There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
But even Justice Gorsuch would probably agree that there are limits: it cannot be that a State has unilateral power to decide to keep somebody off the ballot. Otherwise, a Texas election official would simply declare that Joe Biden's name is not allowed to appear on the ballot for President during the next election. There must be some rules and those rules must be subject to some sort of judicial review.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required. To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
Again, suppose that a Texas official decides that Biden cannot appear on the presidential ballot because he is "guilty" of "insurrection" against the US because of his failure to sufficiently fortify the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration. Would we say: "Darn! The official found that Biden is guilty of insurrection and, shrug, there is nothing we can do about it because Gorsuch says the states have the right to decide who is eligible to be on the ballots?" Or would we say: "Hey, appeal that to a court on the basis that the conduct charged does not amount to 'insurrection'?" Obviously, the latter. The disqualification must be based on facts and those facts must be subject to judicial review.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
I am aware some Republican states are threatening to prevent Biden from being on their ballots, but it will not be for insurrection, because an insurrection n act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government (Merrium Webster).
What is happening on the border is not revolting against the government.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required.
And yet the drafters of the 14th Amendment disagreed with this idea and wrote their amendment otherwise. This comes down to the question of whether we're following the Constitution or not.
To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
In what sense is an en banc hearing before the Supreme Court of Colorado after an initial review by a lower court an insufficient form of review? Can you elaborate on this a bit?
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
But even Justice Gorsuch would probably agree that there are limits: it cannot be that a State has unilateral power to decide to keep somebody off the ballot. Otherwise, a Texas election official would simply declare that Joe Biden's name is not allowed to appear on the ballot for President during the next election. There must be some rules and those rules must be subject to some sort of judicial review.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required. To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
Again, suppose that a Texas official decides that Biden cannot appear on the presidential ballot because he is "guilty" of "insurrection" against the US because of his failure to sufficiently fortify the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration. Would we say: "Darn! The official found that Biden is guilty of insurrection and, shrug, there is nothing we can do about it because Gorsuch says the states have the right to decide who is eligible to be on the ballots?" Or would we say: "Hey, appeal that to a court on the basis that the conduct charged does not amount to 'insurrection'?" Obviously, the latter. The disqualification must be based on facts and those facts must be subject to judicial review.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
The Colorado decision did include a finding of fact following a review of the evidence, and my understanding is that appeals cannot dispute the judgement of the facts, only of the law.
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
But even Justice Gorsuch would probably agree that there are limits: it cannot be that a State has unilateral power to decide to keep somebody off the ballot. Otherwise, a Texas election official would simply declare that Joe Biden's name is not allowed to appear on the ballot for President during the next election. There must be some rules and those rules must be subject to some sort of judicial review.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required. To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
Again, suppose that a Texas official decides that Biden cannot appear on the presidential ballot because he is "guilty" of "insurrection" against the US because of his failure to sufficiently fortify the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration. Would we say: "Darn! The official found that Biden is guilty of insurrection and, shrug, there is nothing we can do about it because Gorsuch says the states have the right to decide who is eligible to be on the ballots?" Or would we say: "Hey, appeal that to a court on the basis that the conduct charged does not amount to 'insurrection'?" Obviously, the latter. The disqualification must be based on facts and those facts must be subject to judicial review.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
The Colorado decision did include a finding of fact following a review of the evidence, and my understanding is that appeals cannot dispute the judgement of the facts, only of the law.
IANAL but I think this is not quite right. Appeal courts will normally focus on the law and not overrule findings of fact. However, they can. I think the convention is that new evidence is key (I.e. DNA evidence overturning a murder conviction).
You are correct that there is a finding of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection. He is disputing this is his appeal to SCOTUS. There's probably some legal wriggle room about what exactly insurrection actually is.
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
But even Justice Gorsuch would probably agree that there are limits: it cannot be that a State has unilateral power to decide to keep somebody off the ballot. Otherwise, a Texas election official would simply declare that Joe Biden's name is not allowed to appear on the ballot for President during the next election. There must be some rules and those rules must be subject to some sort of judicial review.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required. To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
Again, suppose that a Texas official decides that Biden cannot appear on the presidential ballot because he is "guilty" of "insurrection" against the US because of his failure to sufficiently fortify the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration. Would we say: "Darn! The official found that Biden is guilty of insurrection and, shrug, there is nothing we can do about it because Gorsuch says the states have the right to decide who is eligible to be on the ballots?" Or would we say: "Hey, appeal that to a court on the basis that the conduct charged does not amount to 'insurrection'?" Obviously, the latter. The disqualification must be based on facts and those facts must be subject to judicial review.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
The Colorado decision did include a finding of fact following a review of the evidence, and my understanding is that appeals cannot dispute the judgement of the facts, only of the law.
The general rule is that appeals courts are bound by factual findings of the trial court if those findings are supported by competent evidence and are not clearly erroneous.
IANAL but I think this is not quite right. Appeal courts will normally focus on the law and not overrule findings of fact. However, they can. I think the convention is that new evidence is key (I.e. DNA evidence overturning a murder conviction).
Newly discovered evidence is generally not an issue on an appeal, but rather of a later collateral attack on a conviction or judgment—such as a motion for appropriate relief or an motion to set aside judgment—after appeals have been exhausted.
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
But even Justice Gorsuch would probably agree that there are limits: it cannot be that a State has unilateral power to decide to keep somebody off the ballot. Otherwise, a Texas election official would simply declare that Joe Biden's name is not allowed to appear on the ballot for President during the next election. There must be some rules and those rules must be subject to some sort of judicial review.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required. To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
Again, suppose that a Texas official decides that Biden cannot appear on the presidential ballot because he is "guilty" of "insurrection" against the US because of his failure to sufficiently fortify the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration. Would we say: "Darn! The official found that Biden is guilty of insurrection and, shrug, there is nothing we can do about it because Gorsuch says the states have the right to decide who is eligible to be on the ballots?" Or would we say: "Hey, appeal that to a court on the basis that the conduct charged does not amount to 'insurrection'?" Obviously, the latter. The disqualification must be based on facts and those facts must be subject to judicial review.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
The Colorado decision did include a finding of fact following a review of the evidence, and my understanding is that appeals cannot dispute the judgement of the facts, only of the law.
The general rule is that appeals courts are bound by factual findings of the trial court if those findings are supported by competent evidence and are not clearly erroneous.
IANAL but I think this is not quite right. Appeal courts will normally focus on the law and not overrule findings of fact. However, they can. I think the convention is that new evidence is key (I.e. DNA evidence overturning a murder conviction).
Newly discovered evidence is generally not an issue on an appeal, but rather of a later collateral attack on a conviction or judgment—such as a motion for appropriate relief or an motion to set aside judgment—after appeals have been exhausted.
I am aware some Republican states are threatening to prevent Biden from being on their ballots, but it will not be for insurrection, because an insurrection n act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government (Merrium Webster).
What is happening on the border is not revolting against the government.
I quite agree, but that is my point. What if a Texas official or court decides that THEY deem it to qualify as insurrection as a "factual" matter? Can an appellate court review that and say, "no, your factual finding is incorrect"? If the answer is yes, then the same thing can happen in the Colorado case--that the basis of the decision and conclusion can still be reviewed and rejected by a higher court, and continue to be reviewed and potentially rejected until it gets to the Supreme Court.
As @Nick Tamen just stated, the appellate standard does include review of factual findings and those can be struck down if the appellate court decides that the findings are not supported by "competent" evidence and not "clearly erroneous." But deciding what is "competent" evidence and what conclusions are "clearly erroneous" is a judgment call. For example, evidence presented that is not presented by a witness subject to cross-examination may or may not be deemed competent, depending on circumstances.
The Supreme Court has decided to fast track the review of the Colorado Supreme Court Decision. Oral Arguments will be heard on 8 February 2024 with a decision to be handed down by the end of February.
Asked how he would disqualify Biden from the ballot for insurrection, Ashcroft said that he's "let an invasion unstopped into our country from the border." Vice President Kamala Harris, he added, "supported people that were rebelling against the U.S. government during the riots in 2020," referring to racial justice protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder.
The border question is not allowing an invasion intending on overthrowing the government. Nor were the race riots after the George Floyd death intended on overthrowing the government. Both are bridges too far.
The border question is not allowing an invasion intending on overthrowing the government. Nor were the race riots after the George Floyd death intended on overthrowing the government. Both are bridges too far.
The question isn't whether they're remotely plausible, only if SCOTUS will use them as a figleaf to throw their hands in the air and wail " both sides" and claim it's not their business. I don't think they're so corrupt that they'd uphold excluding Biden and strike down excluding Trump but you never quite know.
The supreme court leans conservative and there are at least two justices who have questionable ethics, but that does not mean the court is corrupt. In the lead up to the January 6 incident Trump tried sixty-one lawsuits in both state and federal courts. He won only one minor case. The supreme court ruled against Trump a couple of times in the past year, ordering the release of his tax records, and handing over the Mar-a-Lago documents. I also believe they upheld the electoral college process in the lead up to Jan 6.
I have trust in the system. Gorsuch has already said the states have the right to determine who can be on a state ballot (see above). Roberts will be the swing vote. I think he will uphold what the constitution says in Section III of the 14th Amendment.
The only other way to get around this is to say section three no longer applies. However, I think only Congress can do that by 2/3 majority in both houses. We know that is not going to happen.
Here is a short history put out by a group wanting to keep Trump off the ballot. It appears pretty convincing.
Sigh. No. That is what I have been trying to explain. That is not the "only way" to get around it.
(1) The Court could actually say that, out of a respect for due process, the clause should not be used unless there has been a legal conviction. YES I know that the precedent does not require that but this Court has reversed precedent before (see Roe v. Wade) so they can reverse it again---the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent. And, frankly, it probably is, from an objective legal analysis, a good idea to require conviction otherwise, for example, a State official/court might strike other candidates for alleged "insurrection" that is no such thing. By requiring legal conviction, you prevent abuse of the clause for other situations that could never arise to the level of a conviction.
(2) Even if the Court goes with the "we-don't-need-no-stinkin'-convictions" argument, they can still reject the striking of Trump simply by finding that what Trump did does not amount to "insurrection" as that term was (in the Court's opinion) meant in the 14th Amendment. It is an undefined term so the Court is perfectly free to put their own interpretation on it. The Court is also not bound by the dictionary.
They could also hold, as the lower court did in Colorado, that POTUS is not an “office” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I realize there is good reason to reject that argument, but that doesn’t mean they won’t decide to avoid the big question by going with it.
It’s also possible that a majority of the Court agrees on a result (Trump can stay on the ballots), but that no one reason gets a majority.
Justices—at least some of them, including Roberts—will be very aware that the immunity case from DC will be following close on the heels of this case, so I anticipate they’ll have both cases in mind, as well as the criticism that the Court short circuited the 2000 election process and essentially decided that election, as they try to figure out what to do here.
Well, it looks like Trump will not be on another state's primary ballot. Not because of the 14th Amendment, but because his campaign did not file the necessary paperwork in time. Nevada had long used the caucus system; but, last year, Nevada changed to the primary system. The Trump campaign did not realize there was a change until it was too late. Story here.
Well, it looks like Trump will not be on another state's primary ballot. Not because of the 14th Amendment, but because his campaign did not file the necessary paperwork in time. Nevada had long used the caucus system; but, last year, Nevada changed to the primary system. The Trump campaign did not realize there was a change until it was too late. Story here.
No, the article you linked to says very clearly that the Trump campaign did know about the change, but followed the advice of the Nevada Republican Party.
Despite Nevada’s move to primaries, the Nevada Republican Party is still holding caucuses, and delegates to the Republican Convention will be awarded through the caucuses, not the primary. So in terms of awarding delegates, Trump’s absence from the Nevada primary ballot is meaningless.
So yesterday Trump's lawyer argued he should have immunity from anything he did while in office because it was an official act. He could have ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and could not have been prosecuted unless he was impeached and convicted in the Senate.
I remember his lawyer for the last impeachment trial in the Senate saying he could not be impeached until after he was found guilty of a crime in a court of law.
You can't have it both ways, can you?
In other news T is pulling out the birther card, claiming Nikki Hailey is ineligible for presidency because he parents were not citizens of the United States when she was born. Nikki was born in South Carolina.
For those who are pessimistic about this year's election in the US: in his lifetime, Trump has won one election and lost one. Biden has won a number of elections and lost none (as far as I can determine).
For those who are pessimistic about this year's election in the US: in his lifetime, Trump has won one election and lost one. Biden has won a number of elections and lost none (as far as I can determine).
Depends on if you consider presidential primaries to be "elections". Biden has losttwo of those.
In his mind, yes. Shows understanddefiance, I guess. He is not going to be allowed to speak at the end of the civil case in NY, I . Hopefully, there will be a criminal case where he will be convicted before the general election.
Win, win, win, win, win. Liberal wet dreams need a long hot shower and a lot of laundry. You do have a mattress liner don't you? Dear oh dear. As the King said. And take a cold shower before retiring.
NPR (specifically the NPR Politics Podcast) keeps reminding me that none of Trump's more important trials will even begin before March at the earliest. One of our legal eagles can correct me, but it doesn't seem super likely that any of them will wrap up in time to affect the vote.
(Assuming the verdicts would affect anybody's vote anyway, which seems unlikely these days.)
Oh, and the Georgia case is screwed or at the very least delayed, if the allegations against the DA are proven. (Short version: the Fulton County DA is accused of hiring a special prosecutor on the case who she was having an affair with, and benefiting from his salary as well. He paid for couples' vacations with her, and that sort of thing.)
Apparently the lawyer bringing the allegations has a good reputation - it's not the usual Trumpland baseless smear, there's a good chance there may be proof of wrongdoing.
It looks to me rather like finding out your carpenter is engaged in cheating on his wife; not a thing you want to hear, but it doesn't have much bearing on his woodwork.
It looks to me rather like finding out your carpenter is engaged in cheating on his wife; not a thing you want to hear, but it doesn't have much bearing on his woodwork.
Well, except that this is a lawyer accused breaking the law, so the irrelevancy of adultery to woodwork is not really a good analogy.
Oh, and the Georgia case is screwed or at the very least delayed, if the allegations against the DA are proven. (Short version: the Fulton County DA is accused of hiring a special prosecutor on the case who she was having an affair with, and benefiting from his salary as well. He paid for couples' vacations with her, and that sort of thing.)
Apparently the lawyer bringing the allegations has a good reputation - it's not the usual Trumpland baseless smear, there's a good chance there may be proof of wrongdoing.
That link is not available in Europe. Do you have any others?
Oh, and the Georgia case is screwed or at the very least delayed, if the allegations against the DA are proven. (Short version: the Fulton County DA is accused of hiring a special prosecutor on the case who she was having an affair with, and benefiting from his salary as well. He paid for couples' vacations with her, and that sort of thing.)
Apparently the lawyer bringing the allegations has a good reputation - it's not the usual Trumpland baseless smear, there's a good chance there may be proof of wrongdoing.
For the record, the lawyer bringing the allegations did so as part of representing Trump's alleged co-conspirator and former campaign official Michael Roman P01135821. To date we've seen all kinds of supposedly "reputable lawyers" argue all kinds of crazy and unfounded stuff (e.g. John Sauer) at the direction of their Trumpland clients. So far no evidence has been presented. It allegedly exists in a sealed file.
The document offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties between Willis and Wade, but says “sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.”
Roman’s lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, said she reviewed the case file in Wade’s ongoing divorce proceedings at the Superior Court Clerk’s Office and made copies of certain documents. But the case file was later improperly sealed because no court hearing was held as required by law, the motion said.
Because the case remains under seal, Merchant said she is not sharing the information she obtained from the divorce file until the seal is lifted. She also said she is asking a judge to unseal the case file.
A cynical person might suspect this is an excuse to get to dig through Special Prosecutor Wade's divorce records looking for any dirt, even if it's not this specific dirt.
Oh, and the Georgia case is screwed or at the very least delayed, if the allegations against the DA are proven. (Short version: the Fulton County DA is accused of hiring a special prosecutor on the case who she was having an affair with, and benefiting from his salary as well. He paid for couples' vacations with her, and that sort of thing.)
Apparently the lawyer bringing the allegations has a good reputation - it's not the usual Trumpland baseless smear, there's a good chance there may be proof of wrongdoing.
For the record, the lawyer bringing the allegations did so as part of representing Trump's alleged co-conspirator and former campaign official Michael Roman P01135821. To date we've seen all kinds of supposedly "reputable lawyers" argue all kinds of crazy and unfounded stuff (e.g. John Sauer) at the direction of their Trumpland clients. So far no evidence has been presented. It allegedly exists in a sealed file.
The document offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties between Willis and Wade, but says “sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.”
Roman’s lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, said she reviewed the case file in Wade’s ongoing divorce proceedings at the Superior Court Clerk’s Office and made copies of certain documents. But the case file was later improperly sealed because no court hearing was held as required by law, the motion said.
Because the case remains under seal, Merchant said she is not sharing the information she obtained from the divorce file until the seal is lifted. She also said she is asking a judge to unseal the case file.
A cynical person might suspect this is an excuse to get to dig through Special Prosecutor Wade's divorce records looking for any dirt, even if it's not this specific dirt.
Thanks for that.
I follow a lot of the US stuff closely and hadn't caught this one. Now I know why: it's probably BS and not going anywhere.
Please please correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as i can tell, the accusation is that Willis gave a job and unfairly high pay to someone she was romantically involved with. If true, it raises concerns about her judgement and personal sense of fairness, but no laws have been broken, and specifically, not with regard to the Trump case. Which would make Trump’s interest in it a desire to smear rather than a proper objection.
Please please correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as i can tell, the accusation is that Willis gave a job and unfairly high pay to someone she was romantically involved with. If true, it raises concerns about her judgement and personal sense of fairness, but no laws have been broken, and specifically, not with regard to the Trump case. Which would make Trump’s interest in it a desire to smear rather than a proper objection.
It would potentially be grounds for resignation.
Trump will pull anything to delay and disrupt proceedings against him. Willis has been fearless and diligent in her service to the law and her unwillingness to care that Trump is (one of) the defendant(s). If she had to step down, it's possible that her successor would not be the same.
Given the apparent source, I would not be remotely surprised if there was nothing to see here. We will have to see.
Trump is now comparing Haley to Hillary. It doesn’t matter how absurd his ruthless personal attacks are. They do not seem to harm him with the faithful.
Thinking about the thread title, I cannot think of any other politician more deserving of trials and tribulations. Vile behaviour is his norm. What remains hard to believe is the loyalty and blindness of so many of his supporters.
Trump is now comparing Haley to Hillary. It doesn’t matter how absurd his ruthless personal attacks are. They do not seem to harm him with the faithful.
Thinking about the thread title, I cannot think of any other politician more deserving of trials and tribulations. Vile behaviour is his norm. What remains hard to believe is the loyalty and blindness of so many of his supporters.
This last point. I largely keep out of Trump discussions because I can't get my head around anyone not finding him utterly repulsive.
His latest stunt in court was to seek to intimidate E Jean Carroll while she was in the witness box and then exchange loud criticisms with his lawyer after she left the witness box. I hope it backfires with the jury. It was an illustration of him continuing to demean her veracity and reputation. The jury could award significant further punitive damages I think because he is in essence a repeat offender.
Nikki Haley is now Nancy Pelosi, according to Trump. And included in Trump’s tribulations are the developing signs of prefrontal dementia. A certain irony, given the rude attacks on Briden.
I've been trying to find something more definitive about his health (esp. dementia) that is coming from a proper authority and not just people screaming on the internet. I do think it very likely--but have you found someone you think particularly trustworthy on the prefrontal thing? I'd like to read it.
I don't think there will be anything definitive. The only way it would come out is if, by sheer chance, he had received a diagnosis and one of the medical team were willing to risk their career and likely legal issues to share that information.
My problem with the attempted diagnoses is that the various lists of symptoms suppose a change in behaviour, whereas Trump's history suggests that a lot of the traits have always been a feature of his personality. I certainly wouldn't rule out mental degeneration but it's not a dead cert the way parts of the internet would have us believe.
I've been trying to find something more definitive about his health (esp. dementia) that is coming from a proper authority and not just people screaming on the internet. I do think it very likely--but have you found someone you think particularly trustworthy on the prefrontal thing? I'd like to read it.
Here is a reasonable summary from the UK National Health Service website. For me, the more compelling evidence is his increasing tendency to muddle identities.
Arethosemyfeet is right about change. I think Trump has always been mentally abnormal and Mary Trump has provided insights about that. And of course never admitting faults is a significant part of that. So spotting the development of dementia is not so easy. But I think there are newer signs of mental confusion often associated with the onset of dementia, and the confusion over identity is one of these.
Frankly, I've never thought he was mentally fit for high office.
One suggestive but not definitive piece of evidence is the way that he (or his handlers) has avoided any situation where he faces anything other than a fawning audience. Specifically no debates and no media interviews outside of the Fox/OANN/Sinclair echo chamber. He still does his rallies, but those were always kind of demented.
I work in mental health, but I just don’t think there is enough evidence in the public domain to make a diagnosis of a degenerative condition - even were it ethical to do so.
Thank you, Barnabas62. I was wondering if there might be something definitive, but I guess that's just hard to do when the guy's been ... problematic ... all his life.
I work in mental health, but I just don’t think there is enough evidence in the public domain to make a diagnosis of a degenerative condition - even were it ethical to do so.
I think that's true. There is nothing conclusive but there is a lot which is suggestive. And there is much in the public domain to point to mental abnormality. Whether or not there is now a degenerative element as well.
Comments
I am aware some Republican states are threatening to prevent Biden from being on their ballots, but it will not be for insurrection, because an insurrection n act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government (Merrium Webster).
What is happening on the border is not revolting against the government.
And yet the drafters of the 14th Amendment disagreed with this idea and wrote their amendment otherwise. This comes down to the question of whether we're following the Constitution or not.
In what sense is an en banc hearing before the Supreme Court of Colorado after an initial review by a lower court an insufficient form of review? Can you elaborate on this a bit?
The Colorado decision did include a finding of fact following a review of the evidence, and my understanding is that appeals cannot dispute the judgement of the facts, only of the law.
IANAL but I think this is not quite right. Appeal courts will normally focus on the law and not overrule findings of fact. However, they can. I think the convention is that new evidence is key (I.e. DNA evidence overturning a murder conviction).
You are correct that there is a finding of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection. He is disputing this is his appeal to SCOTUS. There's probably some legal wriggle room about what exactly insurrection actually is.
AFZ
Newly discovered evidence is generally not an issue on an appeal, but rather of a later collateral attack on a conviction or judgment—such as a motion for appropriate relief or an motion to set aside judgment—after appeals have been exhausted.
Thanks for the clarification.
As @Nick Tamen just stated, the appellate standard does include review of factual findings and those can be struck down if the appellate court decides that the findings are not supported by "competent" evidence and not "clearly erroneous." But deciding what is "competent" evidence and what conclusions are "clearly erroneous" is a judgment call. For example, evidence presented that is not presented by a witness subject to cross-examination may or may not be deemed competent, depending on circumstances.
The question isn't whether they're remotely plausible, only if SCOTUS will use them as a figleaf to throw their hands in the air and wail " both sides" and claim it's not their business. I don't think they're so corrupt that they'd uphold excluding Biden and strike down excluding Trump but you never quite know.
I have trust in the system. Gorsuch has already said the states have the right to determine who can be on a state ballot (see above). Roberts will be the swing vote. I think he will uphold what the constitution says in Section III of the 14th Amendment.
The only other way to get around this is to say section three no longer applies. However, I think only Congress can do that by 2/3 majority in both houses. We know that is not going to happen.
Here is a short history put out by a group wanting to keep Trump off the ballot. It appears pretty convincing.
(1) The Court could actually say that, out of a respect for due process, the clause should not be used unless there has been a legal conviction. YES I know that the precedent does not require that but this Court has reversed precedent before (see Roe v. Wade) so they can reverse it again---the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent. And, frankly, it probably is, from an objective legal analysis, a good idea to require conviction otherwise, for example, a State official/court might strike other candidates for alleged "insurrection" that is no such thing. By requiring legal conviction, you prevent abuse of the clause for other situations that could never arise to the level of a conviction.
(2) Even if the Court goes with the "we-don't-need-no-stinkin'-convictions" argument, they can still reject the striking of Trump simply by finding that what Trump did does not amount to "insurrection" as that term was (in the Court's opinion) meant in the 14th Amendment. It is an undefined term so the Court is perfectly free to put their own interpretation on it. The Court is also not bound by the dictionary.
They could also hold, as the lower court did in Colorado, that POTUS is not an “office” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I realize there is good reason to reject that argument, but that doesn’t mean they won’t decide to avoid the big question by going with it.
It’s also possible that a majority of the Court agrees on a result (Trump can stay on the ballots), but that no one reason gets a majority.
Justices—at least some of them, including Roberts—will be very aware that the immunity case from DC will be following close on the heels of this case, so I anticipate they’ll have both cases in mind, as well as the criticism that the Court short circuited the 2000 election process and essentially decided that election, as they try to figure out what to do here.
Despite Nevada’s move to primaries, the Nevada Republican Party is still holding caucuses, and delegates to the Republican Convention will be awarded through the caucuses, not the primary. So in terms of awarding delegates, Trump’s absence from the Nevada primary ballot is meaningless.
See here.
I remember his lawyer for the last impeachment trial in the Senate saying he could not be impeached until after he was found guilty of a crime in a court of law.
You can't have it both ways, can you?
In other news T is pulling out the birther card, claiming Nikki Hailey is ineligible for presidency because he parents were not citizens of the United States when she was born. Nikki was born in South Carolina.
Where have I heard this canard before?
Considering the states that will likely have the reproductive rights question on the ballot, Trump probably will not win in those states.
Then too, in Democrats have won every special election since the Dobbs decision.
Not a good time for a Republican.
Depends on if you consider presidential primaries to be "elections". Biden has lost two of those.
Three states have reproductive rights on the ballot.
The number after each state is the number of electoral votes controlled by that state.
Ten other states have organizations actively working to put such measures on the ballot in 2024.
I've marked in bold the states that were decided by a margin of less than 5 percentage points in the 2020 presidential election.
In his mind, yes. Shows understanddefiance, I guess. He is not going to be allowed to speak at the end of the civil case in NY, I . Hopefully, there will be a criminal case where he will be convicted before the general election.
Georgia on my mind.
I've called @Martin54 to Hell over this intervention. Title: "Martin, can it with the mega issues"
(Assuming the verdicts would affect anybody's vote anyway, which seems unlikely these days.)
Apparently the lawyer bringing the allegations has a good reputation - it's not the usual Trumpland baseless smear, there's a good chance there may be proof of wrongdoing.
Well, except that this is a lawyer accused breaking the law, so the irrelevancy of adultery to woodwork is not really a good analogy.
That link is not available in Europe. Do you have any others?
For the record, the lawyer bringing the allegations did so as part of representing Trump's alleged co-conspirator and former campaign official Michael Roman P01135821. To date we've seen all kinds of supposedly "reputable lawyers" argue all kinds of crazy and unfounded stuff (e.g. John Sauer) at the direction of their Trumpland clients. So far no evidence has been presented. It allegedly exists in a sealed file.
A cynical person might suspect this is an excuse to get to dig through Special Prosecutor Wade's divorce records looking for any dirt, even if it's not this specific dirt.
Thanks for that.
I follow a lot of the US stuff closely and hadn't caught this one. Now I know why: it's probably BS and not going anywhere.
It would potentially be grounds for resignation.
Trump will pull anything to delay and disrupt proceedings against him. Willis has been fearless and diligent in her service to the law and her unwillingness to care that Trump is (one of) the defendant(s). If she had to step down, it's possible that her successor would not be the same.
Given the apparent source, I would not be remotely surprised if there was nothing to see here. We will have to see.
AFZ
Thinking about the thread title, I cannot think of any other politician more deserving of trials and tribulations. Vile behaviour is his norm. What remains hard to believe is the loyalty and blindness of so many of his supporters.
This last point. I largely keep out of Trump discussions because I can't get my head around anyone not finding him utterly repulsive.
My problem with the attempted diagnoses is that the various lists of symptoms suppose a change in behaviour, whereas Trump's history suggests that a lot of the traits have always been a feature of his personality. I certainly wouldn't rule out mental degeneration but it's not a dead cert the way parts of the internet would have us believe.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/frontotemporal-dementia/symptoms/
Lamb Chopped
Here is a reasonable summary from the UK National Health Service website. For me, the more compelling evidence is his increasing tendency to muddle identities.
Frankly, I've never thought he was mentally fit for high office.