US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Don't underestimate what SCOTUS might do here. It is a chance to make a monumental decision with far-reaching effects reverberating through history.

I'm curious to know which of their options you think would be most far-reaching and historic.

 

[Moxie]

It's hard to know where to start with the border crisis/immigration issues, but the Republicans got what they wanted, and reneged. Also, James Lankford, Republican Senator from Oklahoma who spent months drafting a bipartisan bill on border issues, says he's been threatened by an unnamed right-wing commentator that he'd destroy him, if he solves, in any way, the border issue in this election cycle.

James Lankford Says 'Popular Commentator' Threatened To 'Destroy' Him Over Immigration Bill

The Oklahoma Republican has faced major right-wing backlash for seeking a bipartisan compromise on immigration.

www.huffpost.com

(Don't mind that it's Huffpost. Lankford has said it in his own voice, on tv and radio.)

US Immigration issues are not going to be solved in one electoral cycle, but Trump has made it clear that he doesn't even want anything close, that might look like a win for Biden. So he's willing to see it go down the toilet for the sake of helping his campaign. And Republicans are willing to help him. There were in on this compromise bill, and two days later, they were out.

This is pure electoral politics, and the Democrats now have the right to say that the border issues start to be on the Republicans, if this is how they're going to play.

 

[MatchPoint]

I don't think we're on different sides of this. As I said before it's likely to go the way you think. My point was that there's an outside chance that these guys will do their job and also realise that doing the right thing would be of immediate benefit to them. Disqualifying Trump cedes the race to Haley, and Haley has a good chance to beat Biden. I'll repeat my point again.. if they do the right thing the GOP has a much better chance to win, why would that not incentivise them to be righteous

Not sure why that's complicated. Doesn't mean I think they'll do the right thing. It's simply pointing out the hidden benefit to them. But they would need to remove their Trump-deranged syndrome

Sure, Haley could defeat Biden.
So could a dozen other GOP politicians not named Trump.

 

[Federberg]

Sure, Haley could defeat Biden.
So could a dozen other GOP politicians not named Trump.

she's the only one left

 

[shawnbm]

I'm curious to know which of their options you think would be most far-reaching and historic.

I worded that intentionally to cater to the various sides on this particular individual, and that is really who this focuses on, Donald Trump. He is a unique character, politically, in the last century of American politicians. If the court sides against the ones appealing who want Trump thrown off of the ballot in all 50 states, they will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to show that he is guilty of insurrection. This may give them an opportunity to say off-the-cuff, so to speak, that if the evidence were greater and that he actually participated in, charged in, did some of the things that some of the people did, then they would have no problems with finding that he was guilty of insurrection in trying to stop the certification process and that this 14th amendment provision applies and that he could not run for office again. On the other hand, if they find in favor of the ones moving to keep Trump off of the ballot (which necessarily means they would have to agree that he was guilty of insurrection) and they kept him off of the ballot under the 14th amendment provision in question, I think that kind of a decision would be historic for obvious reasons. The other woman be historic as well, but not as much. If they make the latter decision rather than the former, it will be supremely important that it be a unanimous decision. If it is not, it will not be helpful. The former decision, which is what I'm thinking they might do so that they give a little to each side, would keep him on the ballot and it would allow the political process to go on, but the former Pres. might face of time lashing from a number of Justices for perhaps verbally not dissuading people from marching on the Capitol as much as they may think he should have.

There is another issue here and that is whether you need to have it unanimously among all the states and their courts that what the Pres. back then was guilty of was insurrection. That would give a lot more juice to this, but it is a hodgepodge of states, some that think this is ridiculous and some the think that the presence guilty of insurrection, so that makes it easier for the highest court in the land to perhaps decide on the former rather than the latter decision I referenced in the above paragraph. I do not think Pres. Trump escapes unscathed from whatever opinion Scotus hands down. He is not going to like what he reads other than perhaps claim victory if he is permitted to be on the ballots in all 50 states, but then again I wonder if any of the states can legitimately keep him off of their particular state ballot based on their own loss. That is a nuance I have not studied and do not know the answer to. At any rate, whatever occurs here it will be monumental.

 

[Federberg]

I worded that intentionally to cater to the various sides on this particular individual, and that is really who this focuses on, Donald Trump. He is a unique character, politically, in the last century of American politicians. If the court sides against the ones appealing who want Trump thrown off of the ballot in all 50 states, they will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to show that he is guilty of insurrection. This may give them an opportunity to say off-the-cuff, so to speak, that if the evidence were greater and that he actually participated in, charged in, did some of the things that some of the people did, then they would have no problems with finding that he was guilty of insurrection in trying to stop the certification process and that this 14th amendment provision applies and that he could not run for office again. On the other hand, if they find in favor of the ones moving to keep Trump off of the ballot (which necessarily means they would have to agree that he was guilty of insurrection) and they kept him off of the ballot under the 14th amendment provision in question, I think that kind of a decision would be historic for obvious reasons. The other woman be historic as well, but not as much. If they make the latter decision rather than the former, it will be supremely important that it be a unanimous decision. If it is not, it will not be helpful. The former decision, which is what I'm thinking they might do so that they give a little to each side, would keep him on the ballot and it would allow the political process to go on, but the former Pres. might face of time lashing from a number of Justices for perhaps verbally not dissuading people from marching on the Capitol as much as they may think he should have.

There is another issue here and that is whether you need to have it unanimously among all the states and their courts that what the Pres. back then was guilty of was insurrection. That would give a lot more juice to this, but it is a hodgepodge of states, some that think this is ridiculous and some the think that the presence guilty of insurrection, so that makes it easier for the highest court in the land to perhaps decide on the former rather than the latter decision I referenced in the above paragraph. I do not think Pres. Trump escapes unscathed from whatever opinion Scotus hands down. He is not going to like what he reads other than perhaps claim victory if he is permitted to be on the ballots in all 50 states, but then again I wonder if any of the states can legitimately keep him off of their particular state ballot based on their own loss. That is a nuance I have not studied and do not know the answer to. At any rate, whatever occurs here it will be monumental.

my understanding, after listening to a number of different sources on this, is that the task is actually tougher for SCOTUS. The amendment not only covers someone who is an insurrectionist, but also someone who gives aid and comfort to insurrectionists as well. I can see them trying to weasel their way out of the direct charge, but it's much tougher, given his rhetoric, to argue the latter. This is going to be truly fascinating!

 

[shawnbm]

Federerberg--I am unaware of that particular nuance and all of this. I know if you are a strict construction list that particular provision clearly at the time was with respect to those who had engaged in insurrection against the union prior to the Civil War breaking out and perhaps continuing during the war. The wording of it sounds like it was probably related to that, so it would create the impression that it may have been a one off for that moment history which, I'm sure they thought, would never be replicated. Now, looking at the Constitution is a living document through time, I can see how the spirit of that amendment would easily encompass someone gazing in insurrection now, but the term "insurrection" probably needs to be defined by what it meant back then. In other words, you would have to be looking at someone who is trying to secede from the nation or is taking armed rebellion against the nation to take it over or otherwise engage in formal insurrection against the Republic. I know fan of a lot of what the former Pres. says in a number of different circumstances, but I do not honestly believe anyone thinks he truly was engaged in insurrection as defined by the writers of the 14th amendment 150 years ago. I do not know if they will engage in this kind of back and forth on this issue, but it is going to be fascinating nonetheless. (And the time spell check this forgive whatever misspellings may be here

 

[Federberg]

Federerberg--I am unaware of that particular nuance and all of this. I know if you are a strict construction list that particular provision clearly at the time was with respect to those who had engaged in insurrection against the union prior to the Civil War breaking out and perhaps continuing during the war. The wording of it sounds like it was probably related to that, so it would create the impression that it may have been a one off for that moment history which, I'm sure they thought, would never be replicated. Now, looking at the Constitution is a living document through time, I can see how the spirit of that amendment would easily encompass someone gazing in insurrection now, but the term "insurrection" probably needs to be defined by what it meant back then. In other words, you would have to be looking at someone who is trying to secede from the nation or is taking armed rebellion against the nation to take it over or otherwise engage in formal insurrection against the Republic. I know fan of a lot of what the former Pres. says in a number of different circumstances, but I do not honestly believe anyone thinks he truly was engaged in insurrection as defined by the writers of the 14th amendment 150 years ago. I do not know if they will engage in this kind of back and forth on this issue, but it is going to be fascinating nonetheless. (And the time spell check this forgive whatever misspellings may be here

I agree there are many ways to read this. An armed action against a constitutional process can certainly fit into the definition I think, but for sure I appreciate that one side of the political field will reject my reading. I would offer this though... what if it was a Democratic President who had done what Trump did. With this same SCOTUS. Do you think they would make the same judgement in either case?

 

[Federberg]

certainly sounds like SCOTUS is backing Trump from all the reports coming thru...

 

[Front242]

You lot still think this clown is ok ? I reckon I'll put down a bet on Michelle Obama taking over for the non democratic democrats. I'll be shocked if Biden stays around till November. He clearly isn't making any of the big decisions himself as has been said many times. You're in denial if you think he is. Jimmy Failla agrees with what I've said too.

 

[shawnbm]

I agree there are many ways to read this. An armed action against a constitutional process can certainly fit into the definition I think, but for sure I appreciate that one side of the political field will reject my reading. I would offer this though... what if it was a Democratic President who had done what Trump did. With this same SCOTUS. Do you think they would make the same judgement in either case?

In response to your question, I think the decision that is being asked to be made of the particular language of the amendment is of such a nature that regardless of whether it was a Democrat or Republican or, the ruling would likely be the same. Again, it will be quite telling if this is the unanimous or almost unanimous decision. It should be, in my view, since it is such a big question. Very clear line should be drawn, but I do not know what the court is going to consider to be where or as to what a line should be drawn. I think we are going to know in the next few days.

 

[Federberg]

certainly sounds like SCOTUS is backing Trump from all the reports coming thru...

I hate to say it, but I'm coming around to the way it looks like SCOTUS is going. Someone on CNN suggested a hypothetical where Abbott claims that Biden is an insurrectionist because he's wilfully allowing an invasion via the southern border. And then he kicks Biden off the ballot. It would lead to chaos. This is not the way. Besides... I want Trump to have his ass handed to him at the ballot box

 

[Front242]

 

[Moxie]

certainly sounds like SCOTUS is backing Trump from all the reports coming thru...

Well, in the sense that they stayed far away from any talk of insurrection, or if Trump committed it, or gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists. I listened to the whole thing. It was fairly wonky and full of legalese. Trump's lawyers presented as one argument that the person elected can later be deemed to be ineligible by 2/3's of Congress. His lawyers also spent a lot of time trying to make the case that he was not an "officer" of the US. That one is a really weird case to make, for any layman.

Basically, they seem to be concerned about the right of Colorado to exclude Trump, thereby disenfranchising voters. It looks pretty clear that they will rule in favor of Trump being on the ballot, and I'm betting in all States. That would make no judgement on whether or not he committed insurrection, or gave aid and comfort...it will merely allow him to be on the ballot. That's where it sounds like they're going, anyway.

 

[Moxie]

Federerberg--I am unaware of that particular nuance and all of this. I know if you are a strict construction list that particular provision clearly at the time was with respect to those who had engaged in insurrection against the union prior to the Civil War breaking out and perhaps continuing during the war. The wording of it sounds like it was probably related to that, so it would create the impression that it may have been a one off for that moment history which, I'm sure they thought, would never be replicated. Now, looking at the Constitution is a living document through time, I can see how the spirit of that amendment would easily encompass someone gazing in insurrection now, but the term "insurrection" probably needs to be defined by what it meant back then. In other words, you would have to be looking at someone who is trying to secede from the nation or is taking armed rebellion against the nation to take it over or otherwise engage in formal insurrection against the Republic. I know fan of a lot of what the former Pres. says in a number of different circumstances, but I do not honestly believe anyone thinks he truly was engaged in insurrection as defined by the writers of the 14th amendment 150 years ago. I do not know if they will engage in this kind of back and forth on this issue, but it is going to be fascinating nonetheless. (And the time spell check this forgive whatever misspellings may be here

There was discussion today of when and why it was written, but the case is well-made that the intention was not only to block those who swore allegiance to the Confederacy from later holding office in the United States, but also to hold fast against future insurrections.

As to your above in bold...I, for one, do. He sought, actively and tacitly, to disrupt the peaceful transfer of powers. He incited what I fully believe was an (attempted) insurrection. He certainly gave "aid and comfort" to them, as @Federberg says. He did NOT call out the National Guard, and he told them, on the day, that he "loved" them. He threw Mike Pence to them.

SCOTUS has made it clear that they're not taking any of this up, but only seem prepared to rule on the ballot issue.

 

[Front242]

Joe Biden ‘wilfully’ retained classified documents but ‘should not be charged’, report finds

President Joe Biden was described in the report as a ‘well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’.

www.thejournal.ie

 

[Moxie]

Joe Biden ‘wilfully’ retained classified documents but ‘should not be charged’, report finds

President Joe Biden was described in the report as a ‘well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’.

www.thejournal.ie

The findings were released today and the White House chose not to redact anything, implying that none of them are of national security importance. His handling of his case is in stark contrast to that of Trump's refusing to turn over documents he took to Mar-a-lago, and showing them to guests, randomly, like trophies.

 

[Front242]

The findings were released today and the White House chose not to redact anything, implying that none of them are of national security importance. His handling of his case is in stark contrast to that of Trump's refusing to turn over documents he took to Mar-a-lago, and showing them to guests, randomly, like trophies.

The main thing you should really have caught from the article isn't about the documents but about the state of his mental health and memory...

He's been lying about his son Beau's death for ages too saying he died in Iraq when he died of cancer..

 

[Moxie]

I agree there are many ways to read this. An armed action against a constitutional process can certainly fit into the definition I think, but for sure I appreciate that one side of the political field will reject my reading. I would offer this though... what if it was a Democratic President who had done what Trump did. With this same SCOTUS. Do you think they would make the same judgement in either case?

It's hard to picture anyone else doing what Trump did, and how one could arrive at that from a completely different direction, in terms of appreciating the law and the Constitution, but to your question above, I would say, yes. They are not "siding with Trump." They are staying away from the insurrection question. They seem to be focusing narrowly on the idea of keeping a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, and kicking the can down the road on "eligibility." They know they were burned by putting their finger on the scales of justice in Bush v. Gore, and they are very wary of doing that again. I honestly feel they would have approached it in the same way.

 

[Federberg]

It's hard to picture anyone else doing what Trump did, and how one could arrive at that from a completely different direction, in terms of appreciating the law and the Constitution, but to your question above, I would say, yes. They are not "siding with Trump." They are staying away from the insurrection question. They seem to be focusing narrowly on the idea of keeping a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, and kicking the can down the road on "eligibility." They know they were burned by putting their finger on the scales of justice in Bush v. Gore, and they are very wary of doing that again. I honestly feel they would have approached it in the same way.

yes I'll concede this. When I made that comment I had not yet had a chance to listen to the questions they were asking. As I said above, I'm actually swayed towards their concerns. This isn't about political bias but a justifiable concern about malign exploitation of the concept of insurrection. They are right, and I agree it wouldn't matter if this was the other way