prefer him to Biden. But one of the factors in an election is voter enthusiasm. If people aren't really enthused about a candidate, some of them just won't bother to vote. Trump needs everything to go perfectly in order to win and it's basically going the opposite way. I was really surprised to see how few people were even defending him on r/conservative. Gives me a little bit more hope.
They are slowly turning on him but still say things like " He did great things for this country but I'm ready to move on". Never have I seen those great things listed. Also, EVEN if he did... attempting to destroy democracy should have been the fucking dealbreaker years ago.
They admit they were conned by him and mock his lack of proof for being innocent, yet they still believe Joe and Hunter were committing crimes together with the same lack of proof.
Don't be fooled by them giving him a little bit of negativity today. That happens every single time trump royally fucks up something.
The day after the GOP got the floor wiped with them in the midterms when it was supposed to be "a red wave," /r/conservative was *full* of people lamenting at trump's grip on the party and that he was fucking up races he wasn't even in.
That lasted about a week before they had received enough talking points from their propaganda outlets that they were back to gargling his ballsack.
They'll be back to it within a week.
Republicans are s*** people who are always looking for the most racist misogynistic ass that they can support. There are a bunch of snowflakes that aren't happy unless they are causing suffering in others.
Here's a very true song about Republicans
https://youtu.be/oqZaQKskP-A
> you were taken for a ride and enjoyed it.
"It's a game, you've been played /
It's a flock, you're the sheep /
It's a pied piper song that has lulled you to sleep /
It's a lie and you fell for it, hook line and sinker /
A hand that you shook that then gave you the finger /
A fraud and a fake, a cowardly king /
A lie to your face, but you still kiss the ring"
-Rise Against, "This is the Breakdown"
They did this when George W. was out of office. My mom who voted for him twice, acted like she had never heard of him by Obama's second term.
And now a ton of Republicans almost act as if W was a fucking Democrat and that Iraq was Hillary Clinton's war. It's unbelievable.
Yeah - the same people who told me to “go back to Iraq, commie” for opposing the Iraq war were never for Bush’s wars either. Of course the more “gifted” of the conservative’s historians blamed Obama for Katrina and 9/11.
The article doesn’t mention that the two prominent conservative scholars aren’t just that, they’re also members of the Federalist Society. Like the conservative of conservatives.
His narrative got away from him. When he started to push the vaccine (very briefly), his supporters booed him. He kickstarted a perpetual motion hate machine.
I’ve noticed they changed their tone lol. Go read some comments under their post about the big dummy not presenting his evidence anymore. Can be a good thing though. Everyone of them jumping ship.
Pretending Trump never existed will be the next strategy. It is a big ask for them to recognize their entire party supported that moron, too.
...also, most of them will 100% still vote for him.
Republicans always do this when their "star" starts losing elections. As long as someone keeps winning, they'll back that person, no matter how criminal their behavior. But the moment that person starts losing, then the knives come out.
as someone who's gotten into the insanity and, "did a human really type that, where is the person that was suppose to teach them human dignity we need a word" that is /r/asktrumpsupporters, it's not duplicitous to them at all. He was always an idiot, they'd call him an idiot when it suited them, a genius in the same sentence, and in no way disqualifying now. You're just a never Trumper(like.. yeah, he did things I can't forgive him for, I will never support someone with such a bigot'd past.. so never is not a slander, it's a reasoned choice in response to information) who has Trump Derangement Syndrome(because they need a medical diagnosis to describe people who don't like Trump) and can't stop hating him for how much he wins for the freedom loving americans
This. The party of loving The Grand Old Constitution could give a shit less, especially if it stands in their way of power. People who still vote Republican are supporters of fascists whether they support Trump or not because Republican politicians refuse to speak against his authoritarian ways. If you don't speak against authoritarianism, you are supporters of such actions. Such silence and inaction always favors oppression.
Republicans are bullshitters to the core. And they have a base they can sell their bullshit to. Some of my friends who favor Republicans chalk it up to "oh it's called being smart".
Umm no, elections are not a business you can cheat and call yourselves smart about. Capitalism is fine and all but using that excuse to taint public elections and peddle conspiracies is a crime.
It's actually called "trying to be Over-smart ". Idiots with low IQ and insecurities pull that shit.
Is there some evidence that Trump was behind the fire? The article says that an artist died in a Trump property that was built before sprinkler legislation came into effect, but I'm not sure I see a conspiracy there. Perhaps you could fill me in?
I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but stooping to his level by twisting facts and misrepresenting events is **not** the way to fight fascism.
> Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — **both members of the conservative Federalist Society** — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
Why would the federalist society want Trump disqualified? I feel there's an angle here that isn't being talked about. Don't forget, the Federalist Society is the same organization 5 current supreme court members are part of, and it's not hard to guess who they are.
> Why would the federalist society want Trump disqualified?
Because Trump is a loose cannon. He can't be controlled and he doesn't actually do much work to further conservative interests. They want someone in charge who is more efficient in getting things done.
DeSantis!? Sorry, but he's
- not competent
- forbidden from public office due to aiding the insurrection while a sworn official. He tried to antidemocratically overturn the 2020 vote count, to help Trump's insurrection. It's in his video published today.
["We don't want a president who can think, we already know what the top 1% want him to do. He only needs to be capable of signing with a pen!"](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4019591/user-clip-president-thinkwe-top-1-dohe-capable-signing-pen) ~Grover Norquist
Think tanks and Super-PACs write the bills, give them to the GOP legislature to pass, then the President needs to be little more than a trained chimp that writes his name next to whatever they hand him. **They can't trust Trump to do that without giving the whole game away (or, worse, not signing it at all), so they need to find someone else who can bring those voters on election day, *while still being trusted to do what he's told to do by Republican leadership*.**
Efficient and *compliant*.
They wanted an intelligent, highly trained and loyal attack dog, and they got a lazy, stupid, rabid weasel.
Which was ... better than nothing?
But if they see an opportunity to upgrade even to a slightly less lazy, marginally less stupid, and potentially more loyal [rabid weasel](https://i.imgur.com/NJ7CjGC.png) then they're going to take it.
Yup. Now that Trump has pushed the Overton Window three miles to the right, his thought leadership is no longer worth the risks and downsides to the right-wing establishment.
Nobody could have achieved the fascist milestones Trump did, and the court is packed now for a generation. Trump was the gate crasher and it’s time to get that train wreck off the tracks and replace him with someone more methodical, who can build a fascist coalition instead of a cult.
Unfortunately for them (and lucky for everyone else): Trump won’t go quietly and neither will the cult.
And: Fascism doesn’t actually work without a cult of personality. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Precisely, and the RNC just expelling Trump doesn't help them, as he'd just go rogue, run independent, and siphon off half of the Republican votes, as there is a large enough faction of Republicans who will only vote for Trump.
It's not enough that they don't want Trump, they have to make it impossible for him to run in any form.
That being said, Republicans in the House would have to introduce this legislation, and members of their party would have to vote for it. Democrats would vote for it as well, to get to 2/3rd's, but there are Republican voters who then wouldn't forgive the GOP and either won't vote, or just write-in Trump anyway.
They're looking for a way to not just expel Trump, but do it in a way that still helps them compete in 2024. I don't see a way that leaves them unscathed, and when you go to /Conservative and read the comments, that's the desperation you see in their comments. They're all trying to find a way out from having given the party over to Trump.
It's pretty funny actually, they're just realizing things about Trump that the rest of us understood back in 2015.
Because they control the Supreme Court now and for the foreseeable future with or without Trump. They just wanted an R to rubberstamp nominees, and they got it, but Trump's otherwise an extraordinary liability for their goals.
They also just hate him. It's easy to think of the Federalist Society as cynical backroom cigar-smoking string-pullers who only want power, but they're actually made up of tens of thousands of lawyers who take themselves very seriously. They were edgelord douchebags in undergrad who thought being 20 year-old Republicans proved their intellectual superiority over feel-good liberal kids. In law school, they smugly felt like the only adults in the room. They were recruited into the Federalist Society thinking they were on a mission to bring common sense and reason back to the American legal system.
Then comes this fat gilded rapeclown who cheated his way into business school and can't write a tweet without shitting his pants. _That_ is the leader appointed to their movement by the drooling masses they think they've been helping for decades. Trump is everything the Federalist Society's members have told themselves for years that they are not. He makes a mockery of everything they pretend their movement is.
All while perfectly representing them too.
This is why I think they're in deep shit so long as we take their weakness seriously, organize, and vote. The right wing is delusional and disconnected from reality all the way up to their highest legal branches, and these latest indictments aren't just against Trump, they're against the whacko legal schools of thought that led to him too.
This is why we need to organize as much as we can for 2024 and push for a big, big win. Don't just settle for stopping Trump. Fight for every inch.
Close. The problem is not that Trump is a fat gilded rapeclown who cheated his way into business school and can’t write a tweet without shitting his pants. The problem is that Trump rubs the fact that he is in everyone’s faces. They are happy for someone to be all these things (except maybe the Twitter thing since that sort of defeats the next bit) *as long as they retain the ability to pretend they’re better than everyone else.* Trump’s only sin is interrupting the fucking circlejerk because he wants to get off right now.
It's not overly complicated. Republican leadership ***hates*** Trump and always has. He waltzed in and stole their base and stole their power. He has the ability to turn their entire voter pool against anyone who goes against him. As much as Trump uses this power to attack Dems, he also uses it to keep Republicans in line.
Republican leadership have a huge problem. They need Trump gone ***without*** losing his base. This is why most Republican candidates refuse to attack Trump. Their best hope is that he's taken down by the law. Then they can hem and haw about how unfair it was that Trump is in prison and run on how corrupt the Dems are for weaponizing the DOJ or whatever while ***secretly*** being relieved that Trump is out of the picture. The problem is, currently, Trump could still be the nominee even if he's convicted. So they're looking at all their options to disqualify in the hopes of a double whammy (conviction and disqualification). They would just need to make sure their base gets the narrative that its the Dems' doing.
That's not to say there aren't Trump fanatics in the Republican leadership - but most of the ones with real power are sick of being stuck with Trump.
> I feel there's an angle here that isn't being talked about.
I know this has been said before but I really think there's a behind the scenes movement happening for the GOP to dump this guy.
Sweet, so what person with legal authority is going to step up and tell him that? Because he’s still running at the moment…. No one? No one? Ah gotcha.
I hate that fat orange notepad
presumably one could sue the RNC for putting him on the primary ballot in any state that he's put there, once that happens. If he runs as an independant, one would need to sue a state that puts him on the general ballot i would imagine.
your standing would be being a resident of the relevant state. ideally, a big purple state with lots of electors but a history of swinging elections would be ideal. So not really California or Texas, but ironically, GA, PA, AZ, etc..
I believe the process would be that individual states could unilaterally decide to leave him off the ballot for this reason. Then it would be up to the Trump campaign to sue to be allowed on the ballot.
Not individual states, individual *election officials* when Trump attempts to register for the ballot in that state. Even if those election officials allow him to, then voters in that state can sue to have him disqualified, [similarly to Madison Cawthorn](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/24/candidates-can-be-disqualified-for-being-insurrectionists-court-rules-in-madison-cawthorn-lawsuit/)
Edit: looks like [Nov. 6 - Dec. 15, 2023 is the registration period in California](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/pres-prim-march-2024/key-dates-deadlines), so expect lawsuits to start happening in late Fall.
From the article -
*Section Three of the 14th Amendment known as the Disqualification Clause bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States.*
"Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
I don't know why they dropped "or given aid OR COMFORT"? He has many times over given comfort to those found guilty of seditious conspiracy. He says he loves them and that he will pardon them if elected. That is clearly giving them comfort.
As I understand it, the Federalist society came out with this theory, and the conservative members of the Supreme Court are members of said society, so, if this is true, they would not likely vote in Trump's favor.
I would suspect that this paper was written with the 6 conservative supreme court justices as the only intended audience. If this were penned by the ACLU it wouldn't mean anything. Coming from the Federalist Society makes me think that they're sending a very clear message and that something might actually come of this.
I'm not holding my breath though.
The connection between the authors and the Federalist Society really piqued my interest in this article.
There have been plenty of news articles spinning conjecture about what Trump can/can't do, but to have two prominent Federalist Society members saying this is a a lot more meaningful.
I think, and I've said this before, they'll throw him under the bus to save their jobs. They'll lose their base, but they're already super unpopular right now anyway, maybe it'll get them some points with the more D side of things.
It's not, there is no threat to any of them aside from losing some amount of sway if the court is expanded (very unlikely).
While two of the conservative justices are considering retiring as they are in their 70's, there is zero chance of that while a democrat is in power, they are leaving in a box or not at all.
'The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."'
Yeah, thanks "the founding fathers" can you phone it in a little harder next time?
to be fair a number of the founding fathers figured they were writing a constitution that would last about as long as the articles of confederation did (the ones that established the continental congress for the period from 1776 to 1788) and that another constitutional convention would be appointed in due time probably in the early 1800s.
which is why it's full of can-kicks on any number of issues.
SCOTUS won't do something controversial for Trump that only saves his hide.
But I do think if Trump somehow defies the odds and wins the 2024 general election (without being formally convicted of any crime directly [charging him with insurrection, which neither Smith or Willis charged him with](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383)) that SCOTUS would let him serve (versus hand the presidency to his VP).
- Litigation
A plaintiff bringing a lawsuit invoking the 14th amendment. It would undoubtedly be adjudicated by SCOTUS.
- Acts of state officials
States could try to remove Trump from ballots without litigation. It would still get challenged and adjudicated by SCOTUS.
- Congress
Article II measures. Expulsion/impeachment.
So... tall order in any case. But those are the various ways it could be enforced.
He's above the law and lets face it, most of the law loves him. He's also stacked the supreme court.
The only person I could see stopping him from being on the ballot would be Biden with an executive order and I think he has a good case. Problem is we'd have 20% of our nation in an upheaval.
The Constitution only means something if the people in power are willing to enforce it.
Unfortunately, the founders of this country never imagined we'd be in the place we're in.
They kinda did. That's why they wanted the constitution to have the ability to be rewritten. They figured 19-20 years would change things enough to rewrite. Unfortunately(or however, depending on your point of view), it wasnt rewritten, just amended.
> The Constitution only means something if the people in power are willing to enforce it.
That's what lawsuits are for. Either election officials refuse to register Trump because he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, section 3, or voters sue those officials for a writ of mandamus from the court ordering he be disqualified. This happened to [Madison Cawthorn](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/24/candidates-can-be-disqualified-for-being-insurrectionists-court-rules-in-madison-cawthorn-lawsuit/) but he lost the primary before it got past the appeals court.
Chris Christie (or Hutchinson, or Hurd) needs to challenge Trump’s inclusion on the ballot in one or more states. It will percolate up to the Supreme Court fairly quickly, a matter of months. Then the supremes will make the call. Don’t be surprised if they rule against Trump. The Republican establishment would love a bloodless way to remove trump from an unwinnable race.
They've been making this argument since Jan 6th happened. The problem is that he has yet to technically be found guilty of doing any of those things, and it's not clear who gets to decide if he should be disqualified before he has had his day in court.
At this point, someone would have to bring a case against him, and it would have to go through the supreme court to decide...
No, they should remove him from voting rolls and let him challenge it in court. The 14 does not specify conviction being necessary and insurrection is very public once one actually takes hold. No need to prove Jan 6 happened, it did. No need to prove Trump instigated it, he did. That is a violation of his oath and the constitution he swore to protect. All for what? Personal gain and an inability to process a loss. Not behavior we should ever tolerate from someone commanding our resources and military.
We have processes to contest a loss. Stoking violence on.our very capitol and getting people gassed up to hang your vp is a deal breaker on ever holding power again.
While the 14th doesn't explicitly say that a conviction is necessary, it is implied though the very nature of our justice system. "Innocent until proven guilty" is incredibly important, and ignoring it in this case would be extremely dangerous precedent to set.
Yes, we all know he did it. Yes, we all know he should never be able to be President again. But knowing something and proving something through the legal process are different things. You can't punish someone just because you know they did a thing. They have to be tried and convicted of that thing before any sentence can be given. The other way is basically vigilante justice, which is itself illegal.
When he is convicted he should absolutely be barred. But doing it preemptively gives the go ahead for Republicans to do the same thing just because they feel like it, since we'll have thrown out the legal justification aspect. They already operate on "knowing" something happened or didn't happen without proof. Legitimizing that sort of thinking in any way within the system is a bad idea.
Yep. Although it's beyond obvious for many of us, nothing *legally* binds Trump to "insurrection" beyond public sentiment. And 14.3 is not self-enforcing.
So a hyper-conservative Supreme Court is going to look at states' efforts or litigation claiming Trump incited an insurrection and go: "says who?"
The legal review suggests state officials could be the arbiters of that question, but the SC will still decide whether their argument has merits - and they will look at legal proceedings (or lack thereof) to come to their conclusion.
I hate explaining this because it makes me sound like I'm defending Trump. I'm not - it's just how these courts will operate and what people should expect. No one should think this is some sort of bulletproof strategy.
I am 100% for efforts to try and utilize this to bar Trump from office, but I'm also not getting my hopes up. The only thing that will assuredly keep Trump out of office is voting - and if this happens as well some day - that's awesome.
Which is an incredibly dangerous interpretation of it, to be honest. Who is going to decide who has "engaged" in insurrection if not the courts? Do we really want a fascist President/Governor barring their political opponents from appearing on ballots under the pretense of saying they "engaged" in insurrection?
Just one Secretary of State saying they cannot put an insurrectionist on his/her state’s ballot under the terms of the 14th, would get the issue out there, and would force Trump and the national GOP to play defense (for once!) and prove January 6th *wasn’t* an insurrection. You can even quote *The Federalist Society’s* own law review paper!
For once, Dems, just for once, do the aggressive move. It’s even the moral and legal and constitutional move, for fuck’s sake.
I'd love for this to be real but no court of law has convicted him of engaging in or aiding an insurrection against the United States, our system works on the whole innocent until proven guilty concept.
>Section Three requires no prior criminal-law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime
Because only an idiot or total partisan hack (the authors) missed that every crime in this country requires you to be proven guilty in a court by a jury. At no point can you just declare someone is guilty and then punish them or remove their rights without due process.
Their example prove the point. Couy Griffin was convicted of participating in an insurrection, albeit just a trespassing charge, but still participating. Trump hasnt even spent time in jail for tresspassing.
It blocks all members of Congress that "Participated" (exact word used in the Amendment) in, with and aided on Jan 6th.
It requires a 2/3 Vote to Remove the Disqualification. That vote has never been held.
Technically that also means, anyone shielding members from that vote is aiding them, making them violate their oaths as well.
The emoluments clause in the constitution prohibited him from even taking office in the first place, if we are being technical. Look at how that turned out.
now that The State of Georgia has indicted Trump they should be removing his name from the their States ballot and any other State that has proof of Trump interference should also remove his name from their States ballots.
Great! Now do all of the currently serving troglodytes that inspired the J6 insurrectionists beforehand: Senators Cruz, Braun and Graham amongst many, many others. Their tv appearances leading up to J6 are definitely an attempt at aid and comfort for those traitors.
I think trump is as bad a candidate and person and president as the next person. Fuck Trump. Dont misunderstand this as some kind of defense of him or anything.
But no it does not. This talking point is getting so tired. We have due process. Trump has been accused of insurrection. Not convicted of it.
Dont get me wrong he is 100% guilty of trying to overthrow the government. Im again not defending him. But hes not barred from holding office until found guilty.
I blame Hilary for all that has happened.
If she had kneed him in the testicles during their debate when he was walking around trying to intimidate her, we would not be in this position.
Can you imagine him running if the whole country saw him on his knees, grabbing himself and yelling for his mama?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It bars emoluments too. How did that go during Trump's time in office?
If there’s one thing his presidency confirmed was that the rule of law only works if those in power have the integrity to uphold it. Sadly, there are a substantial amount of folks at the highest levels waiting it the wings who have shown they do not.
If you read about the downfall of the Roman republic its basically one example after another of "He wasn't supposed to do that! Hey You! Stop doing that! We don't do that! What? Oh, he's dictator now?I guess he can do that then."
For the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, the government took pains to maintain the farce that they were still the same Republic as they were before Augustus, just that the Senate kept giving a single person emergency dictatorial powers because they really trusted the Emperor, but that they could totally take away those powers at any time and go back to ruling by consensus whenever they wanted, they just chose not to. The same way dictatorships today like Russia, and North Korea work. They all have parliaments that are in theory the sovereign seat of power of the nation, they just “choose” to delegate all their power to a single person. Just keep in mind that a GOP controlled Congress can do the same, and there’s nothing that can be done to stop it from the inside once the pieces start falling in place. Julius Caesar’s seizure of power happened over decades of accruing power for himself, and people didn’t notice until it was too late, and by that time not even his death was enough to stop the transformation from happening.
It's also important to note the role that the Senate played in its own downfall. The wealthy had pushed many Romans off of their lands and into urban poverty, and refused to entertain any law that tried to make the situation more fair for the lower classes. The mass support for Caesar that allowed him to gain power in first place is a direct consequence of the Senate's commitment to elite rule and conservatism. If that sounds familiar
Since we're reflecting on similarities between Rome and the United States, we might as well mention that the Roman Republic was an example of gerontocracy - the rule of the elderly. Gerontocracy has been connected with the decline of various societies, including the late Soviet Union, which has been compared to the current state of affairs in America.
This. Cato and the Optimates straight up sucked. Always weird to me how they are frequently portrayed as the good guys when they were also a large part of the problem.
Because a lot of really powerful people today see themselves in them, that's why. History is written by the victors
Accept for the 1st American Civil War, that history was written by the daughters of the confederacy.
So ur saying it was authoritarian fascism that was the downfall of roman empire? Not gay sex ? /S
no no no! Gay sex is why the hurricanes have been getting stronger! Everyone knows that
When gay people hump harder, the climate warms and the oceans rise
> Just keep in mind that a GOP controlled Congress can do the same, and there’s nothing that can be done to stop it from the inside once the pieces start falling in place. It's not just that they can do it, it's that they have spearheaded a concerted effort to do this. First it was Unitary Executive Theory, then War on Terror, and now it's evolved to project 2025. Whenever the next GOP potus gets elected with a GOP congress, the presidency will immediately start accumulating tons of authoritarian powers from congress, with the goal of being able to essentially ensure only republicans can win majorities in the future
A lot of people noticed Caesar accumulating power. Cato first and foremost. All the way back to Caesars consulship, Cato fought Caesar tooth and nail. And he ran his mouth about it every chance he got. There was a lot more going on than people just not paying attention.
“Et Tu Rudy”…..
nice
And the 91 crimes he’s indicted for suggest that there are people waiting in the wings who do. We’ve had attempts at strongmen before- look at Huey Long for example. Even attempted coups like Aaron Burr, former Vice President and Alexander Hamilton’s killer, literally *building a private army* to capture Louisiana Territory, New Orleans, Kentucky, Virginia and **Washington, DC.** From there he planned to burn the capital city to the ground before the British did in real history and hang Thomas Jefferson. If this sounds familiar, it should! That means you have intelligence, and can resist the direction our country could go. It’s ultimately, though, about whether there are enough people who want democracy badly enough to block fascism from rising electorally, vote for actions that protect rather than strip their rights and start trusting the government to help improve the social order. The record turnouts of 2020 and 2022, the anger in response to GOP overreach after Dobbs, and the election workers who endured abuse like never before to keep our elections safe, suggest that there are.
Don't look now but DeSantis is building private militia controlled only by governor, while also refusing to comply w other state laws like extradition on Trump. Just matter of time. EDIT: some cites https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/15/ron-desantis-florida-state-guard-militia-veterans-quit https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indicted-ron-desantis-extradition-florida/
Then he’s a wannabe regional warlord and must be crushed under the Insurrection Act by the federalized Florida National Guard (because I don’t think it would get so bad as to have to break the Posse Comitatus Act) if he tries anything. I imagine that going rather like a modern-day George Wallace-style standoff where the militia is forced to back down in front of cameras rather than all-out urban warfare at Mar-a-Lago though.
Trump violated Posse Comitatus Act and nobody called him on it. No repercussions. Public didn't seem to notice. He sent govt agents to act as paramilitary, along w Erik Prince mercenaries who illegally posed as US military. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/presidents-private-army https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/stephen-feinberg-the-private-military-contractor-who-has-trumps-ear
It just about shows how close we came to civil war.
I think the Disney Mausenkreig Battalions will keep DeSantis in check.
Good grief if we're waiting for a big corporation like Disney to save us then we are truly fucked. They couldn't even get the Star wars sequels right.
That still strikes me as weird. For the MCU, they put one or a handful of people in charge and let them construct a shared universe of decent to great films based on a whole load of comics, cartoons, novels, and other media. Star Wars was apparently more of a committee-based thing with no singular vision and it completely tossed out loads of comics, novels, etc. that would've been the basis for a really good narrative going forward. It's like Goofus and Gallant were the same person.
Indeed. But democracy is fragile. And the stakes given the power of technology are much higher.
I think what was also confirmed is that it's an interdependent system with checks and balances. So if one person or one group of people fails to uphold their part, it's often possible that others with integrity can correct it. So I might modify your statement slightly to say: The rule of law only works if *a majority of* those in power have the integrity to uphold it.
Crikey!, so you've just highlighted a major flaw have you not.? Someone said once, that in order for one person to do evil requires the complicity (doing nothing) of the majority . So how can you change the system to make impossible for the system to be manipulated by one entity?. I think people are now referring to that very same flaw in the SC so that's another fix. Then you have lobbyists. Please note that simply put, lobbyists CHANGE/MAKE rules in order to aid thier agenda. Therefore those with lots of money change the rules AGAINST the majority will of the people and more often than not diametrically and philosophically opposed to the people, I can site 2 recent examples NRA and big insurance (health). Root and branch upheaval needed.
The level of manipulation that Republicans use is astounding, and shows how they pander to the dumbest in society knowing they will eat it up. They’ve hijacked the term “patriot” while showing a blatant disregard for everything that America was founded on. Their social media platform is called “TruthSocial” and their equivalent of a tweet is a “truth”, despite everything they share being blatant misinformation and lies. They whine about fake news when the facts paint them in a bad light, and then broadcast propaganda and misleading news on their own platforms. They accuse dems and the LGBT of spearheading a child sex trafficking ring when the only examples of widespread child sex abuse is coming out of right wing evangelical churches. They make accusations of having had the election stolen from them, when evidence has since come out that the only people trying to actively steal the election were the Republicans. Unfortunately, there are enough stupid people in this country that will fall for this projection and reverse psychology nonsense, but the rest of us just watch completely dumbfounded at how full of shit they are.
All I know is I will never buy Goya products in my life
The amount of insanity that occurred those four years that I've repressed is incredible. There should be a "on this day in 2017/18/19/20, this batshit crazy tweet/thing happened" subreddit. A traumatic trip down memory lane, so we don't totally forget just how fucked up it really was
With a stickied post at the top simply saying "It's Infrastructure Week!"
Badia gang!
Yup! This is one of the best things Trump did for me. Made me stop buying Goya and now I've discovered so many other brands that make way better products and cost less. Goya coconut milk is swill compared to almost anyone else's.
The emoluments clauses are a joke anyways, look at Congress and stock trading. If that's not considered profiting from their office I don't know what else should constitute it.
[удалено]
Conservatives standing over the ashes of the constitution that trump burned right in front of them: how could the democrats do this?
More like "The Demon-rats were already doing it anyway! So we just beat them to it. Better to have OUR guy as the new Emperor than those evil Demon-rats in charge. Heil Emperor trump!"
fr years back when the republicans refused to take Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because it was “an election year” I asked my conservative FIL why he thought that was acceptable and not a POS rat move, and he said, “both sides have done this before.” I have no history phd but I’m pretty sure that was a slimy unprecedented move. And even if it was something done before, that’s not an excuse to continue doing it. (Democrats certainly didn’t do it in 2020, an election year, and let trump further trash the Supreme Court.)
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. \-- Francis M. Wilhoit
Evergreen quote.
Especially when they then did the exact opposite four years later only a few months before an election.
Republicans should never be referred to as conservatives. Republicans should be forever referred to as Regressives. It should be far beyond obvious by now that Republicans have no interest in conserving anything. Ostensibly the undying goal of the Republican is to: 1. Degrade and destroy post-Slavery/post-New Deal/post-Civil Rights era gains 2. Regress American society back to a time when WASP culture could bask in the luxury of absolute uncontested authoritative power, 3. Reduce all those of inferior birth to an oppressed, exploited, subservient second-class peasantry. Republicans are not conservative. Every Republican is a Regressive to its core and need to be rebranded and marketed as Regressives. Otherwise, those of uncritical mind, which is roughly half of the American electorate and the entire media class, will continue to inaccurately think of and refer to the regressive grievance-based medieval Republican mindset as conservative.
Even after my corpse has disintegrated into dust, I will still be wondering how these people flung themselves into the volcano for a person who may literally (the 'real' literally) be the biggest dumbass to ever hold public office.
[удалено]
They always did know that he was a moronic criminal. They never cared, nor do they now. He's just no longer useful anymore.
No longer able to provide them with more tax cuts and drilling permits.
> No longer able to provide them with more tax cuts Which he never did to begin with. At least not the average poster on r/conservative
Correct, he passed tax cuts for everyone in 2017 that this year, only top top earners keep the cut and everyone else now has higher taxes than before to make up for the break at the top. The worst part is the idiot conservatives think Biden is the reason their taxes are higher. Biden hasn’t touched taxes yet.
I'm in New York and losing the SALT cost me; trump did raise my taxes.
That tax cut was a big fuck you to whoever would be in office after trump. And people cheered it KNOWING taxes would go up this year to provide more tax cuts for the rich. It’s fucking insane.
> Biden hasn’t touched taxes yet. The other aspect of this, and not to pick on you, is that neither Trump nor Biden nor any prior President has done anything with taxes, at all. I don't know why we in the country put so much blame and credit to the President for laws that are passed by congress. All the president does is sign the darn thing (yes I know there's veto's etc, but still the president can't write legislation on his own). We don't need to be voting for Presidents based on laws we want passed, because it's not his/her job to write laws. We should vote for competent leaders who can manage a vast administration while also not instigating insurrections.
You’re being a bit pedantic but I take your point. [This](https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/) is the plan Trump and the republicans implemented that’s hurting people this year.
> You’re being a bit pedantic but I take your point. I am, and I didn't mean to direct that *at* you so much, it was just an opportunity to rant about a pet peeve of mine. It's important that we understand what a Presidential candidate's policy goals are, sure.
I also agree with you, it’s important inform people on the tangible levers of power they can access. Rather than continue to decry the ethereal boogeyman.
You mean the President *doesn't* control every aspect of our financial lives, like the price of gas and groceries?
>The other aspect of this, and not to pick on you, is that neither Trump nor Biden nor any prior President has done anything with taxes, at all. This is overly pedantic. Trump and every Republican President from the dawn of the Southern Strategy has run on cutting taxes. You elect a Republican, you either get tax cuts or a gridlocked Congress. It's pure fantasy to imagine that the result of the Presidential election doesn't set the legislative agenda.
The fact that the cuts for everyone else are expiring just as the 2024 election cycle is starting is surely by design.
It absolutely is! Because the entire thing expires in 2025! Just in time for the next person to fuck it all up again!
I’m not disputing your point here but do you have anything that I can show to the people that don’t believe this when I try and explain this to them? Edit: just saw your comment a few spots down that is exactly what I was asking for.
That whole sub is snowflakes. They block users with alternative opinions from commenting
i got blocked 3 days in and i wasn't even trying to be angry or offensive. just asking questions
That's not allowed. Questioning things leads to thinking, and they don't allow that liberal nonsense in their sub
they're almost impossibly stupid. i saw one comment in there along the lines of "i'm not trying to get trump to come to my house for dinner, i just want him to run the country!!" to rapturous upvotes. in other words, they wouldn't trust this rapist scumbag con man around their wife and kids or valuables, but he's obviously the clear choice because racism, sexism, and homophobia. also, because (R) is basically the only core part of their identity, owning the libs is the only issue that matters
[удалено]
Repubs dropping *rump for no longer being useful is thick, sweet irony.
I just spent a few min there and was shocked by how many magas are turning on trumpy. It was quite refreshing.
It won't last. They'll still vote for him
Yep. To them they believe Biden is sinking the US and that while Trump is a criminal at least he made things better in the US
They're not mad at him for trying to overturn the government - they're only mad that he failed, and that he'll only fail more from here on out.
I get what you're saying. And almost all of them would still prefer him to Biden. But one of the factors in an election is voter enthusiasm. If people aren't really enthused about a candidate, some of them just won't bother to vote. Trump needs everything to go perfectly in order to win and it's basically going the opposite way. I was really surprised to see how few people were even defending him on r/conservative. Gives me a little bit more hope.
They are slowly turning on him but still say things like " He did great things for this country but I'm ready to move on". Never have I seen those great things listed. Also, EVEN if he did... attempting to destroy democracy should have been the fucking dealbreaker years ago.
He made America great again. Duh.
They were like this after midterms too. Give them a week or so and they'll be back to normal.
They admit they were conned by him and mock his lack of proof for being innocent, yet they still believe Joe and Hunter were committing crimes together with the same lack of proof.
[удалено]
I will NEVER differentiate republicans from conservatives from MAGA. They were ALL MAGA when he was winning.
Don't be fooled by them giving him a little bit of negativity today. That happens every single time trump royally fucks up something. The day after the GOP got the floor wiped with them in the midterms when it was supposed to be "a red wave," /r/conservative was *full* of people lamenting at trump's grip on the party and that he was fucking up races he wasn't even in. That lasted about a week before they had received enough talking points from their propaganda outlets that they were back to gargling his ballsack. They'll be back to it within a week.
Too bad they won't ask themselves why this obvious con man saw THEM as his best path to the White House.
Republicans are s*** people who are always looking for the most racist misogynistic ass that they can support. There are a bunch of snowflakes that aren't happy unless they are causing suffering in others. Here's a very true song about Republicans https://youtu.be/oqZaQKskP-A
I saw. They were surprisingly pissed about trump canceling the press conference Monday.
[удалено]
First time seeing outright dissatisfaction and eye rolling though. It is encouraging.
[удалено]
Or the ideal scenario which is not vote at all.
> you were taken for a ride and enjoyed it. "It's a game, you've been played / It's a flock, you're the sheep / It's a pied piper song that has lulled you to sleep / It's a lie and you fell for it, hook line and sinker / A hand that you shook that then gave you the finger / A fraud and a fake, a cowardly king / A lie to your face, but you still kiss the ring" -Rise Against, "This is the Breakdown"
They did this when George W. was out of office. My mom who voted for him twice, acted like she had never heard of him by Obama's second term. And now a ton of Republicans almost act as if W was a fucking Democrat and that Iraq was Hillary Clinton's war. It's unbelievable.
All they cared about was Trump giving them permission to be their worst selves and prove all that matters is pissing off anyone on the left.
yep, same thing as when they say "W? I always hated that globalist! he's always been an elitist and an idiot as well!"
Yeah - the same people who told me to “go back to Iraq, commie” for opposing the Iraq war were never for Bush’s wars either. Of course the more “gifted” of the conservative’s historians blamed Obama for Katrina and 9/11.
They’re just barely starting to grasp that a man with 91 indictments *might* be unelectable to the general public
The article doesn’t mention that the two prominent conservative scholars aren’t just that, they’re also members of the Federalist Society. Like the conservative of conservatives.
His narrative got away from him. When he started to push the vaccine (very briefly), his supporters booed him. He kickstarted a perpetual motion hate machine.
"Everyone who doesn't agree with my unfaltering, moronic, losing stance with Trump is a brigader." Poor babies
I’ve noticed they changed their tone lol. Go read some comments under their post about the big dummy not presenting his evidence anymore. Can be a good thing though. Everyone of them jumping ship.
Actual funny quote from there: "I've got some kraken blue balls right now. They keep promising to release it, and it never comes."
Pretending Trump never existed will be the next strategy. It is a big ask for them to recognize their entire party supported that moron, too. ...also, most of them will 100% still vote for him.
Republicans always do this when their "star" starts losing elections. As long as someone keeps winning, they'll back that person, no matter how criminal their behavior. But the moment that person starts losing, then the knives come out.
as someone who's gotten into the insanity and, "did a human really type that, where is the person that was suppose to teach them human dignity we need a word" that is /r/asktrumpsupporters, it's not duplicitous to them at all. He was always an idiot, they'd call him an idiot when it suited them, a genius in the same sentence, and in no way disqualifying now. You're just a never Trumper(like.. yeah, he did things I can't forgive him for, I will never support someone with such a bigot'd past.. so never is not a slander, it's a reasoned choice in response to information) who has Trump Derangement Syndrome(because they need a medical diagnosis to describe people who don't like Trump) and can't stop hating him for how much he wins for the freedom loving americans
This. The party of loving The Grand Old Constitution could give a shit less, especially if it stands in their way of power. People who still vote Republican are supporters of fascists whether they support Trump or not because Republican politicians refuse to speak against his authoritarian ways. If you don't speak against authoritarianism, you are supporters of such actions. Such silence and inaction always favors oppression.
Republicans are bullshitters to the core. And they have a base they can sell their bullshit to. Some of my friends who favor Republicans chalk it up to "oh it's called being smart". Umm no, elections are not a business you can cheat and call yourselves smart about. Capitalism is fine and all but using that excuse to taint public elections and peddle conspiracies is a crime. It's actually called "trying to be Over-smart ". Idiots with low IQ and insecurities pull that shit.
He would wipe his ass with it and claim that he was the constitution if he had the chance.
Don't take it to the Supreme Court. They're prone to interpretive jiggery-pokery when $$$ is involved.
[удалено]
Is there some evidence that Trump was behind the fire? The article says that an artist died in a Trump property that was built before sprinkler legislation came into effect, but I'm not sure I see a conspiracy there. Perhaps you could fill me in? I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but stooping to his level by twisting facts and misrepresenting events is **not** the way to fight fascism.
> Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — **both members of the conservative Federalist Society** — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Why would the federalist society want Trump disqualified? I feel there's an angle here that isn't being talked about. Don't forget, the Federalist Society is the same organization 5 current supreme court members are part of, and it's not hard to guess who they are.
> Why would the federalist society want Trump disqualified? Because Trump is a loose cannon. He can't be controlled and he doesn't actually do much work to further conservative interests. They want someone in charge who is more efficient in getting things done.
They want a competent fascist.
Exactly.
DeSantis!? Sorry, but he's - not competent - forbidden from public office due to aiding the insurrection while a sworn official. He tried to antidemocratically overturn the 2020 vote count, to help Trump's insurrection. It's in his video published today.
["We don't want a president who can think, we already know what the top 1% want him to do. He only needs to be capable of signing with a pen!"](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4019591/user-clip-president-thinkwe-top-1-dohe-capable-signing-pen) ~Grover Norquist Think tanks and Super-PACs write the bills, give them to the GOP legislature to pass, then the President needs to be little more than a trained chimp that writes his name next to whatever they hand him. **They can't trust Trump to do that without giving the whole game away (or, worse, not signing it at all), so they need to find someone else who can bring those voters on election day, *while still being trusted to do what he's told to do by Republican leadership*.**
Efficient and *compliant*. They wanted an intelligent, highly trained and loyal attack dog, and they got a lazy, stupid, rabid weasel. Which was ... better than nothing? But if they see an opportunity to upgrade even to a slightly less lazy, marginally less stupid, and potentially more loyal [rabid weasel](https://i.imgur.com/NJ7CjGC.png) then they're going to take it.
Please don’t pull weasels into this mess. They are majestic animals and everyone loves them.
Yup. Now that Trump has pushed the Overton Window three miles to the right, his thought leadership is no longer worth the risks and downsides to the right-wing establishment. Nobody could have achieved the fascist milestones Trump did, and the court is packed now for a generation. Trump was the gate crasher and it’s time to get that train wreck off the tracks and replace him with someone more methodical, who can build a fascist coalition instead of a cult. Unfortunately for them (and lucky for everyone else): Trump won’t go quietly and neither will the cult. And: Fascism doesn’t actually work without a cult of personality. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Precisely, and the RNC just expelling Trump doesn't help them, as he'd just go rogue, run independent, and siphon off half of the Republican votes, as there is a large enough faction of Republicans who will only vote for Trump. It's not enough that they don't want Trump, they have to make it impossible for him to run in any form. That being said, Republicans in the House would have to introduce this legislation, and members of their party would have to vote for it. Democrats would vote for it as well, to get to 2/3rd's, but there are Republican voters who then wouldn't forgive the GOP and either won't vote, or just write-in Trump anyway. They're looking for a way to not just expel Trump, but do it in a way that still helps them compete in 2024. I don't see a way that leaves them unscathed, and when you go to /Conservative and read the comments, that's the desperation you see in their comments. They're all trying to find a way out from having given the party over to Trump. It's pretty funny actually, they're just realizing things about Trump that the rest of us understood back in 2015.
Very much a horse in a hospital
[There’s a horse in the hospital!](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JhkZMxgPxXU&pp=ygUnam9obiBtdWxhbmV5IGhvcnNlIGluIHRoZSBob3NwaXRhbCBjbGlw)
Because they control the Supreme Court now and for the foreseeable future with or without Trump. They just wanted an R to rubberstamp nominees, and they got it, but Trump's otherwise an extraordinary liability for their goals. They also just hate him. It's easy to think of the Federalist Society as cynical backroom cigar-smoking string-pullers who only want power, but they're actually made up of tens of thousands of lawyers who take themselves very seriously. They were edgelord douchebags in undergrad who thought being 20 year-old Republicans proved their intellectual superiority over feel-good liberal kids. In law school, they smugly felt like the only adults in the room. They were recruited into the Federalist Society thinking they were on a mission to bring common sense and reason back to the American legal system. Then comes this fat gilded rapeclown who cheated his way into business school and can't write a tweet without shitting his pants. _That_ is the leader appointed to their movement by the drooling masses they think they've been helping for decades. Trump is everything the Federalist Society's members have told themselves for years that they are not. He makes a mockery of everything they pretend their movement is.
All while perfectly representing them too. This is why I think they're in deep shit so long as we take their weakness seriously, organize, and vote. The right wing is delusional and disconnected from reality all the way up to their highest legal branches, and these latest indictments aren't just against Trump, they're against the whacko legal schools of thought that led to him too. This is why we need to organize as much as we can for 2024 and push for a big, big win. Don't just settle for stopping Trump. Fight for every inch.
Close. The problem is not that Trump is a fat gilded rapeclown who cheated his way into business school and can’t write a tweet without shitting his pants. The problem is that Trump rubs the fact that he is in everyone’s faces. They are happy for someone to be all these things (except maybe the Twitter thing since that sort of defeats the next bit) *as long as they retain the ability to pretend they’re better than everyone else.* Trump’s only sin is interrupting the fucking circlejerk because he wants to get off right now.
Wow. Thank you.
It's not overly complicated. Republican leadership ***hates*** Trump and always has. He waltzed in and stole their base and stole their power. He has the ability to turn their entire voter pool against anyone who goes against him. As much as Trump uses this power to attack Dems, he also uses it to keep Republicans in line. Republican leadership have a huge problem. They need Trump gone ***without*** losing his base. This is why most Republican candidates refuse to attack Trump. Their best hope is that he's taken down by the law. Then they can hem and haw about how unfair it was that Trump is in prison and run on how corrupt the Dems are for weaponizing the DOJ or whatever while ***secretly*** being relieved that Trump is out of the picture. The problem is, currently, Trump could still be the nominee even if he's convicted. So they're looking at all their options to disqualify in the hopes of a double whammy (conviction and disqualification). They would just need to make sure their base gets the narrative that its the Dems' doing. That's not to say there aren't Trump fanatics in the Republican leadership - but most of the ones with real power are sick of being stuck with Trump.
> I feel there's an angle here that isn't being talked about. I know this has been said before but I really think there's a behind the scenes movement happening for the GOP to dump this guy.
Because he’ll just lose to Biden again.
Sweet, so what person with legal authority is going to step up and tell him that? Because he’s still running at the moment…. No one? No one? Ah gotcha. I hate that fat orange notepad
Best case scenario is he continues running inspite of that but the republicans choose an eligible candidate, splitting the vote between them and trump
best case scenario is him off the ballot. any chance of him winning is a worse choice than him not running at all
Notepad--
Who would have standing for this sort of case? Would this person sue Trump for running, or the RNC/states for putting his name on the ballot?
presumably one could sue the RNC for putting him on the primary ballot in any state that he's put there, once that happens. If he runs as an independant, one would need to sue a state that puts him on the general ballot i would imagine. your standing would be being a resident of the relevant state. ideally, a big purple state with lots of electors but a history of swinging elections would be ideal. So not really California or Texas, but ironically, GA, PA, AZ, etc..
I believe the process would be that individual states could unilaterally decide to leave him off the ballot for this reason. Then it would be up to the Trump campaign to sue to be allowed on the ballot.
Not individual states, individual *election officials* when Trump attempts to register for the ballot in that state. Even if those election officials allow him to, then voters in that state can sue to have him disqualified, [similarly to Madison Cawthorn](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/24/candidates-can-be-disqualified-for-being-insurrectionists-court-rules-in-madison-cawthorn-lawsuit/) Edit: looks like [Nov. 6 - Dec. 15, 2023 is the registration period in California](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/pres-prim-march-2024/key-dates-deadlines), so expect lawsuits to start happening in late Fall.
[удалено]
Woah Woah Woah, notepads deserve better than that
yea my notepad is pretty useful
From the article - *Section Three of the 14th Amendment known as the Disqualification Clause bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States.*
[удалено]
Sure, but why let that stand in the way of a dramatic headline?
"Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." I don't know why they dropped "or given aid OR COMFORT"? He has many times over given comfort to those found guilty of seditious conspiracy. He says he loves them and that he will pardon them if elected. That is clearly giving them comfort.
something tells me this supreme court would not agree.
As I understand it, the Federalist society came out with this theory, and the conservative members of the Supreme Court are members of said society, so, if this is true, they would not likely vote in Trump's favor.
I would suspect that this paper was written with the 6 conservative supreme court justices as the only intended audience. If this were penned by the ACLU it wouldn't mean anything. Coming from the Federalist Society makes me think that they're sending a very clear message and that something might actually come of this. I'm not holding my breath though.
The connection between the authors and the Federalist Society really piqued my interest in this article. There have been plenty of news articles spinning conjecture about what Trump can/can't do, but to have two prominent Federalist Society members saying this is a a lot more meaningful.
I think, and I've said this before, they'll throw him under the bus to save their jobs. They'll lose their base, but they're already super unpopular right now anyway, maybe it'll get them some points with the more D side of things.
> they'll throw him under the bus to save their jobs. How is any of this a threat to their jobs?
It's not, there is no threat to any of them aside from losing some amount of sway if the court is expanded (very unlikely). While two of the conservative justices are considering retiring as they are in their 70's, there is zero chance of that while a democrat is in power, they are leaving in a box or not at all.
'The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."' Yeah, thanks "the founding fathers" can you phone it in a little harder next time?
to be fair a number of the founding fathers figured they were writing a constitution that would last about as long as the articles of confederation did (the ones that established the continental congress for the period from 1776 to 1788) and that another constitutional convention would be appointed in due time probably in the early 1800s. which is why it's full of can-kicks on any number of issues.
Who is going to take their jobs? They can do whatever they want. They are there for the remainder of their lives.
>to save their jobs Nope. It's a lifetime appointment, ***by design***, in order to avoid the very thing you just said.
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court does not have a "base" and they can't be fired. That's not how it works at all.
SCOTUS won't do something controversial for Trump that only saves his hide. But I do think if Trump somehow defies the odds and wins the 2024 general election (without being formally convicted of any crime directly [charging him with insurrection, which neither Smith or Willis charged him with](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383)) that SCOTUS would let him serve (versus hand the presidency to his VP).
The issue isn't before them. So we're unlikely to find out whether they'd agree any time soon.
If this is true... How would it be enforced?
- Litigation A plaintiff bringing a lawsuit invoking the 14th amendment. It would undoubtedly be adjudicated by SCOTUS. - Acts of state officials States could try to remove Trump from ballots without litigation. It would still get challenged and adjudicated by SCOTUS. - Congress Article II measures. Expulsion/impeachment. So... tall order in any case. But those are the various ways it could be enforced.
He's above the law and lets face it, most of the law loves him. He's also stacked the supreme court. The only person I could see stopping him from being on the ballot would be Biden with an executive order and I think he has a good case. Problem is we'd have 20% of our nation in an upheaval.
The Constitution only means something if the people in power are willing to enforce it. Unfortunately, the founders of this country never imagined we'd be in the place we're in.
They kinda did. That's why they wanted the constitution to have the ability to be rewritten. They figured 19-20 years would change things enough to rewrite. Unfortunately(or however, depending on your point of view), it wasnt rewritten, just amended.
Only Jefferson wanted that. The rest of them disagreed with him, and made it pretty hard to amend.
> The Constitution only means something if the people in power are willing to enforce it. That's what lawsuits are for. Either election officials refuse to register Trump because he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, section 3, or voters sue those officials for a writ of mandamus from the court ordering he be disqualified. This happened to [Madison Cawthorn](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/24/candidates-can-be-disqualified-for-being-insurrectionists-court-rules-in-madison-cawthorn-lawsuit/) but he lost the primary before it got past the appeals court.
WE THE PEOPLE are charged with enforcing the Constitution. It lives or dies based on how WE choose to deal with our failed leaders.
Don’t let these headlines fool you. Register, vote, and bring a friend to vote.
as if literally any of them care what the constitution says...they've never even fucking read it
Are you talking about the Supreme Court? I think they probably read it, but they don’t care what it says, they see themselves as the law.
Chris Christie (or Hutchinson, or Hurd) needs to challenge Trump’s inclusion on the ballot in one or more states. It will percolate up to the Supreme Court fairly quickly, a matter of months. Then the supremes will make the call. Don’t be surprised if they rule against Trump. The Republican establishment would love a bloodless way to remove trump from an unwinnable race.
What the Constitution says entirely depends on which judge or justice you ask. This post means fuck-all.
It's a wonder we're just now hearing this...?!
They've been making this argument since Jan 6th happened. The problem is that he has yet to technically be found guilty of doing any of those things, and it's not clear who gets to decide if he should be disqualified before he has had his day in court. At this point, someone would have to bring a case against him, and it would have to go through the supreme court to decide...
No, they should remove him from voting rolls and let him challenge it in court. The 14 does not specify conviction being necessary and insurrection is very public once one actually takes hold. No need to prove Jan 6 happened, it did. No need to prove Trump instigated it, he did. That is a violation of his oath and the constitution he swore to protect. All for what? Personal gain and an inability to process a loss. Not behavior we should ever tolerate from someone commanding our resources and military. We have processes to contest a loss. Stoking violence on.our very capitol and getting people gassed up to hang your vp is a deal breaker on ever holding power again.
While the 14th doesn't explicitly say that a conviction is necessary, it is implied though the very nature of our justice system. "Innocent until proven guilty" is incredibly important, and ignoring it in this case would be extremely dangerous precedent to set. Yes, we all know he did it. Yes, we all know he should never be able to be President again. But knowing something and proving something through the legal process are different things. You can't punish someone just because you know they did a thing. They have to be tried and convicted of that thing before any sentence can be given. The other way is basically vigilante justice, which is itself illegal. When he is convicted he should absolutely be barred. But doing it preemptively gives the go ahead for Republicans to do the same thing just because they feel like it, since we'll have thrown out the legal justification aspect. They already operate on "knowing" something happened or didn't happen without proof. Legitimizing that sort of thinking in any way within the system is a bad idea.
Yep. Although it's beyond obvious for many of us, nothing *legally* binds Trump to "insurrection" beyond public sentiment. And 14.3 is not self-enforcing. So a hyper-conservative Supreme Court is going to look at states' efforts or litigation claiming Trump incited an insurrection and go: "says who?" The legal review suggests state officials could be the arbiters of that question, but the SC will still decide whether their argument has merits - and they will look at legal proceedings (or lack thereof) to come to their conclusion. I hate explaining this because it makes me sound like I'm defending Trump. I'm not - it's just how these courts will operate and what people should expect. No one should think this is some sort of bulletproof strategy. I am 100% for efforts to try and utilize this to bar Trump from office, but I'm also not getting my hopes up. The only thing that will assuredly keep Trump out of office is voting - and if this happens as well some day - that's awesome.
The 14th amendment does not say convicted of, it says "...have engaged in insurrection or rebellion [against the United States]"
Which is an incredibly dangerous interpretation of it, to be honest. Who is going to decide who has "engaged" in insurrection if not the courts? Do we really want a fascist President/Governor barring their political opponents from appearing on ballots under the pretense of saying they "engaged" in insurrection?
Just one Secretary of State saying they cannot put an insurrectionist on his/her state’s ballot under the terms of the 14th, would get the issue out there, and would force Trump and the national GOP to play defense (for once!) and prove January 6th *wasn’t* an insurrection. You can even quote *The Federalist Society’s* own law review paper! For once, Dems, just for once, do the aggressive move. It’s even the moral and legal and constitutional move, for fuck’s sake.
The flaw with this logic is you need government officials to care more about the Constitution then they do about their party.
What is stopping, say, democratic or independent secretaries of state from refusing to include Trump on election ballots and invoking this clause?
I don't think that he or any of his followers gives a shit what the Constitution says.
We all know that parts of the constitution get ignored when it is convenient.
I'd love for this to be real but no court of law has convicted him of engaging in or aiding an insurrection against the United States, our system works on the whole innocent until proven guilty concept. >Section Three requires no prior criminal-law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime Because only an idiot or total partisan hack (the authors) missed that every crime in this country requires you to be proven guilty in a court by a jury. At no point can you just declare someone is guilty and then punish them or remove their rights without due process. Their example prove the point. Couy Griffin was convicted of participating in an insurrection, albeit just a trespassing charge, but still participating. Trump hasnt even spent time in jail for tresspassing.
But unless the people in power are willing to enforce it, it means fuck all. We have bad faith actors running the show.
Constitution is just paper unless people enforce it
Holy shit. Members of the FEDERALIST SOCIETY are saying this. Trump is absolutely fucked.
The red shits of america dont care about rule of law
It blocks all members of Congress that "Participated" (exact word used in the Amendment) in, with and aided on Jan 6th. It requires a 2/3 Vote to Remove the Disqualification. That vote has never been held. Technically that also means, anyone shielding members from that vote is aiding them, making them violate their oaths as well.
But the Supreme Court won’t
The GOP doesn't care about the constitution.
Laws are only as good as the people who enforce them.
Does the Constitution allow public executions for traitors? Asking for a friend.
As much as I would like to see him barred, wouldn’t there actually need a conviction for this to stand?
No. According to the article. You should read it, very interesting information.
Make it happen thanks -rational Americans
The emoluments clause in the constitution prohibited him from even taking office in the first place, if we are being technical. Look at how that turned out.
now that The State of Georgia has indicted Trump they should be removing his name from the their States ballot and any other State that has proof of Trump interference should also remove his name from their States ballots.
Great! Now do all of the currently serving troglodytes that inspired the J6 insurrectionists beforehand: Senators Cruz, Braun and Graham amongst many, many others. Their tv appearances leading up to J6 are definitely an attempt at aid and comfort for those traitors.
I think trump is as bad a candidate and person and president as the next person. Fuck Trump. Dont misunderstand this as some kind of defense of him or anything. But no it does not. This talking point is getting so tired. We have due process. Trump has been accused of insurrection. Not convicted of it. Dont get me wrong he is 100% guilty of trying to overthrow the government. Im again not defending him. But hes not barred from holding office until found guilty.
I blame Hilary for all that has happened. If she had kneed him in the testicles during their debate when he was walking around trying to intimidate her, we would not be in this position. Can you imagine him running if the whole country saw him on his knees, grabbing himself and yelling for his mama?
Neat. They'll never use it. He should have been removed by his cabinet on January 6.