I picked this up at Red State last night. It provides an early indication of whether the SCOTUS will allow our electoral system to be pretty much thrown up for grabs: The US Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution bars former president Trump from running for president in 2024. The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas.
Too bad that a prior presidential candidate who also was named John did not bring a suit against his opponent. To whom do I refer? I am, of course, referring to the odious John Sidney McCain III, who should have challenged B. H. O'Zero's qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. McLame would not deign to cause difficulties for a good friend and colleague in the exclusive 100 member club that both were members of. A candidate for the aforementioned office must be a "natural born Citizen" of the U. S. according to an old parchment called the Constitution @ Art. 2, sec. 1. A natural born Citizen is distinguished from a statutory citizen at birth by the persons parentage, BOTH parents must be U. S. Citizens at the time of birth or one is not a "natural born Citizen" regardless of birthplace . . . PERIOD !!! Only another presidential candidate has standing to bring such a case according to SCOTUS's. Does any one actually believe that dual citizen Rafael "Ted" Cruz or V. P. Cackler, Kamala Heresy, would pass the "natural born Citizen" test?
I realize that most of what Dan McLaughlin writes is maddening at best, and the linked article below (found at the Red State link Mark provides in the post) is little exception. I also know that many, like me, try hard not to give NRO our clicks. Fine. Totally understandable. But all that said, it really is a well done legal argument of how this 14th Amendment crap is just that - crap. The one area he doesn't address is the requirement that the barred candidate be a former officer of the U.S., and the pieces I've read on that strike me as pretty persuasive that POTUS is not an officer. Regardless, McGlaughlin's arguments seem to make the question moot, as there should be no way a SCOTUS analysis need ever get that far anyway.
I can’t remember reading a persuasive argument by anyone at NRO in years that includes Andy McCarthy who has become predictable, boring, and like all democrats, a paid up member of the GOPe. Your link takes you to the NRO site, but you have to hunt for the article, ggthese guys are not worth it.
I have the same confidence in Roberts as you do Anne! He’s not going to do anything that will in any way, shape, fashion or form help DJT. I wish I thought differently, but after everything that has happened, I think that the country is well and truly screwed. We are in free fall and it’s just a question of how catastrophic the impact will be.
"our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." We've had wars, a Civil War, a Great Depression and 9/11, we had Watergate. and have survived. In 2000 Gore had weeks to look for chads. We came together. Now all it takes is Fanni, Jack and Alvin, and its all over.
Judge Timothy Kelly issued a 10-year prison sentence for Dominic Pezzola, an honorably discharged Marine Corp veteran for his “role in the Capitol riot” on Friday. He looked right at the prosecution and said, “Trump won. You all know it.”
I expect the Washington establishment to circle the wagons and maintain the legitimacy of the regime. I expect the Judge to of course deny Trump any possibility of bringing evidence 2020 was stolen, just as a gigantic cover-up that dwarfs Watergate prevented any litigation on the allegations of fraud made after the election. I expect most of the Country to write off Washington as irreparably corrupt and totally illegitimate, should they succeed in railroading Trump for having an opinion that he shares with the majority of the citizens.
True. It will really put the "conservative" wobblers like Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett's feet to the fire. Let's hope they remember how hard people fought to get them on the Court. The affirmative action trio, well, we already know how they'll vote.
Why have they reported that Trump's valet "changed his testimony" and had a new lawyer, etc. etc. The MSM acted like this was proof "Orange Man Bad." All the photos we saw in news items looked staged--in bathrooms? Whole thing looks contrived.
One man's criticism of the election... is another man's incitement to insurrection. The hideous parallel is with blasphemy laws, but our country is so safely round the bend past holding to the Christian religion, few can see the parallel for what it is and portends for our politics. Seriously, all that talk about "sacred democracy" was scripted for this effort, along with calling in the National Guard to protect the Capitol for months on end.
One would think that this case can only be decided in one way - in favor of President Trump. However, I had the same expectation concerning Texas v. Pennsylvania before SCOTUS declined to hear the case on nonsensical grounds. "Poised to take up" is quite different than "certiorari is granted".
Roberts is terrified that SCOTUS will be accused of election interference again (cf. Bush v. Gore) no matter how unjust that perception is. All he has to do is persuade that weak sister Kavanaugh to vote with him and we have a 5-4 decision favoring the plaintiff, Mr. Castro (assuming that he has standing).
Have you guys watched Tucker's interview (just posted) with a guy named Larry Sinclair? Horrifyingly, Sinclair alleges that he had a couple crack-fueled homosexual encounters with Barack Obama in 1999. Even worse, Sinclair believes that an 'intimate friend' of Obama's named Donald Young was murdered to keep Obama's drug and sex proclivities quiet. If Sinclair is right, it would seem that murder is in the playbook.
Our politicians, specifically Democrats, have always sanctioned political hits on rivals or those deemed enemies by virtue of disagreement. Blame is always shifted to their rivals for justification and no one ever complains until those deemed unworthy do the same then they cry bloody murder most foul. By removing any moral behavior they are redeemed as righteous actors against the evil of those they detest (or simply fear, like Trump). No accountability means acceptance of their righteous duty to eliminate the actors who might reveal the truth.
Too bad that a prior presidential candidate who also was named John did not bring a suit against his opponent. To whom do I refer? I am, of course, referring to the odious John Sidney McCain III, who should have challenged B. H. O'Zero's qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. McLame would not deign to cause difficulties for a good friend and colleague in the exclusive 100 member club that both were members of. A candidate for the aforementioned office must be a "natural born Citizen" of the U. S. according to an old parchment called the Constitution @ Art. 2, sec. 1. A natural born Citizen is distinguished from a statutory citizen at birth by the persons parentage, BOTH parents must be U. S. Citizens at the time of birth or one is not a "natural born Citizen" regardless of birthplace . . . PERIOD !!! Only another presidential candidate has standing to bring such a case according to SCOTUS's. Does any one actually believe that dual citizen Rafael "Ted" Cruz or V. P. Cackler, Kamala Heresy, would pass the "natural born Citizen" test?
I realize that most of what Dan McLaughlin writes is maddening at best, and the linked article below (found at the Red State link Mark provides in the post) is little exception. I also know that many, like me, try hard not to give NRO our clicks. Fine. Totally understandable. But all that said, it really is a well done legal argument of how this 14th Amendment crap is just that - crap. The one area he doesn't address is the requirement that the barred candidate be a former officer of the U.S., and the pieces I've read on that strike me as pretty persuasive that POTUS is not an officer. Regardless, McGlaughlin's arguments seem to make the question moot, as there should be no way a SCOTUS analysis need ever get that far anyway.
nationalreview.com/2023/08/donald-trump-still-isnt-ineligible-to-run-in-2024
I can’t remember reading a persuasive argument by anyone at NRO in years that includes Andy McCarthy who has become predictable, boring, and like all democrats, a paid up member of the GOPe. Your link takes you to the NRO site, but you have to hunt for the article, ggthese guys are not worth it.
All this is being done in complete bad faith, and with total disregard for the well being of our constitutional order.
Anyone notice what the 4th Clause in the 14th Amendment refers to?
That should be setting off some alarms, IMOO.
Not sure what you're getting at.
I have the same confidence in Roberts as you do Anne! He’s not going to do anything that will in any way, shape, fashion or form help DJT. I wish I thought differently, but after everything that has happened, I think that the country is well and truly screwed. We are in free fall and it’s just a question of how catastrophic the impact will be.
"our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." We've had wars, a Civil War, a Great Depression and 9/11, we had Watergate. and have survived. In 2000 Gore had weeks to look for chads. We came together. Now all it takes is Fanni, Jack and Alvin, and its all over.
Judge Timothy Kelly issued a 10-year prison sentence for Dominic Pezzola, an honorably discharged Marine Corp veteran for his “role in the Capitol riot” on Friday. He looked right at the prosecution and said, “Trump won. You all know it.”
I expect the Washington establishment to circle the wagons and maintain the legitimacy of the regime. I expect the Judge to of course deny Trump any possibility of bringing evidence 2020 was stolen, just as a gigantic cover-up that dwarfs Watergate prevented any litigation on the allegations of fraud made after the election. I expect most of the Country to write off Washington as irreparably corrupt and totally illegitimate, should they succeed in railroading Trump for having an opinion that he shares with the majority of the citizens.
The real test of courage for the SCOTUS could come with the Mar a Lago case. To me it's a slam dunk for Trump.
True. It will really put the "conservative" wobblers like Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett's feet to the fire. Let's hope they remember how hard people fought to get them on the Court. The affirmative action trio, well, we already know how they'll vote.
Why have they reported that Trump's valet "changed his testimony" and had a new lawyer, etc. etc. The MSM acted like this was proof "Orange Man Bad." All the photos we saw in news items looked staged--in bathrooms? Whole thing looks contrived.
One man's criticism of the election... is another man's incitement to insurrection. The hideous parallel is with blasphemy laws, but our country is so safely round the bend past holding to the Christian religion, few can see the parallel for what it is and portends for our politics. Seriously, all that talk about "sacred democracy" was scripted for this effort, along with calling in the National Guard to protect the Capitol for months on end.
One would think that this case can only be decided in one way - in favor of President Trump. However, I had the same expectation concerning Texas v. Pennsylvania before SCOTUS declined to hear the case on nonsensical grounds. "Poised to take up" is quite different than "certiorari is granted".
Roberts is terrified that SCOTUS will be accused of election interference again (cf. Bush v. Gore) no matter how unjust that perception is. All he has to do is persuade that weak sister Kavanaugh to vote with him and we have a 5-4 decision favoring the plaintiff, Mr. Castro (assuming that he has standing).
Have you guys watched Tucker's interview (just posted) with a guy named Larry Sinclair? Horrifyingly, Sinclair alleges that he had a couple crack-fueled homosexual encounters with Barack Obama in 1999. Even worse, Sinclair believes that an 'intimate friend' of Obama's named Donald Young was murdered to keep Obama's drug and sex proclivities quiet. If Sinclair is right, it would seem that murder is in the playbook.
Don't forget Obama's young chef that recently died under suspicious circumstances.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/23/obama-chef-died-drowned-accident-marthas-vineyard
Seth Rich could not be reached for comment.
Our politicians, specifically Democrats, have always sanctioned political hits on rivals or those deemed enemies by virtue of disagreement. Blame is always shifted to their rivals for justification and no one ever complains until those deemed unworthy do the same then they cry bloody murder most foul. By removing any moral behavior they are redeemed as righteous actors against the evil of those they detest (or simply fear, like Trump). No accountability means acceptance of their righteous duty to eliminate the actors who might reveal the truth.
But who is kidding whom?
Arkanciding 45 would be the end...
I think a substantive case can be made, particularly after 2018, 2020, and 2022, that votes don't matter.
That we think voting in 2024 will reflect a legitimate result...
My magic 8-ball sez:
"Unlikely"
If 45 were to be arkancided, my vote(s) would go to a fusion ticket of RFK Jr and Vivek Ramaswamy.
I think Vivek is a plant.
https://notthebee.com/article/should-we-trust-vivek
If they take out 45, Sandy, you may not have a chance to 'vote'.