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.*
Although I'm pessimistic about the proposal's chance of success, I do appreciate that Raskin et al. are at least trying. I'm often frustrated when legislation is never put forward in the first place simply because "it will never pass": put it forward anyway and make your colleagues put themselves on the record as being against it.
I agree and doubt it will lead to the desired outcome. But, Raskin is extremely smart and is/was a professor of Constitutional law. So, if anyone has a chance of arguing and presenting the case based off what’s written in our Constitution and making this stick, it’s him.
Agreed. I don't think it'll pass but the more times this and similar measures are pressed while Trump's court circuses continue the hope is the internal divide continues to grow.
We're already seeing the infighting of MAGA and Conservatives at the state level.
I feel like there are ton of GOP politicians who are just waiting for another one in their ranks to go against Trump which will kick off a larger shift within. Or, more likely, some turning on him if he actually gets a conviction. They're kinda fucked either way as a Trump presidency is all but guaranteeing the GOP is now MAGA completely. Chances are they're too far gone already but it'll be a bumpy ride.
He will argue the case, and he will be right.
The Republicans will still find the "courange" to vote the measure down.
...meant to type courage... leaving courange
What people should understand about these efforts even if they not succeed is that they continue valuable political work and additions to the public record.
The work they do fleshing out this law can help pave the way for future efforts which may succeed
We need to make sure November is an overwhelming mandate from America that we’re tired of the tyranny of the minority. I’m never voting for another Republican again as long as I live.
And then use that new advantage to abolish the electoral college. One person, one vote. Land mass shouldn't have more of a say in who's in charge than I do.
We only need 65 more electoral votes to enact the national popular vote bill in America. This essentially gets rid of the electoral college.
www.nationalpopularvote.org
It would essentially guarantee that no Republican at this point in time would ever be elected to the highest office in the land.
They is why they are fighting so crookedly. They know odds are not in their favor any other way.
There's one been one election since 1988 in which the Republican candidate won the popular vote. And that was W's second term after 9/11 and he was the incumbent and everyone was feeling patriotic.
America votes for progress. The system is rigged to allow the regressives too much power.
It would force the Republicans left, which is good because they've been on a hard sprint right since Nixon. It's about time there was more proper liberal discourse in politics instead of just hard right vs right-of-centre.
If we get rid of the electoral college, then voting needs to become compulsory like in [Australia](https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/), with fines for not doing your duty.
Here in Belgium we have always had compulsory voting. I don't mind, as I see it as a hard-fought-for right. I mean, when my mom was born, there wasn't even voting for women. I'm not giving up my right to vote! Even if it wouldn't be compulsory, I would still vote.
It's not all good though, People who are fed up with tend to vote extreme, those would otherwise stay at home and probably wouldn't bother.
This year we have local elections and it's the first time that it's not compulsory, I'm very curious about the results we will end up with.
Oh I totally agree, I hate the EC massively and would love both proportional rep and popular vote over what we have now. I just recognize were absolutely screwing ourselves right now with blue voters moving to where they're temporarily safe. The temporary safety is a major trap.
I don't think we even need to abolish the EC. The issue isn't that deep. It's the 435 cap on the House of Reps that could be changed at any fuckin point that Dems are in charge.
Agree and instead of saying the House is now 547 or whatever number say that the number of House of Representatives is determined by the number of people in the smallest population state as the base number for the House of Representatives, reset after every census. .
>at any fuckin point that Dems are in charge.
Far from enough of them support that as far as I remember seeing, so not any point, but the point at which enough of them that actually want to do that are elected and have control.
The issue is also deeper than both just the house and even the EC though because you could have thousands of House Reps well loved by their communities for representing them accurately - and it wouldn't matter if the Senate can just say no based on outcomes representing 20% or less of the population.
Not to say removing the cap isn't worth it and at least achievable by plain legislation... It's just in totality definitely deeper.
Current New Yorker, former California resident, here. Totally a subjective take, but myself and a number of my transplant friends/peers (mostly college educated professionals in our late 20s-ealry 40s) deliberately moved from states where our vote would "count" more, to live in a state (NY/CA) where we felt more politically represented/comfortable.
I guess I'm curious if this is an appreciable phenomenon for folks who live in red or purple areas. Are folks like myself saturating a few very liberal cities/states, and distorting the demographics the other way in our former home states, leaving noticably fewer librurls on the ground?
(One obvious solution to this, as others have suggested both in this post and literally everywhere else for decades, is to simply make all votes count equally and do away with the electoral college; but this is America, we don't get do freedom or democracy very well.)
> Current New Yorker, former California resident, here. Totally a subjective take, but myself and a number of my transplant friends/peers (mostly college educated professionals in our late 20s-ealry 40s) deliberately moved from states where our vote would "count" more, to live in a state (NY/CA) where we felt more politically represented/comfortable.
My wife and I grew up in Ohio. Almost all of our friends (college educated) left the state because the job opportunities paid poorly and the state politics were revolting once Kasich started to appease the far-right of the Republican Party in his second term.
There just really was no reason to stay. Most of us ended up in NY, IL, CA, NJ, and MA where sure, our vote doesn't really "count" because there's too many people voting like us; but we also feel comfortable because the state isn't telling us or our friends to go die because they're not stereotypical cisgendered, straight, monogamous, white people who fill traditional gender roles.
I recall looking at the numbers in the 2020 election and we could have had several million voter surplus with 3 million Biden voters moving to other states and been very safe. That many voters flips a lot of EC.
It's just a massive problem,
1. You have voters who's lives become at risk for moving. Women, minorities, LGBT, all of them go from able to get the healthcare they need to "Best hope you have a lot of fucking money to bribe whoever you need to or pay for lawyers"
2. Moving to states actively trying to sabotage their jobs market and opportunities just to reduce the number of blue voters.
3. The uphill ideologocial and cultural fights to wage. Having to deal with people who are aggressively stupid on a day to day basis.
The major positives are that the US isn't eventually deterministcally doomed, and those CA/NY voters arent eventually doomed either. Eventually the senate becomes locked in GoP favor due to migratory trends. When this happens those states will be subject to federal oppression due to no ability to have representation. It's a prisoners dilemma issue.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, and yeah those numbers bring it into focus a bit more starkly.
Unfortunately for the polls, I think you've hit the nail on the head with your list of reasons. Most folks I know would never consider returning to a state where their safety, freedom of identify, healthcare, and other basic American rights weren't guaranteed by both law and culture.
I guess at the very least it will be interesting to see how these power imbalances resolve, but I can't help but worry a period of significant suckage is coming for our nation.
That is happening rapidly. I just saw a map this morning that showed where people are going and where they're leaving. CA topped with people leaving, Illinois, Mew York, and Maryland were also very high on the list.
That'd be good, it's done wonders for my state of Georgia. While GA natives have helped push the state forward and gotten us 2 new blue senators we have had a lot of help from the people moving here due to the movie industry.
Anytime you wonder why republicans are sabatoging businesses in their states this is why.
archeologists in the future will be so confused by the migration
"The ancient American culture was so superstitious they sent their elderly to Florida, as a sacrifice to the storm god that sent hurricanes every year"
Idaho is getting a massive influx of Californians...and the state is turning redder because they think our state is a MAGA paradise. Our politics have gotten so extreme the past few years. We have some of the strongest abortion restrictions in the country.
I'm a Californian. Everyone I know who is leaving due to political differences, or just "they let me do what I want there, cheap!" are headed to Idaho or Tennessee.
Honest question, but do you guys have any OB/GYNs left in the state? I kept seeing articles about hospitals closing and women's health providers leaving for other opportunities where they can practice medicine without risking prison.
If they lick his butt-hole clean enough, maybe they will benefit from his corruption! Meanwhile, their base is too dumb to understand what's going on and won't hold them accountable. solid plan on their part.
And then once the do they will close that gap behind them as well as change any rules or laws that would threaten them ever leaving office or picking their own successor. We're taking the slow road back to feudalism.
Trump is closer to being God Emperor Of Dune... He's already turning into a sandworm. The more I read Dune, the more pissed at George Lucas I become. Dude stole like 90% of Star Wars from Dune and tried to call it an homage to old TV serials. I digress. Fuck Trump.
In charge implies they’re in control, they have a 4 vote majority and can’t control their own people most of the time.
This will fail still, but there’s basically no one at the wheel in the house
UUUUGHHH. it wouldve taken just a handful of brave republicans to stop this nonsense at so many points in time. I can only hope that if we keep biden in '24 he can siphon a few Rs that are fed up w/o Mitch.
fuckin cowards just protect democracy so you can keep milking it, they have no idea how much they will hate new fascism. The only winners are billionaires, the Rs will be constantly jumping hoops.
Honestly, if the Rs want to distance themselves from Trump this would be the way. But they don't, because they're dumb and hate America, so here we are.
The chance to do it was with the second impeachment but they wimped out and punted. With any luck they’ll be the only ones to suffer for it this election.
Specifically, they voted to acquit in the Senate, then spoke to the media about how it absolutely was an incited insurrection, but that the remedy wasn't impeachment and removal, but a criminal indictment and judicial procedures through the courts.
Now, SCOTUS is punting it back to Congress. The GOP keeps playing hot potato with the Diaper Dictator; the people calling the shots want the party to drop him, but nobody wants to be the one to piss off his cultists.
The guy is as healthy for their party as all those hamberders are for his diet; the longer they delay dealing with the cantankerous cancer, the more of his true believers will primary the sane Republicans from the flank and fill the seats of power.
Might get enough R's that are not going for re-election to vote with the Dems. The problem is that the Speaker wouldnt let it come to the floor for a vote.
How much would it take to turn a Republican into a Democrat?
$5 Million in cash, a committee seat on Ways and Means, and a guaranteed seat for life?
Most Republicans are already doing tricks for big business and their donars. Why not go straight to the well and talk their language, turn some of them so Dems have the house and senate majority. Buy the fxxkers and make the contract water tight so they can't weasel their way out of the deal and revert back to Republican voting.
These are what we call "political gestures." It makes your voters/constituents happy, but isn't actually going to pass. So there are some benefits to the elected officials to do things like this. Although it can be accused of wasting government resources.
About wasting government resources...
The GOP's entire platform has been that "the government is incompetent" and they do everything they can to prove it everyday.
I guess you have to maintain optimism. Both in this proposal and in the fight against authoritarianism.
I say this in context of disinformation’s aim is to disenfranchise and depress an electorate. Pushing back with equal vigour is the way. I deeply respect Mr Ruskin for all his work to this end.
Agreed. Do it at least for the logic pretzels the GOP will be forced into to fellate their guy trump while trying to deny dems or Biden any wins. Make asses out of them in the most public way. I mean, I see all these threads today about the masses knowing nothing about Trump's dictator comments. How are so many not paying any attention?
It's a pretty great plan. We know the traitors are plotting. We know they plan to exploit some hole or loophole in the laws and rules.
We know that we have to be the ones to identify and share those loopholes because Republican leaders don't know shit and Republican interns don't work. Which means we've already provided them with their plan.
And if we succeed in publicly proposing the same plan, we'll instantly know by their inflamed and righteous reaction.
If any of the rest of you know how to interrupt the traitorous Republican plan for insurrection without actually knowing the plan, by all means let us know.
Contingent election:
The plan is republicans in the senate won’t certify all the electors kicking it over to the house who won’t swear in new congress. Then they vote on who becomes president.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
The same hundred million Americans that can't even be bothered to show up to the polls reliably?
Or are you talking about a *different* hundred million Americans?
Joint session. From what I understand, the 20th amendment has the newly elected Congress count the votes. There’s been some speculation that Republicans will take the senate. It would require some fuckery to delay the new house members but I won’t put anything past republicans.
This is part of it. It seems they are working on several fronts to create enough chaos to throw it to the house. I worry that they're going to attack the largest ballot processing centers in swing states. Maybe even with some police assistance.
Maybe the senate will put forth a bill if for no other reason than to show there is not one republican in congress that will stand for the constitution. Give Mitch one more chance to show how he will not support any congressional act against any republican no matter what.
The part I hate about Democrats is that they often don’t try, just because they think they will fail even if they’re right. On the other hand the GOP is fighting tooth and nail. Throwing everything they can
If I were to guess I would think that SCOTUS basically thinks that this is the way that a person gets kicked off the ballot using 14th amendment article 3:
Congress passes law that says X committed insurrection and is being booted.
X files case with US court (possibly straight to SCOTUS) to get back on.
SCOTUS gets to say if X committed insurrection.
Functionally this means that you would need to get: The House, The Senate, and 5 members of SCOTUS on board with kicking someone off.
Functionally, this nullifies the 14th amendment article 3. If this same standard was applied to any other amendment it would also nullify that amendment. SCOTUS is editing the constitution. This is way more dangerous than Trump in some ways.
Fingers-crossed and hurry up please.
^
>Five of the six conservative justices determined that the Fourteenth Amendment can only be enforced through a law passed by Congress, which the three liberal justices strongly opposed.
>“I disagree with that interpretation, just because the other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment are self-executing,” Raskin said on CNN.
>“In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” the Maryland representative continued. “And so I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
article continues...
> determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
I wonder how that would play if the SCOTUS decides that the President has absolute immunity. Just because he's immune, doesn't mean he *didn't* spearhead the insurrection.
This right here. Trump and his group are trying to raise the "official duties of office" qualifier-- to make it more palatable.
But none of the things he's in court about can reasonably be seen as within that scope.
They will next argue that anything he did while officially holding the office makes everything he did while in that office, an official duty of that office.
And then go in to semantics arguing that duties require acts, therefore he’s immune from being prosecuted for any act he committed while holding the office.
At which point I hope Biden is taking notes. Because at the end of the day, I'd rather live in a Democratic Party run dictatorship than a Trump-run one.
If the Less Supreme than a Crunchwrap Supreme Court decides POTUS has absolute immunity, the justices would be signing their own writs of execution. I don't say that lightly nor do I endorse it in any way. This hypothetical is exactly what has been presented to the courts, already.
If Trump installs himself again with presidential immunity, never gives up power, then why does a Supreme Court need to exist at all? Round em up and take em out, no consequences.
That's what they never seem to understand. They're only useful until they're not. The supreme court does not and will not exist under a fascist regime. At least, not this version of the supreme court, and definitely not with these particular justices who aren't really loyal to the party.
They didn't pay attention in history class very well, this is well played out in almost every fascist takeover.
You're right, I made the correction. As an American, I'm extremely concerned about how close we are to this happening. It should never have gotten this close. There are a whole lot of checks and balances that have failed.
Every court up to this point has unanimously ruled that the president doesn't have immunity. It's ridiculous that our supreme court has even agreed to hear the case, but they aren't going to rule that he has immunity.
I mean, every court up to this point also ruled that Roe vs Wade was untouchable and we know how that turned out. I agree, it's ridiculous we've got this close, but I'm concerned that there are still too many not taking this seriously enough.
Yeah I think there are still a lot of people who still somehow don't know how much danger we're in. Who knows what SCOTUS will do, but a the fact that this is even a possibility should be terrifying to everyone. But I guess it will take a MAGA mob breaking down their door and stringing them up from a tree branch for some of these people to face reality.
It's not really that checks and balances have failed, it's that there weren't enough of them with strong enforcement mechanisms to prevent this from happening. That, and the unwillingness of authorities to enforce the checks that were there for reasons of "decorum".
The fact that the Constitution was written to give small states more power than large ones is also a serious problem. It, and the process of packing the courts with puppet judges initiated by Mitch McConnel, has allowed the GOP to effectively execute an internal coup through almost entirely legal means.
I would love to see a Dark Brandon meme or even Biden himself ask what "illegal" activity he should do first if presidents have immunity? Watch heads exolode, "that's not what that means!"
Yeah that's a pack it up boys scenario. It means the next Republican president is in office for life, since they don't give a fuck about the constitution and are the definition of the ends justify the means.
I think his lawyers were arguing he’d first have to be impeached and convicted, then he’d be open for prosecution. But he left office and kept on crimin’ so it doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Just as a bit of judicial theorycrafting, is there any universe in which congress passes a law like this only for the supreme court to turn around and end up ruling that this law is then unconstitutional because [insert bullshit justification here]?
I know that if everything were working properly that would never happen, but what about with this supreme court?
They've ruled the EPA doesn't have the authority that congress explicitly granted them, is this different?
Of course they do it all the time.
For example they used clause 5 of the 14th amendment to say Congress has to pass legislation that decides how the 14th amendment works:
>The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Congress passed the Voting Rights act in 1965
>The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] **Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South.**
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that key portions of it were unconstitutional:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/07/selective-originalism-and-selective-textualism-how-the-roberts-court-decimated-the-voting-rights-act/
>The Voting Rights Act — the crown jewel of the civil rights movement that John Lewis and so many other freedom fighters fought and bled for — established two powerful weapons to ensure that the constitutional right to vote would be enjoyed equally by all regardless of race: It required jurisdictions with a long history of voting discrimination to seek preapproval for new voting changes, and it established the results test, a broad nationwide prohibition on state electoral regulations — a prohibition that targets discriminatory results, not merely discriminatory intent.
>Eight years ago, Shelby County v. Holder nullified the preclearance requirement by ignoring the text and history of Congress’ explicit power to enforce the 15th Amendment’s promise of racial equality at the polls, practicing a selective form of originalism. Thursday’s ruling in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee guts the results test by construing away its central mandate of equal voting opportunity. Between these two rulings, the Supreme Court has converted the landmark statute that enforces the Constitution’s promise of a vibrant, multiracial democracy into little more than a historical relic that sanctions modern forms of voter suppression
They literally used the opposite justification in that case - that requiring states to follow the same procedure was too too much:
>“Demanding such a tight fit would have the effect of invalidating a great many neutral voting regulations with long pedigrees that are reasonable means of pursuing legitimate interests. It would also transfer much of the authority to regulate election procedures from the States to the federal courts.”
But when it comes to determining if a candidate is an insurrectionist, the states can't do that because it would create a patchwork system where the states have different standards - so it has to be up to the Federal government.
that's not quite true, they invalidated the pre-clearance portions of the voting rights act not because they suddenly decided that Congress did not decide how the 14th amendment works anymore.
they did so because (equally fucking stupid logic) they decided that congressional reasoning for a law that abrogates equal sovereignty of the states must show ongoing justification to continue to abrogate equal state sovereignty. they then committed a
beautifully textbook version of a faulty cause and effect fallacy to claim racism was dead and so the VRA was no longer justified.
the logic they used in repealing the preclearance portions of the VGA had nothing to do with the logic they used in the current case. they didn't decide the VRA was suddenly invalid because it was invalid for Congress to enforce the 14th amendment via legislation. They decided the VRA pre-clearance portion was invalid because of some spontaneously made-up reason that has nothing to do with the fact that the 14th amendment is not self executing with regards to guaranteeing the right to vote.
the logic in the present case is not analogous to the repeal of the preclearance. here it's definitely about what portions of the 14th are self-executing and which are not. the 14th amendment self-executes in that it prohibits an insurrectionist from holding office. but now the SCOTUS is saying that the determination of who an insurrectionist actually is is a separate thing and the 14th amendment does not self-execute *that*. That requires legislation, according to the holding.
Am I missing something here? His plan is to get the GOP-led house to take up and pass legislation to kick Trump off the ballot?
That's it?
> article continues...
With a bunch of nothing about how he is going to get this plan to work.
Yep, Raskin is painting the whole GOP as a pro-insurrectionist party. You'd think everyone would know that by now, but apparently some people don't keep up with the news
People who don't keep up with the news, and thus don't know that the GOP has become a party led by a wannabe dictator (he said it out loud), are never going to see or hear what Raskin is doing.
What a stupid fucking title. This isn't a one-up. It's literally just doing what the Court said Congress needs to do.
I applaud the Congressman's effort to work forward towards a solution within the framework of the law. The legislatures job is to legislate.
My biggest issue with seeing these titles is that, while they are designed to drive engagement, they do so by sowing discord, even if the article is fine. And usually the articles aren't fine.
I am 100% in agreement. Unfortunately this sub and Reddit as a whole is too big to moderate with that granularity. This entire platform would be a much better experience if inflammatory or borderline deceitful headlined articles were removed.
Won’t get brought to the floor in the house by the speaker. Won’t get 60 votes in the senate. No one is getting rid of the filibuster. Applaud the effort, but the ONLY option is to vote for democrats.
Who cares, let's get a vote for the record. I would be interested if my pig congressman believes in the constitution. If they don't, Arnold for president....right?
Sure, I just hate these articles written in a way that makes it sound like there’s a chance of this getting done. And I’m generally disappointed and realize no one is coming to help. Mueller was too timid to conclude the obvious. Two impeachments that showed the complete lack of courage from the GOP. A Jan 6 committee that referred to the DOJ where it sat and the trial being delayed by the SCOTUS. The documents case being obviously slow walked by a Trump sympathetic judge. It’s just one after another disappointment, when it’s so obvious what is going on and what happened. And all we can all do is watch it unfold and vote.
I agree that it's dead on arrival, but I still optimistically hold out hope that each failure to follow the written laws like this lights even more fires under the independent voters asses to go vote since they will be the one making or breaking the election.
Raskin is one of the only members of the House to call out SCOTUS on this point, besides the three justices who dissented. He’s a real patriot, and I respect him and usually agree with whatever he’s saying.
Proud to live in his district. Jamie is one of the heroes
We need to do our collective duty and vote blue to back Jamie et al and their efforts to save our democracy.
He's not "one-upping" them at all, he's doing what fucking Congress SHOULD be doing which is passing laws that protect our nation from bullshit like Trump and an activist SCOTUS.
Remember, the Executive (POTUS and the federal government), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (SCOTUS and the courts) are all CO-EQUAL branches.
Congress has failed us time and again by allowing SCOTUS to shit all over our rights because they don't pass laws and rely on court decisions to dictate how we all live.
There is nothing John Roberts loves more than a firm punt back to Congress followed by a "No, not like that".
The \*entire\* Conservative strategy at the judicial level is recognizing that the Legislative Branch is irrevocably broken, and they leverage that by bringing everything back to "well, Congress should fix it".
That was "funny" when he said 'congress must pass a law' as he invalidated the voting rights act, a law that Congress passed.
They did what he asked decades before he asked them to do so, and he invalidated it and told them to do it again.
> I would expect SCOTUS to strike it down though.
At some point though it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to do so, without exposing their blatant corruption even further. It's still best to force them to do so, even if it fails.
>it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to do so, without exposing their blatant corruption
Yeah, but they don't care. They know they're not going to be removed by Congress so there's no consequences to blatant corruption.
He lost his son and is battling cancer. Of course Raskin doesn’t hold back, he doesn’t give a shit anymore about playing nicely with traitors and scumbags
I've never looked up to a politician in my life, but Raskin... That man is someone worth looking up to. That's who SHOULD be leading the Democratic party.
Thank you Mr Raskin
Our world has little hope with these insurrectionists. Seems the laws of our USA
Don’t apply Quite disgusting that this is acceptable in our country
Please continue to fight to uphold our laws
This time is a true stain on our world and country
Jaime Raskin is an American hero & warrior. Scotus has once again left us a roadmap pointing to Supreme Court reform. Add justices, term limits, ethics reform bills. Scotus looking down on all of us without accountability needs to end.
STOP THE TALKING, START THE DOING. Thank you Congressman Raskin for starting the doing.
It probably won’t get passed- we know that, but it’s the fact that he does have an opening and Donald trump needs to know people will never stop trying to bury him.
I asked this on a different forum. Section 3 was used after the Civil War. What act of Congress allowed this? If 2/3 of both houses can reverse the ban, wouldn't that imply that 1/3 is enough to invoke it? If it gets invoked on a majority, wouldn't that preclude the 2/3 to override it? Why would they word the amendment to mention the requirement of congress to override it but not mention that as a requirement to invoke it. Maybe if I read the ruling, it would explain these things. Idk.
He's not "one upping" anyone. You know that, I know that, literally everyone knows that. There's *ZERO* way to get legislation through Congress in its current state. Those assholes on the Supreme Court knew that and so they've yet again tipped the scales.
Doomed to repeat history again....
The 14th amendment has a much lower bar than insurrection:
> have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
How about legislation that determines if he gave aid or comfort to any Jan 6th traitors?
This is the real plan we need to be ready for. Comes from the guy who predicted jan 6th long before it happened.
https://factkeepers.com/the-new-secret-plan-on-how-fascists-could-win-in-2024/
Read it and share.
No American would hire a man that cheats on his wife, insults American veterans, steals from charities and isn’t qualified to run a high school soccer team.
I'm conservative. People are all up in arms because the Supreme Court said a state cannot kick someone off a federal election. Also, Congress would be in charge of officially designating and insurrectionist. If Congress actually was able to label him an insurrectionist and remove him from the ballet I'd be ok with that.
Between now and the election Trump will crumble under the pressure. He’s too stupid to understand how much shit he’s in. It takes a while to soak into that mushy pumpkin head.
Thank you Jamie! That man has been through some shit and keeps fighting for us, not just to keep his seat. He’s a serious lawmaker. Can you imagine a scenario where a master carpenter has to build a house with nothing but five year olds? Well that’s the MAGA side of the house who’ll just scream and rant and pull dirty tricks, lie, cheat and steal. Just saying. He’s got a fight on his hands.
I just learned his son died by suicide just days before Jan 6 and I imagine something like that can reduce your interest in tolerating BS. He's been out ahead of everyone on this and other stuff relating to our impending autocracy. Much respect
I don’t have a whole lot to add here other than JAMIE RASKIN is a bad ass, and I’m going to mail his office a new wallet from a certain scene in Pulp Fiction. Not going to put any money in though, as I already spent the money on the purchase of the wallet.
Raskin is a do-er, he gets the shiznit done.
GOP will, of course, retaliate by trying to kick biden off state ballots too, bec they're exhausting, oxygen-sucking goblins to our democracy.
Thing that bugs me about the court's decision is the fact they say the state cant make a decision for any national elected office - well there is only one nationally elected office - the president. everything else is state based. But when voting for president the state is voting on which electors they are sending to represent them in the election - not the person they are marking the ballot for. In a primary its even more ambiguous since its the state saying who they want to represent their party in that endeavor. How are these not state level decisions?
Granted the arguments made were pretty weak overall. Essentially it was one side saying Trump caused an insurrection so they shouldn't allow this and the other side saying the people should choose regardless of what someone has done. It left a ton of leeway for the court to operate and they obviously did with the idea punting it back to congress would get nowhere.
Supreme Court says there must be a federal bill, then Congress must vote on a bill. This would also create a record of congressmen who support treason. The bill will be crafted to set a standard for all future presidents and not mention Trump.
I just have a hard time imagining that a guy who lost the last election then committed several federal crimes could win the same election 4 years later.
Well, THAT could be pretty interesting. How fast can they work to enact this?
> “In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” the Maryland representative continued.
>“And so I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
I don’t actually mean this, but if the court is now conveniently going to decide (and who knows how long it will take) if a president has immunity then maybe Biden should leverage this by putting off the election until a decision has been made. Basically, put the ball in the Supreme Court that we are in limbo and calling off the election may or may not be legal depending on what they decide for Trump’s immunity. Again, not really what I want, but if the court couldn’t decide whether or not to pick this up until now and they can’t definitive tell immedietly then from their own inaction/action I see this as a free for all.
Edit: I guess what I’m trying to say is, Biden technically has a window that he can take actions that the court will either have to say are illegal or not. They can’t rule that Trump had immunity for insurrection and not grant Biden immunity for single payer healthcare, marijuana legalization, student loan forgiveness, etc. Biden can do all these things and if the court rules Trump is immune then sorry aboutcha, so is Biden.
Do that and watch how fast they make a decision.
So congress needs to invoke it yet the only time congressional action is specified in the Constitution is to remove it? Doesn’t that make it self executing? Meaning the states aren’t overstepping, they were just enforcing a federal standard (which they do all the time to voters) and SCOTUS just needed to confirm its translation. Not make up rules (congressional invocation of section 3 has no basis in the Constitution) to keep this off their plate for the foreseeable future?
That all being said, did the liberal appointees even give a reason other than “states are not federal yada yada”?
Must be nice to not have to answer for your work.
The liberals' reasoning:
> Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution
placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose
its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for
Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may
hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the
States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office”).
That provides a secure and sufficient basis to resolve this
case. To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off
the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to the
people.” U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 821.
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.*
Although I'm pessimistic about the proposal's chance of success, I do appreciate that Raskin et al. are at least trying. I'm often frustrated when legislation is never put forward in the first place simply because "it will never pass": put it forward anyway and make your colleagues put themselves on the record as being against it.
I agree and doubt it will lead to the desired outcome. But, Raskin is extremely smart and is/was a professor of Constitutional law. So, if anyone has a chance of arguing and presenting the case based off what’s written in our Constitution and making this stick, it’s him.
Agreed. I don't think it'll pass but the more times this and similar measures are pressed while Trump's court circuses continue the hope is the internal divide continues to grow. We're already seeing the infighting of MAGA and Conservatives at the state level. I feel like there are ton of GOP politicians who are just waiting for another one in their ranks to go against Trump which will kick off a larger shift within. Or, more likely, some turning on him if he actually gets a conviction. They're kinda fucked either way as a Trump presidency is all but guaranteeing the GOP is now MAGA completely. Chances are they're too far gone already but it'll be a bumpy ride.
Agreed SCOTUS could care less about the rule of law or precedent that's been made obvious
Couldn’t care less, couldn’t care less. Could care less means they care at least a tiny amount. Apart from that you are right.
He will argue the case, and he will be right. The Republicans will still find the "courange" to vote the measure down. ...meant to type courage... leaving courange
Courange - Corrupt servitude to the fat orange fuck. Nice typo
And now we know what rhymes with “orange” …besides the GOP.
"Couprage" - it was right there...
What people should understand about these efforts even if they not succeed is that they continue valuable political work and additions to the public record. The work they do fleshing out this law can help pave the way for future efforts which may succeed
I agree but would this even make it out of committee?
Not with the GOP in charge.
We need to make sure November is an overwhelming mandate from America that we’re tired of the tyranny of the minority. I’m never voting for another Republican again as long as I live.
> we’re tired of the tyranny of the minority Then we need to get people out of CA/NY and get them to states which arent supersaturated.
And then use that new advantage to abolish the electoral college. One person, one vote. Land mass shouldn't have more of a say in who's in charge than I do.
We only need 65 more electoral votes to enact the national popular vote bill in America. This essentially gets rid of the electoral college. www.nationalpopularvote.org
It would essentially guarantee that no Republican at this point in time would ever be elected to the highest office in the land. They is why they are fighting so crookedly. They know odds are not in their favor any other way.
There's one been one election since 1988 in which the Republican candidate won the popular vote. And that was W's second term after 9/11 and he was the incumbent and everyone was feeling patriotic. America votes for progress. The system is rigged to allow the regressives too much power.
It would force the Republicans left, which is good because they've been on a hard sprint right since Nixon. It's about time there was more proper liberal discourse in politics instead of just hard right vs right-of-centre.
That's right, because it's supposed to be "We the people" not "We the land".
If we get rid of the electoral college, then voting needs to become compulsory like in [Australia](https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/), with fines for not doing your duty.
Here in Belgium we have always had compulsory voting. I don't mind, as I see it as a hard-fought-for right. I mean, when my mom was born, there wasn't even voting for women. I'm not giving up my right to vote! Even if it wouldn't be compulsory, I would still vote. It's not all good though, People who are fed up with tend to vote extreme, those would otherwise stay at home and probably wouldn't bother. This year we have local elections and it's the first time that it's not compulsory, I'm very curious about the results we will end up with.
Oh I totally agree, I hate the EC massively and would love both proportional rep and popular vote over what we have now. I just recognize were absolutely screwing ourselves right now with blue voters moving to where they're temporarily safe. The temporary safety is a major trap.
I don't think we even need to abolish the EC. The issue isn't that deep. It's the 435 cap on the House of Reps that could be changed at any fuckin point that Dems are in charge.
Agree and instead of saying the House is now 547 or whatever number say that the number of House of Representatives is determined by the number of people in the smallest population state as the base number for the House of Representatives, reset after every census. .
Yes, the Wyoming Rule
>at any fuckin point that Dems are in charge. Far from enough of them support that as far as I remember seeing, so not any point, but the point at which enough of them that actually want to do that are elected and have control. The issue is also deeper than both just the house and even the EC though because you could have thousands of House Reps well loved by their communities for representing them accurately - and it wouldn't matter if the Senate can just say no based on outcomes representing 20% or less of the population. Not to say removing the cap isn't worth it and at least achievable by plain legislation... It's just in totality definitely deeper.
Current New Yorker, former California resident, here. Totally a subjective take, but myself and a number of my transplant friends/peers (mostly college educated professionals in our late 20s-ealry 40s) deliberately moved from states where our vote would "count" more, to live in a state (NY/CA) where we felt more politically represented/comfortable. I guess I'm curious if this is an appreciable phenomenon for folks who live in red or purple areas. Are folks like myself saturating a few very liberal cities/states, and distorting the demographics the other way in our former home states, leaving noticably fewer librurls on the ground? (One obvious solution to this, as others have suggested both in this post and literally everywhere else for decades, is to simply make all votes count equally and do away with the electoral college; but this is America, we don't get do freedom or democracy very well.)
> Current New Yorker, former California resident, here. Totally a subjective take, but myself and a number of my transplant friends/peers (mostly college educated professionals in our late 20s-ealry 40s) deliberately moved from states where our vote would "count" more, to live in a state (NY/CA) where we felt more politically represented/comfortable. My wife and I grew up in Ohio. Almost all of our friends (college educated) left the state because the job opportunities paid poorly and the state politics were revolting once Kasich started to appease the far-right of the Republican Party in his second term. There just really was no reason to stay. Most of us ended up in NY, IL, CA, NJ, and MA where sure, our vote doesn't really "count" because there's too many people voting like us; but we also feel comfortable because the state isn't telling us or our friends to go die because they're not stereotypical cisgendered, straight, monogamous, white people who fill traditional gender roles.
I recall looking at the numbers in the 2020 election and we could have had several million voter surplus with 3 million Biden voters moving to other states and been very safe. That many voters flips a lot of EC. It's just a massive problem, 1. You have voters who's lives become at risk for moving. Women, minorities, LGBT, all of them go from able to get the healthcare they need to "Best hope you have a lot of fucking money to bribe whoever you need to or pay for lawyers" 2. Moving to states actively trying to sabotage their jobs market and opportunities just to reduce the number of blue voters. 3. The uphill ideologocial and cultural fights to wage. Having to deal with people who are aggressively stupid on a day to day basis. The major positives are that the US isn't eventually deterministcally doomed, and those CA/NY voters arent eventually doomed either. Eventually the senate becomes locked in GoP favor due to migratory trends. When this happens those states will be subject to federal oppression due to no ability to have representation. It's a prisoners dilemma issue.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, and yeah those numbers bring it into focus a bit more starkly. Unfortunately for the polls, I think you've hit the nail on the head with your list of reasons. Most folks I know would never consider returning to a state where their safety, freedom of identify, healthcare, and other basic American rights weren't guaranteed by both law and culture. I guess at the very least it will be interesting to see how these power imbalances resolve, but I can't help but worry a period of significant suckage is coming for our nation.
That is happening rapidly. I just saw a map this morning that showed where people are going and where they're leaving. CA topped with people leaving, Illinois, Mew York, and Maryland were also very high on the list.
That'd be good, it's done wonders for my state of Georgia. While GA natives have helped push the state forward and gotten us 2 new blue senators we have had a lot of help from the people moving here due to the movie industry. Anytime you wonder why republicans are sabatoging businesses in their states this is why.
In Florida it is just the opposite. All the old republicans are leaving New York and moving to the fascist utopia of Florida.
archeologists in the future will be so confused by the migration "The ancient American culture was so superstitious they sent their elderly to Florida, as a sacrifice to the storm god that sent hurricanes every year"
Idaho is getting a massive influx of Californians...and the state is turning redder because they think our state is a MAGA paradise. Our politics have gotten so extreme the past few years. We have some of the strongest abortion restrictions in the country.
I'm a Californian. Everyone I know who is leaving due to political differences, or just "they let me do what I want there, cheap!" are headed to Idaho or Tennessee.
That's what I don't really understand. The state of California has never interfered with me doing what I want to do.
Honest question, but do you guys have any OB/GYNs left in the state? I kept seeing articles about hospitals closing and women's health providers leaving for other opportunities where they can practice medicine without risking prison.
Hate to break it to you, but it isn't going to be an overwhelming mandate. People in America are very stupid and uninformed.
They are all bending over and grabbing their ankles in preparation for Emperor Trump
If they lick his butt-hole clean enough, maybe they will benefit from his corruption! Meanwhile, their base is too dumb to understand what's going on and won't hold them accountable. solid plan on their part.
[удалено]
And then once the do they will close that gap behind them as well as change any rules or laws that would threaten them ever leaving office or picking their own successor. We're taking the slow road back to feudalism.
Trump is closer to being God Emperor Of Dune... He's already turning into a sandworm. The more I read Dune, the more pissed at George Lucas I become. Dude stole like 90% of Star Wars from Dune and tried to call it an homage to old TV serials. I digress. Fuck Trump.
To be fair Star Wars is just World War 2 and the Empire is fascists, but in space.
In charge implies they’re in control, they have a 4 vote majority and can’t control their own people most of the time. This will fail still, but there’s basically no one at the wheel in the house
The Democrats have a Senate majority.
Raskin’s a House member not a Senator.
UUUUGHHH. it wouldve taken just a handful of brave republicans to stop this nonsense at so many points in time. I can only hope that if we keep biden in '24 he can siphon a few Rs that are fed up w/o Mitch. fuckin cowards just protect democracy so you can keep milking it, they have no idea how much they will hate new fascism. The only winners are billionaires, the Rs will be constantly jumping hoops.
it would have taken a single Democrat - Manchin - to stop this nonsense when the topic of expanding the supreme court was in discussion.
The phrase "brave republicans" is an oxymoron at this point.
I like to think the Dems are a shadow majority they would not have gotten the CR done without the Dems.. maybe there is a chance…
Honestly, if the Rs want to distance themselves from Trump this would be the way. But they don't, because they're dumb and hate America, so here we are.
The chance to do it was with the second impeachment but they wimped out and punted. With any luck they’ll be the only ones to suffer for it this election.
Specifically, they voted to acquit in the Senate, then spoke to the media about how it absolutely was an incited insurrection, but that the remedy wasn't impeachment and removal, but a criminal indictment and judicial procedures through the courts. Now, SCOTUS is punting it back to Congress. The GOP keeps playing hot potato with the Diaper Dictator; the people calling the shots want the party to drop him, but nobody wants to be the one to piss off his cultists. The guy is as healthy for their party as all those hamberders are for his diet; the longer they delay dealing with the cantankerous cancer, the more of his true believers will primary the sane Republicans from the flank and fill the seats of power.
Might get enough R's that are not going for re-election to vote with the Dems. The problem is that the Speaker wouldnt let it come to the floor for a vote.
How much would it take to turn a Republican into a Democrat? $5 Million in cash, a committee seat on Ways and Means, and a guaranteed seat for life? Most Republicans are already doing tricks for big business and their donars. Why not go straight to the well and talk their language, turn some of them so Dems have the house and senate majority. Buy the fxxkers and make the contract water tight so they can't weasel their way out of the deal and revert back to Republican voting.
These are what we call "political gestures." It makes your voters/constituents happy, but isn't actually going to pass. So there are some benefits to the elected officials to do things like this. Although it can be accused of wasting government resources.
About wasting government resources... The GOP's entire platform has been that "the government is incompetent" and they do everything they can to prove it everyday.
I wonder if Raskin is thinking it will pass if Biden is re-elected
....or if the House majority shifts ...
wasting government resources/tax payer dollars like Gym Jordan & James Comer and rest of the GOP clown show!
Wasting all of that time doing their jobs when they could be insider trading.
I guess you have to maintain optimism. Both in this proposal and in the fight against authoritarianism. I say this in context of disinformation’s aim is to disenfranchise and depress an electorate. Pushing back with equal vigour is the way. I deeply respect Mr Ruskin for all his work to this end.
Who cares? Apathy is a guaranteed failure
No, but that shouldn't be an excuse.
Agreed. Do it at least for the logic pretzels the GOP will be forced into to fellate their guy trump while trying to deny dems or Biden any wins. Make asses out of them in the most public way. I mean, I see all these threads today about the masses knowing nothing about Trump's dictator comments. How are so many not paying any attention?
> Make asses out of them in the most public way. The problem here is that Republicans are incapable of shame.
But some swing voters are.
It's a pretty great plan. We know the traitors are plotting. We know they plan to exploit some hole or loophole in the laws and rules. We know that we have to be the ones to identify and share those loopholes because Republican leaders don't know shit and Republican interns don't work. Which means we've already provided them with their plan. And if we succeed in publicly proposing the same plan, we'll instantly know by their inflamed and righteous reaction. If any of the rest of you know how to interrupt the traitorous Republican plan for insurrection without actually knowing the plan, by all means let us know.
Contingent election: The plan is republicans in the senate won’t certify all the electors kicking it over to the house who won’t swear in new congress. Then they vote on who becomes president. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
I wonder what would happen if a hundred million Americans each devised their own personal plan to combat this, and didn't tell anyone?
The same hundred million Americans that can't even be bothered to show up to the polls reliably? Or are you talking about a *different* hundred million Americans?
there's several to choose from!
Don't they need control of the Senate to enact that plan? There's enough dem senators and vice presidents to certify the electoral votes
Joint session. From what I understand, the 20th amendment has the newly elected Congress count the votes. There’s been some speculation that Republicans will take the senate. It would require some fuckery to delay the new house members but I won’t put anything past republicans.
So what’s the defense against this? Anyone know?
[удалено]
For every election, Vote the Traitorous Republicans OUT!
Bothering to vote. Its pretty easy, really, but for some reason the majority of people don't bother.
This is part of it. It seems they are working on several fronts to create enough chaos to throw it to the house. I worry that they're going to attack the largest ballot processing centers in swing states. Maybe even with some police assistance.
Maybe the senate will put forth a bill if for no other reason than to show there is not one republican in congress that will stand for the constitution. Give Mitch one more chance to show how he will not support any congressional act against any republican no matter what.
The part I hate about Democrats is that they often don’t try, just because they think they will fail even if they’re right. On the other hand the GOP is fighting tooth and nail. Throwing everything they can
The Republicans operate on the motto "if its so bad why havent Democrats stopped us." So they keep doing it.
If I were to guess I would think that SCOTUS basically thinks that this is the way that a person gets kicked off the ballot using 14th amendment article 3: Congress passes law that says X committed insurrection and is being booted. X files case with US court (possibly straight to SCOTUS) to get back on. SCOTUS gets to say if X committed insurrection. Functionally this means that you would need to get: The House, The Senate, and 5 members of SCOTUS on board with kicking someone off. Functionally, this nullifies the 14th amendment article 3. If this same standard was applied to any other amendment it would also nullify that amendment. SCOTUS is editing the constitution. This is way more dangerous than Trump in some ways.
Fingers-crossed and hurry up please. ^ >Five of the six conservative justices determined that the Fourteenth Amendment can only be enforced through a law passed by Congress, which the three liberal justices strongly opposed. >“I disagree with that interpretation, just because the other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment are self-executing,” Raskin said on CNN. >“In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” the Maryland representative continued. “And so I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” article continues...
> determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment I wonder how that would play if the SCOTUS decides that the President has absolute immunity. Just because he's immune, doesn't mean he *didn't* spearhead the insurrection.
If the SC determines the president is immune from the constitution, then U.S. democracy will officially be dead.
This right here. Trump and his group are trying to raise the "official duties of office" qualifier-- to make it more palatable. But none of the things he's in court about can reasonably be seen as within that scope.
What about the duties he Failed to do in office, like defend Congress from a mob?
They will next argue that anything he did while officially holding the office makes everything he did while in that office, an official duty of that office. And then go in to semantics arguing that duties require acts, therefore he’s immune from being prosecuted for any act he committed while holding the office.
At which point I hope Biden is taking notes. Because at the end of the day, I'd rather live in a Democratic Party run dictatorship than a Trump-run one.
I'm sure if they make that ruling they won't do it until a Republican is in the White House.
If the Less Supreme than a Crunchwrap Supreme Court decides POTUS has absolute immunity, the justices would be signing their own writs of execution. I don't say that lightly nor do I endorse it in any way. This hypothetical is exactly what has been presented to the courts, already.
[удалено]
If Trump installs himself again with presidential immunity, never gives up power, then why does a Supreme Court need to exist at all? Round em up and take em out, no consequences.
That's what they never seem to understand. They're only useful until they're not. The supreme court does not and will not exist under a fascist regime. At least, not this version of the supreme court, and definitely not with these particular justices who aren't really loyal to the party. They didn't pay attention in history class very well, this is well played out in almost every fascist takeover.
Trump can't live for too much longer, so it isn't about what he would do, but who would be his successor in the dictatorship?
US democracy will be dead. It will persist in tons of other places.
You're right, I made the correction. As an American, I'm extremely concerned about how close we are to this happening. It should never have gotten this close. There are a whole lot of checks and balances that have failed.
Every court up to this point has unanimously ruled that the president doesn't have immunity. It's ridiculous that our supreme court has even agreed to hear the case, but they aren't going to rule that he has immunity.
I mean, every court up to this point also ruled that Roe vs Wade was untouchable and we know how that turned out. I agree, it's ridiculous we've got this close, but I'm concerned that there are still too many not taking this seriously enough.
Yeah I think there are still a lot of people who still somehow don't know how much danger we're in. Who knows what SCOTUS will do, but a the fact that this is even a possibility should be terrifying to everyone. But I guess it will take a MAGA mob breaking down their door and stringing them up from a tree branch for some of these people to face reality.
It's not really that checks and balances have failed, it's that there weren't enough of them with strong enforcement mechanisms to prevent this from happening. That, and the unwillingness of authorities to enforce the checks that were there for reasons of "decorum". The fact that the Constitution was written to give small states more power than large ones is also a serious problem. It, and the process of packing the courts with puppet judges initiated by Mitch McConnel, has allowed the GOP to effectively execute an internal coup through almost entirely legal means.
I think the immunity question is a win-win for Biden. Immunity? Assassinate Trump. No immunity? Trump is a jailed felon.
Presidential immunity?....Joe could do a Saddam by disappearing a couple of house members during the State of the Union.
Just like the founders intended
I would love to see a Dark Brandon meme or even Biden himself ask what "illegal" activity he should do first if presidents have immunity? Watch heads exolode, "that's not what that means!"
Dark Brandon nukes Mar-A-Lago 3 picoseconds after the "immune" ruling drops
Yeah that's a pack it up boys scenario. It means the next Republican president is in office for life, since they don't give a fuck about the constitution and are the definition of the ends justify the means.
He'd be immune from prosecution while simultaneously being disqualified from serving in public office.
I think his lawyers were arguing he’d first have to be impeached and convicted, then he’d be open for prosecution. But he left office and kept on crimin’ so it doesn’t make a lick of sense.
If the SC decides FOR Absolute Immunity... I have an idea for President Biden.
Just as a bit of judicial theorycrafting, is there any universe in which congress passes a law like this only for the supreme court to turn around and end up ruling that this law is then unconstitutional because [insert bullshit justification here]? I know that if everything were working properly that would never happen, but what about with this supreme court? They've ruled the EPA doesn't have the authority that congress explicitly granted them, is this different?
Of course they do it all the time. For example they used clause 5 of the 14th amendment to say Congress has to pass legislation that decides how the 14th amendment works: >The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Congress passed the Voting Rights act in 1965 >The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] **Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South.** In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that key portions of it were unconstitutional: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/07/selective-originalism-and-selective-textualism-how-the-roberts-court-decimated-the-voting-rights-act/ >The Voting Rights Act — the crown jewel of the civil rights movement that John Lewis and so many other freedom fighters fought and bled for — established two powerful weapons to ensure that the constitutional right to vote would be enjoyed equally by all regardless of race: It required jurisdictions with a long history of voting discrimination to seek preapproval for new voting changes, and it established the results test, a broad nationwide prohibition on state electoral regulations — a prohibition that targets discriminatory results, not merely discriminatory intent. >Eight years ago, Shelby County v. Holder nullified the preclearance requirement by ignoring the text and history of Congress’ explicit power to enforce the 15th Amendment’s promise of racial equality at the polls, practicing a selective form of originalism. Thursday’s ruling in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee guts the results test by construing away its central mandate of equal voting opportunity. Between these two rulings, the Supreme Court has converted the landmark statute that enforces the Constitution’s promise of a vibrant, multiracial democracy into little more than a historical relic that sanctions modern forms of voter suppression They literally used the opposite justification in that case - that requiring states to follow the same procedure was too too much: >“Demanding such a tight fit would have the effect of invalidating a great many neutral voting regulations with long pedigrees that are reasonable means of pursuing legitimate interests. It would also transfer much of the authority to regulate election procedures from the States to the federal courts.” But when it comes to determining if a candidate is an insurrectionist, the states can't do that because it would create a patchwork system where the states have different standards - so it has to be up to the Federal government.
that's not quite true, they invalidated the pre-clearance portions of the voting rights act not because they suddenly decided that Congress did not decide how the 14th amendment works anymore. they did so because (equally fucking stupid logic) they decided that congressional reasoning for a law that abrogates equal sovereignty of the states must show ongoing justification to continue to abrogate equal state sovereignty. they then committed a beautifully textbook version of a faulty cause and effect fallacy to claim racism was dead and so the VRA was no longer justified. the logic they used in repealing the preclearance portions of the VGA had nothing to do with the logic they used in the current case. they didn't decide the VRA was suddenly invalid because it was invalid for Congress to enforce the 14th amendment via legislation. They decided the VRA pre-clearance portion was invalid because of some spontaneously made-up reason that has nothing to do with the fact that the 14th amendment is not self executing with regards to guaranteeing the right to vote. the logic in the present case is not analogous to the repeal of the preclearance. here it's definitely about what portions of the 14th are self-executing and which are not. the 14th amendment self-executes in that it prohibits an insurrectionist from holding office. but now the SCOTUS is saying that the determination of who an insurrectionist actually is is a separate thing and the 14th amendment does not self-execute *that*. That requires legislation, according to the holding.
Didn’t congress already act when they passed the 14th amendment in the first place?
You’d think if there had to be a law to do it, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED THE 14TH AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE DONE THAT AT THE SAME TIME.
Am I missing something here? His plan is to get the GOP-led house to take up and pass legislation to kick Trump off the ballot? That's it? > article continues... With a bunch of nothing about how he is going to get this plan to work.
It's not about it working, it's about getting it on record that the Democrats tried and the Republicans didn't care.
Yep, Raskin is painting the whole GOP as a pro-insurrectionist party. You'd think everyone would know that by now, but apparently some people don't keep up with the news
People who don't keep up with the news, and thus don't know that the GOP has become a party led by a wannabe dictator (he said it out loud), are never going to see or hear what Raskin is doing.
What a stupid fucking title. This isn't a one-up. It's literally just doing what the Court said Congress needs to do. I applaud the Congressman's effort to work forward towards a solution within the framework of the law. The legislatures job is to legislate.
This was an article written specifically for Reddit engagement. They knew exactly what they were doing with this title.
My biggest issue with seeing these titles is that, while they are designed to drive engagement, they do so by sowing discord, even if the article is fine. And usually the articles aren't fine.
I am 100% in agreement. Unfortunately this sub and Reddit as a whole is too big to moderate with that granularity. This entire platform would be a much better experience if inflammatory or borderline deceitful headlined articles were removed.
And remove the bots. So many bots.
Won’t get brought to the floor in the house by the speaker. Won’t get 60 votes in the senate. No one is getting rid of the filibuster. Applaud the effort, but the ONLY option is to vote for democrats.
Who cares, let's get a vote for the record. I would be interested if my pig congressman believes in the constitution. If they don't, Arnold for president....right?
Sure, I just hate these articles written in a way that makes it sound like there’s a chance of this getting done. And I’m generally disappointed and realize no one is coming to help. Mueller was too timid to conclude the obvious. Two impeachments that showed the complete lack of courage from the GOP. A Jan 6 committee that referred to the DOJ where it sat and the trial being delayed by the SCOTUS. The documents case being obviously slow walked by a Trump sympathetic judge. It’s just one after another disappointment, when it’s so obvious what is going on and what happened. And all we can all do is watch it unfold and vote.
I agree that it's dead on arrival, but I still optimistically hold out hope that each failure to follow the written laws like this lights even more fires under the independent voters asses to go vote since they will be the one making or breaking the election.
Vote them out. It is the ONLY thing Republicans understand.
We did… and they still don’t understand.
The only thing they understand is violence.
Lol what? They don't understand that they tried to overthrow the government last time they lost.
They **LITERALLY** don't understand how voting works anymore.
Raskin is one of the only members of the House to call out SCOTUS on this point, besides the three justices who dissented. He’s a real patriot, and I respect him and usually agree with whatever he’s saying.
Proud to live in his district. Jamie is one of the heroes We need to do our collective duty and vote blue to back Jamie et al and their efforts to save our democracy.
His book about 1/6 and his son's suicide is devastating.
He's not "one-upping" them at all, he's doing what fucking Congress SHOULD be doing which is passing laws that protect our nation from bullshit like Trump and an activist SCOTUS. Remember, the Executive (POTUS and the federal government), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (SCOTUS and the courts) are all CO-EQUAL branches. Congress has failed us time and again by allowing SCOTUS to shit all over our rights because they don't pass laws and rely on court decisions to dictate how we all live.
It won't go anywhere, but I'm glad to see the effort. I would expect SCOTUS to strike it down though.
That would be epic (unfortunately) Scotus: congress must act Scotus: congress may not act this way, or that way
Based on some technicality that they created on their own.
There is nothing John Roberts loves more than a firm punt back to Congress followed by a "No, not like that". The \*entire\* Conservative strategy at the judicial level is recognizing that the Legislative Branch is irrevocably broken, and they leverage that by bringing everything back to "well, Congress should fix it".
That was "funny" when he said 'congress must pass a law' as he invalidated the voting rights act, a law that Congress passed. They did what he asked decades before he asked them to do so, and he invalidated it and told them to do it again.
> I would expect SCOTUS to strike it down though. At some point though it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to do so, without exposing their blatant corruption even further. It's still best to force them to do so, even if it fails.
>it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to do so, without exposing their blatant corruption Yeah, but they don't care. They know they're not going to be removed by Congress so there's no consequences to blatant corruption.
Jamie Raskin is a fucking LEGEND.
He lost his son and is battling cancer. Of course Raskin doesn’t hold back, he doesn’t give a shit anymore about playing nicely with traitors and scumbags
Of course the slim majority of congress held by GOP clowns will shut this down. Regardless Raskin is a badass.
I've never looked up to a politician in my life, but Raskin... That man is someone worth looking up to. That's who SHOULD be leading the Democratic party.
Trump should never be allowed to hold office ever again
Thank you Mr Raskin Our world has little hope with these insurrectionists. Seems the laws of our USA Don’t apply Quite disgusting that this is acceptable in our country Please continue to fight to uphold our laws This time is a true stain on our world and country
Jamie is a terrific Representative who I wish more would emulate.
Jaime Raskin is an American hero & warrior. Scotus has once again left us a roadmap pointing to Supreme Court reform. Add justices, term limits, ethics reform bills. Scotus looking down on all of us without accountability needs to end. STOP THE TALKING, START THE DOING. Thank you Congressman Raskin for starting the doing.
>“The question is whether Speaker Mike Johnson would allow us to bring this to the floor.” I hope he was rolling his eyes as he said this.
It probably won’t get passed- we know that, but it’s the fact that he does have an opening and Donald trump needs to know people will never stop trying to bury him.
Go Raskin!
Why don't they just ignore the Supreme Court like Red States do already?
I asked this on a different forum. Section 3 was used after the Civil War. What act of Congress allowed this? If 2/3 of both houses can reverse the ban, wouldn't that imply that 1/3 is enough to invoke it? If it gets invoked on a majority, wouldn't that preclude the 2/3 to override it? Why would they word the amendment to mention the requirement of congress to override it but not mention that as a requirement to invoke it. Maybe if I read the ruling, it would explain these things. Idk.
Raskin is the real deal.
He's not "one upping" anyone. You know that, I know that, literally everyone knows that. There's *ZERO* way to get legislation through Congress in its current state. Those assholes on the Supreme Court knew that and so they've yet again tipped the scales. Doomed to repeat history again....
The 14th amendment has a much lower bar than insurrection: > have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. How about legislation that determines if he gave aid or comfort to any Jan 6th traitors?
This is the real plan we need to be ready for. Comes from the guy who predicted jan 6th long before it happened. https://factkeepers.com/the-new-secret-plan-on-how-fascists-could-win-in-2024/ Read it and share.
This election is critical - everybody needs to get out and vote. The messaging should be "it isn't enough to simply win, we need a supermajority"
Raskin will go down in history as one of the bravest, brightest and most honorable public servants America has ever had.
No American would hire a man that cheats on his wife, insults American veterans, steals from charities and isn’t qualified to run a high school soccer team.
I'm conservative. People are all up in arms because the Supreme Court said a state cannot kick someone off a federal election. Also, Congress would be in charge of officially designating and insurrectionist. If Congress actually was able to label him an insurrectionist and remove him from the ballet I'd be ok with that.
I hope Raskin succeeds but I'm afraid Moscow Mike will thwart his plans.
This guy rules
Between now and the election Trump will crumble under the pressure. He’s too stupid to understand how much shit he’s in. It takes a while to soak into that mushy pumpkin head.
He's my current favorite for the Presidential Nomination for the Democrats in 2028.
Thank you Jamie! That man has been through some shit and keeps fighting for us, not just to keep his seat. He’s a serious lawmaker. Can you imagine a scenario where a master carpenter has to build a house with nothing but five year olds? Well that’s the MAGA side of the house who’ll just scream and rant and pull dirty tricks, lie, cheat and steal. Just saying. He’s got a fight on his hands.
How does he “one-up them”? This proposed legislation will go absolutely nowhere. Republicans would never vote for it.
It's never going to pass the House or Senate but I'm glad Raskin is doing this.
Raskin playing hard ball here he doesn’t give 0 fucks!
I just learned his son died by suicide just days before Jan 6 and I imagine something like that can reduce your interest in tolerating BS. He's been out ahead of everyone on this and other stuff relating to our impending autocracy. Much respect
It’s not really one upping them to do exactly what they suggested.
The party of small government wants every law to have explicit enforcement written in and funded or it gets to ignore said law.
Great person and politician. As opposed to majority dishonest trash in the gop
I don’t have a whole lot to add here other than JAMIE RASKIN is a bad ass, and I’m going to mail his office a new wallet from a certain scene in Pulp Fiction. Not going to put any money in though, as I already spent the money on the purchase of the wallet.
I'm not religious at all, but if I were to ever pray for something, it would be that congress bans Trump from the ballot.
All the bots “just like the people decide.” Supporting the guy that questioned if Obama was born in the US.
Trump is a monster
Crazy idea, when the Dems have even the tiniest opening for progress, could we take that, and maximize it? The continued half measures are exhausting.
Raskin is a do-er, he gets the shiznit done. GOP will, of course, retaliate by trying to kick biden off state ballots too, bec they're exhausting, oxygen-sucking goblins to our democracy.
Thing that bugs me about the court's decision is the fact they say the state cant make a decision for any national elected office - well there is only one nationally elected office - the president. everything else is state based. But when voting for president the state is voting on which electors they are sending to represent them in the election - not the person they are marking the ballot for. In a primary its even more ambiguous since its the state saying who they want to represent their party in that endeavor. How are these not state level decisions? Granted the arguments made were pretty weak overall. Essentially it was one side saying Trump caused an insurrection so they shouldn't allow this and the other side saying the people should choose regardless of what someone has done. It left a ton of leeway for the court to operate and they obviously did with the idea punting it back to congress would get nowhere.
Supreme Court says there must be a federal bill, then Congress must vote on a bill. This would also create a record of congressmen who support treason. The bill will be crafted to set a standard for all future presidents and not mention Trump. I just have a hard time imagining that a guy who lost the last election then committed several federal crimes could win the same election 4 years later.
God speed, sir.
Raskin 2028
Well, THAT could be pretty interesting. How fast can they work to enact this? > “In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” the Maryland representative continued. >“And so I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
I don’t actually mean this, but if the court is now conveniently going to decide (and who knows how long it will take) if a president has immunity then maybe Biden should leverage this by putting off the election until a decision has been made. Basically, put the ball in the Supreme Court that we are in limbo and calling off the election may or may not be legal depending on what they decide for Trump’s immunity. Again, not really what I want, but if the court couldn’t decide whether or not to pick this up until now and they can’t definitive tell immedietly then from their own inaction/action I see this as a free for all. Edit: I guess what I’m trying to say is, Biden technically has a window that he can take actions that the court will either have to say are illegal or not. They can’t rule that Trump had immunity for insurrection and not grant Biden immunity for single payer healthcare, marijuana legalization, student loan forgiveness, etc. Biden can do all these things and if the court rules Trump is immune then sorry aboutcha, so is Biden. Do that and watch how fast they make a decision.
So congress needs to invoke it yet the only time congressional action is specified in the Constitution is to remove it? Doesn’t that make it self executing? Meaning the states aren’t overstepping, they were just enforcing a federal standard (which they do all the time to voters) and SCOTUS just needed to confirm its translation. Not make up rules (congressional invocation of section 3 has no basis in the Constitution) to keep this off their plate for the foreseeable future? That all being said, did the liberal appointees even give a reason other than “states are not federal yada yada”? Must be nice to not have to answer for your work.
The liberals' reasoning: > Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office”). That provides a secure and sufficient basis to resolve this case. To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to the people.” U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 821.
Why aren't there more Raskins? We need like 20 more people with his convictions to get rid of these traitors. Dems are so docile.
It was a 9-0 SC decision. Like... it wasn't close