A bit of me doesn't want to load him with mental issues of any kind because that is the start of saying it wasn't really his fault. Besides, a non-professional trying to diagnose anything from what is reported on the internet is not likely to draw any sound conclusions.
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.
That is a good rule to apply in most circumstances. If a treatment plan is being formulated or someone is being involuntarily committed you want as close to absolute certainty of your diagnosis as possible.
But that's not what we're doing here. The question isn't whether Trump should be committed, it's whether he's mentally fit to be handed control of America's nuclear arsenal. A presidential campaign is more akin to a job interview than a medical examination. If someone at a more formal style of job interview were exhibiting the behavior we've seen from Trump on the campaign trail I don't think any of us would be surprised if that candidate wasn't hired.
Is he bad or is he mad? I think the answer is yes.
I’m not sure Mary Trump is a biased witness by the way. I think she has very good reasons for her critical opinions and has given them. And I don’t disparage her professional training.
Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro was sentenced to four months in prison Thursday for criminal contempt of Congress, with federal prosecutors saying he “thumbed his nose” at the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Navarro was convicted in September on two counts for refusing to testify and provide documents to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, which issued its report and dissolved in late 2022 after Republicans won control of the House.
The charge carried a mandatory minimum sentence of a month in prison.
My guess is Trump will declare the verdict "rigged" instead of his usual default move of claiming to barely know Navarro.
And he doesn't have to pay up till the appeals process is exhausted.
He does have to put the $83.3 million into a bond which he cannot touch through the appeals process, though.
And presumably when he says something else libellous it can all begin again and we can continue the experiment to find out just how big a penalty it takes to shut him up and/or bankrupt him.
I suppose insulting the judge, court, proceed8ngs and verdict are covered under 'freedom of speech'?
No, insulting the judge, the court and the proceedings while in court is grounds for contempt of court. I think the judge should have bound and gagged Trump during the proceedings. That is my personal opinion. The judge had more forbearance than I would have had.
I think (along with lots of people) that the judges are going way too easy on him. And yet--
I can see the value of saying "We bent over backwards to give this ^(%%*(!@$#!!! every possible benefit of the doubt, and he STILL came out guilty as sin." Or "liable as hell," depending on whether it's criminal or civil.
It makes it harder for him to appeal shit with any chance of winning.
I think he's itching to get thrown out, or held in contempt, to keep up his martyrdom schtick, and I think the judges know that. It only increases his popularity among his base.
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.
I am a clinical psychologist. If you look at videos of Trump from 30 years ago and compare them to how he presents now, there is very clear deterioration in cognitive functioning. You can't make a diagnosis based on that, but if I had a client showing those signs, I would be making a referral for a full neuropsychological assessment, and not expecting anything encouraging from it.
Then there is the narcissistic psychopathy thing, which a lot of quite respectable professionals have addressed in public forums, but I'll leave it for now.
I wouldn't venture anything definitive as regards cognitive functioning, but I watched episodes featuring Trump in The Apprentice in 2004 and the change in responsiveness and awareness is quite obvious. Back then he would have been following a script and came across as relatively contained, even if he was obnoxious and over-confident. He didn't seem unhinged or out of control.
His outlandish behaviour sense to be a part of his attraction to his faithful. And I'm not sure he listens to corrective voices, even if there are any around.
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises. All lies and jests? The faithful hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
Is it cowardice, or short term prudent self interest? Sir Humphrey Appleby in the UK comedy "Yes Prime Minister" described moral malleability as a characteristic of politicians. With honourable exceptions, that seems to resonate with a fair number across the Atlantic as well. Being far sighted and courageous can very easily lose you elections.
H
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises. All lies and jests? The faithful hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises.
Which Republicans are you thinking of, specifically?
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises.
Which Republicans are you thinking of, specifically?
Hard to be sure. CNN reporters (and others in the media) have observed many times that many GOP Senators and House Reps will speak privately and critically about Donald Trump but never want to be quoted and will never repeat their criticism in public. Those who have come out (eg Kinzinger, Romney) are thought to be the tip of the iceberg but I’m not clear about how much is below the water. Trump has power because of his loyal support. That includes the power to silence.
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises. All lies and jests? The faithful hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
They tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.
I commented on this strategy back in August on another thread. This was a reasonable strategy in 2016 when Trump was a new and baffling phenomenon. In 2024 it's just lazy.
I suppose insulting the judge, court, proceed8ngs and verdict are covered under 'freedom of speech'?
No, insulting the judge, the court and the proceedings while in court is grounds for contempt of court. I think the judge should have bound and gagged Trump during the proceedings. That is my personal opinion. The judge had more forbearance than I would have had.
With all due respect, @Gramps49, the judge also had a better sense of what is permissible and what could be seen—particularly by an appeals court, as @Lamb Chopped observed—as infringing on Trump’s rights as a defendant.
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises. All lies and jests? The faithful hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
They tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.
I commented on this strategy back in August on another thread. This was a reasonable strategy in 2016 when Trump was a new and baffling phenomenon. In 2024 it's just lazy.
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises. All lies and jests? The faithful hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
They tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.
I commented on this strategy back in August on another thread. This was a reasonable strategy in 2016 when Trump was a new and baffling phenomenon. In 2024 it's just lazy.
That’s very helpful. It may just be lazy rather than prudent self preservation.
Returning to Ruth’s point, it is of course possible that the House Reps are, substantially, Trump true believers and/or self-interested fellow travellers. I was in my early youth when McCarthy exerted his baleful influence on American political life, but a sane voice or two broke the spell. Maybe I’m an optimist in believing there may be some Republicans who are wanting to go post-Trump?
I suppose insulting the judge, court, proceed8ngs and verdict are covered under 'freedom of speech'?
No, insulting the judge, the court and the proceedings while in court is grounds for contempt of court. I think the judge should have bound and gagged Trump during the proceedings. That is my personal opinion. The judge had more forbearance than I would have had.
With all due respect, @Gramps49, the judge also had a better sense of what is permissible and what could be seen—particularly by an appeals court, as @Lamb Chopped observed—as infringing on Trump’s rights as a defendant.
Other than the first sentence of my reply was a personal opinion, which I identified as such. As it was, the judge sharply limited what he could say in the defense. Just yes and no answers from what I understand. I wonder what would have happened if Trump had gone beyond the parameters.
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?
Picking up on the wording and history of the Disqualification Clause of the XIV Amendment . . .
Somewhere in the neighborhood of four dozen amici curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs have been filed with SCOTUS in the appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court. Many are from various Republican elected officials. But given the self-identification of some of the Court’s most conservative members as “originalists,” I found this friend-of-the-court brief particularly interesting.
It was submitted by four historians, all of whom have won either a Pulitzer Prize, a Bancroft Prize, or both, who state:
Amici’s interest in this appeal arises from the gravity of the case before the Court and the necessity of grounding any decision in a proper historical understanding of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. As eminent American historians with expertise in the relevant era, actors, and events, amici are well qualified to assist the Court by establishing the original intent, meaning, and public understanding of the Disqualification Clause.
The brief details the history of the Disqualification Clause and deals, directly or indirectly, with some of the arguments being put forward in light of that history:
Was the Disqualification Clause intended to apply only to those who participated in the Confederacy? No, the history of the Clause and the recorded debates establish beyond any doubt that it was intended and understood to have permanent, ongoing applicability.
Is a conviction or other judicial determination required before the Clause can be invoked? No, the Clause was intended to be self-executing, and the historical record establishes that it was understood in the Reconstruction period to be self-executing.
Is the presidency an “office” within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause? Yes, there was documented concern that absent the Disqualification Clause, Jefferson Davis could run for any office, including POTUS.
I also took note of the way that the background for the Disqualification Clause was, in part, framed:
When Abraham Lincoln was elected on November 6, 1860, many Democrats in the South refused to accept the outcome. “The election of Lincoln is the dissolution of the Union,” a Charleston, South Carolina, newspaper announced, urging citizens, “the sooner we arm and organize the better.” . . .
In Washington, on the day slated for the Electoral College certificates to be counted at the Capitol, a pro-southern mob assembled and there were fears of what the New York Times described as “plots to take the city, blow up the public buildings, and prevent the inauguration of Lincoln.”
The historians are also careful to note that “[t]he Republican framers of the [XIV] Amendment believed that anything short of the disqualification of insurrectionists risked surrendering the government to anti-Constitutionalist rebels.”
It’s a good read if anyone has the interest and the time. I wish I had faith that the so-called “originalists” on the Court won’t brush the history aside.
The historians are also careful to note that “[t]he Republican framers of the [XIV] Amendment believed that anything short of the disqualification of insurrectionists risked surrendering the government to anti-Constitutionalist rebels.”
Interestingly the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment didn't ban all insurrectionists from holding government office. They limited themselves to insurrectionists who were prior office holders who had sworn oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution and subsequently violated those oaths by trying to overthrow the government (a.k.a. insurrection).
With all the delays in pending court trails for the Donald, there is one that is still on course to start on March 25, in New York District Court. It stems from Donald paying Stormy Daniels hush money for his affair with her. This is a case of Election Interference in that Trump was trying to deprive voters of critical information in the 2016 presidential election. This is a state case, so it really does not have to wait on Federal rulings regarding presidential immunity. It started before he was elected to the office and continued while in office.
Hold onto your hats. The fun is about to begin in about six weeks.
This just in: Federal Appeals Court rules against Trump in immunity case. Court rejects claim that Trump is immune from prosecution for actions taken while president. I am sure @Crœsos will have more information.
Trump still has two options. He can ask the full Court of Appeals to review the decision. or he can appeal directly to SCOTUS. The thought is the Court of Appeals will quickly uphold the decision. It is very unlikely he can ger five votes on the Supreme Court.
BTW, on Thursday the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Colorado decision to ban Trump from the primary ballot. Arguments are sceduled to begin at 10:00 AM EST, It will be livesteamed.
For those who are interested the full (unanimous!) opinion can be found here. The key bit is on page 3.
For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.
So in some senses a narrow decision that doesn't rule on the immunity of a sitting president, but on the other hand a fairly sweeping ruling that there is no such thing as ex-presidential immunity.
For those who prefer journalistic accounts to fifty-seven page long court opinions, here is a link to CNN's account of today's ruling.
Trump still has two options. He can ask the full Court of Appeals to review the decision. or he can appeal directly to SCOTUS. The thought is the Court of Appeals will quickly uphold the decision. It is very unlikely he can ger five votes on the Supreme Court.
My guess is he'll start with an appeal to the en banc court. His strategy isn't to make plausible legal arguments, it's to delay the proceedings as much as possible. He'll pick the process that has two steps over the process that has one. We'll see if the court recognizes this and acts appropriately.
Trump still has two options. He can ask the full Court of Appeals to review the decision. or he can appeal directly to SCOTUS. The thought is the Court of Appeals will quickly uphold the decision. It is very unlikely he can ger five votes on the Supreme Court.
My guess is he'll start with an appeal to the en banc court. His strategy isn't to make plausible legal arguments, it's to delay the proceedings as much as possible. He'll pick the process that has two steps over the process that has one. We'll see if the court recognizes this and acts appropriately.
Indeed. Which means the key question is whether the prosecution can continue in the meantime. Has the Court of Appeal issued a stay pending further appeal?
My guess is he'll start with an appeal to the en banc court. His strategy isn't to make plausible legal arguments, it's to delay the proceedings as much as possible. He'll pick the process that has two steps over the process that has one. We'll see if the court recognizes this and acts appropriately.
Indeed. Which means the key question is whether the prosecution can continue in the meantime. Has the Court of Appeal issued a stay pending further appeal?
The court is giving Trump until February 12 to file an emergency stay request with the Supreme Court, which would stop the clock while his attorneys craft a more substantive appeal on the merits. If he is successful with that, the criminal trial will not resume until after the high court decides what to do with his request for a pause.
So what I'm getting from this (IANAL) is that the current stay will remain in place until Monday, unless Trump's lawyers successfully get the Supreme Court to issue its own stay.
BTW, on Thursday the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Colorado decision to ban Trump from the primary ballot. Arguments are scheduled to begin at 10:00 AM EST, It will be livestreamed.
Here's the final response brief [PDF] filed by Trump's legal team on the disqualification case. Their arguments are incredibly weak. For example, from pp. 22-23:
Anderson is also wrong to say that President Trump is “presently” disqualified from holding office. See Anderson Br. 48 (“Section 3 imposes a present disqualification”). Section 3 is a prohibition only on holding office, and Congress can waive this prohibition between now and the end of the next presidential term. So no court or litigant can declare that President Trump is “presently” disqualified from holding office without assuming or predicting that Congress will refuse to lift any section 3 disability that might apply. Anderson may believe or hope that Congress will not waive section 3 between now and January 20, 2029. But neither the Colorado Supreme Court nor this Court can declare a candidate ineligible for the presidency now based on a prediction of what Congress may or may not do in the future. Nor can a court deprive a presidential candidate of the opportunity to petition Congress for a waiver — especially when Congress is mostly likely to grant a waiver after the candidate has been elected, as its members will face political pressures to respect the will of the voters and allow the president-elect to take office. Anderson’s position would also allow a state to block a 34-year-old from the presidential ballot, even if that candidate will turn 35 before Inauguration Day, on the ground that he is “presently disqualified” from holding office. See Anderson Br. 50.
Italics from the original. Bolding added by me. Essentially the argument is that Trump can't be disqualified now because Congress might restore his ability to hold office in the future. If you see this as a way to prevent section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment from being applied to anyone ever, you win the prize. I guess this is the quality of legal argument you get when you have a reputation for stiffing your lawyers.
My guess is he'll start with an appeal to the en banc court. His strategy isn't to make plausible legal arguments, it's to delay the proceedings as much as possible. He'll pick the process that has two steps over the process that has one. We'll see if the court recognizes this and acts appropriately.
Indeed. Which means the key question is whether the prosecution can continue in the meantime. Has the Court of Appeal issued a stay pending further appeal?
The court is giving Trump until February 12 to file an emergency stay request with the Supreme Court, which would stop the clock while his attorneys craft a more substantive appeal on the merits. If he is successful with that, the criminal trial will not resume until after the high court decides what to do with his request for a pause.
So what I'm getting from this (IANAL) is that the current stay will remain in place until Monday, unless Trump's lawyers successfully get the Supreme Court to issue its own stay.
The U.S.Supreme Court has sometimes found against Trump or refused to take up cases involving Trump. It is hard to see any advantage to them in taking up this case. Of course, they may have motives other than what is to their own institutional advantage.
Trump still has two options. He can ask the full Court of Appeals to review the decision. or he can appeal directly to SCOTUS. The thought is the Court of Appeals will quickly uphold the decision. It is very unlikely he can ger five votes on the Supreme Court.
It only requires four votes for SCOTUS to take up the case.
The court is giving Trump until February 12 to file an emergency stay request with the Supreme Court, which would stop the clock while his attorneys craft a more substantive appeal on the merits. If he is successful with that, the criminal trial will not resume until after the high court decides what to do with his request for a pause.
So what I'm getting from this (IANAL) is that the current stay will remain in place until Monday, unless Trump's lawyers successfully get the Supreme Court to issue its own stay.
And, if SCOTUS refuses to grant a stay?
The trial moves forward at the district court level. I think (though I have not seen the order yet and IANAL) that it does an end run around Trump's ability to appeal for an en banc hearing by the appeals court. Or rather, it forces him to choose between appealing directly to the Supreme Court and (maybe) getting a stay, or appealing to the full appeals court and having the district court start proceedings again.
Trump still has two options. He can ask the full Court of Appeals to review the decision. or he can appeal directly to SCOTUS. The thought is the Court of Appeals will quickly uphold the decision. It is very unlikely he can ger five votes on the Supreme Court.
It only requires four votes for SCOTUS to take up the case.
I was talking about him getting a majority of the votes to overturn the Court of Appeals decision.
Trump still has two options. He can ask the full Court of Appeals to review the decision. or he can appeal directly to SCOTUS. The thought is the Court of Appeals will quickly uphold the decision. It is very unlikely he can ger five votes on the Supreme Court.
It only requires four votes for SCOTUS to take up the case.
I was talking about him getting a majority of the votes to overturn the Court of Appeals decision.
Trump's legal arguments in the immunity case are incredibly weak. I can't see even this court going along with them. The real question is whether they'll find a way to allow Trump to "run out the clock" with enough delays to push the trial past the November election. That seems a more plausible path for them to take, assuming they feel like throwing Trump a lifeline.
For those who are interested, the audio livestream of arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump's ballot disqualification case can be found here.
I listened to the plaintiff's oral argument; but could not listen to the counterarguments. However, reviews sound like the court is moving to consensus that a state cannot individually disqualify a candidate.
However, this may not end until after the general election.
Sounds like they will try to kick the can down the road.
I listened to the plaintiff's oral argument; but could not listen to the counterarguments. However, reviews sound like the court is moving to consensus that a state cannot individually disqualify a candidate.
However, this may not end until after the general election.
Sounds like they will try to kick the can down the road.
The Supreme Court will typically adjourn sometime in late June or early July, so all court business has to be wrapped up by then. If they wait that long their ruling will happen after all the primaries are over. For reasons like this, most election-related lawsuits are typically decided fairly quickly.
Colorado's primary is on March 5. The state also votes entirely by mail, so there are the logistical challenges of printing and sending out the ballots. The Supreme Court is, of course, bound by none of these factors, but a serious institution would at least take them into account.
I think the Court has said it will quickly rule on the question.
Here is a hypothetical. The court rules states cannot disqualify a candidate, but Congress can disqualify whoever is elected by a 2/3 vote. As if that will happen given the divisions in it. Might make Jan 6, 2021 look like a picnic.
Comments
That is a good rule to apply in most circumstances. If a treatment plan is being formulated or someone is being involuntarily committed you want as close to absolute certainty of your diagnosis as possible.
But that's not what we're doing here. The question isn't whether Trump should be committed, it's whether he's mentally fit to be handed control of America's nuclear arsenal. A presidential campaign is more akin to a job interview than a medical examination. If someone at a more formal style of job interview were exhibiting the behavior we've seen from Trump on the campaign trail I don't think any of us would be surprised if that candidate wasn't hired.
I’m not sure Mary Trump is a biased witness by the way. I think she has very good reasons for her critical opinions and has given them. And I don’t disparage her professional training.
My guess is Trump will declare the verdict "rigged" instead of his usual default move of claiming to barely know Navarro.
He does have to put the $83.3 million into a bond which he cannot touch through the appeals process, though.
And presumably when he says something else libellous it can all begin again and we can continue the experiment to find out just how big a penalty it takes to shut him up and/or bankrupt him.
No, insulting the judge, the court and the proceedings while in court is grounds for contempt of court. I think the judge should have bound and gagged Trump during the proceedings. That is my personal opinion. The judge had more forbearance than I would have had.
I can see the value of saying "We bent over backwards to give this ^(%%*(!@$#!!! every possible benefit of the doubt, and he STILL came out guilty as sin." Or "liable as hell," depending on whether it's criminal or civil.
It makes it harder for him to appeal shit with any chance of winning.
I am a clinical psychologist. If you look at videos of Trump from 30 years ago and compare them to how he presents now, there is very clear deterioration in cognitive functioning. You can't make a diagnosis based on that, but if I had a client showing those signs, I would be making a referral for a full neuropsychological assessment, and not expecting anything encouraging from it.
Then there is the narcissistic psychopathy thing, which a lot of quite respectable professionals have addressed in public forums, but I'll leave it for now.
I think those in the GOP who see his nonsense for what its worth are, mostly, making a political calculation that he will self destruct, so they don't have to take the responsibility in front of his faithful by making critical warning noises. All lies and jests? The faithful hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
Is it cowardice, or short term prudent self interest? Sir Humphrey Appleby in the UK comedy "Yes Prime Minister" described moral malleability as a characteristic of politicians. With honourable exceptions, that seems to resonate with a fair number across the Atlantic as well. Being far sighted and courageous can very easily lose you elections.
They tried that in 2016 and it didn't work.
AFZ
Which Republicans are you thinking of, specifically?
I commented on this strategy back in August on another thread. This was a reasonable strategy in 2016 when Trump was a new and baffling phenomenon. In 2024 it's just lazy.
That’s very helpful. It may just be lazy rather than prudent self preservation.
Returning to Ruth’s point, it is of course possible that the House Reps are, substantially, Trump true believers and/or self-interested fellow travellers. I was in my early youth when McCarthy exerted his baleful influence on American political life, but a sane voice or two broke the spell. Maybe I’m an optimist in believing there may be some Republicans who are wanting to go post-Trump?
Other than the first sentence of my reply was a personal opinion, which I identified as such. As it was, the judge sharply limited what he could say in the defense. Just yes and no answers from what I understand. I wonder what would have happened if Trump had gone beyond the parameters.
Eight years. Dear God. Technically nine if we count his escalator announcement in 2015.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of four dozen amici curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs have been filed with SCOTUS in the appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court. Many are from various Republican elected officials. But given the self-identification of some of the Court’s most conservative members as “originalists,” I found this friend-of-the-court brief particularly interesting.
It was submitted by four historians, all of whom have won either a Pulitzer Prize, a Bancroft Prize, or both, who state:
The brief details the history of the Disqualification Clause and deals, directly or indirectly, with some of the arguments being put forward in light of that history:
- Was the Disqualification Clause intended to apply only to those who participated in the Confederacy? No, the history of the Clause and the recorded debates establish beyond any doubt that it was intended and understood to have permanent, ongoing applicability.
- Is a conviction or other judicial determination required before the Clause can be invoked? No, the Clause was intended to be self-executing, and the historical record establishes that it was understood in the Reconstruction period to be self-executing.
- Is the presidency an “office” within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause? Yes, there was documented concern that absent the Disqualification Clause, Jefferson Davis could run for any office, including POTUS.
I also took note of the way that the background for the Disqualification Clause was, in part, framed: The historians are also careful to note that “[t]he Republican framers of the [XIV] Amendment believed that anything short of the disqualification of insurrectionists risked surrendering the government to anti-Constitutionalist rebels.”It’s a good read if anyone has the interest and the time. I wish I had faith that the so-called “originalists” on the Court won’t brush the history aside.
Interestingly the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment didn't ban all insurrectionists from holding government office. They limited themselves to insurrectionists who were prior office holders who had sworn oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution and subsequently violated those oaths by trying to overthrow the government (a.k.a. insurrection).
Same here. If an "originalist" can find the intention to stop election recounts in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment then "originalism" is worthless as an interpretive framework.
For a system of interpretation that supposedly relies so heavily on history, "originalist" judges are terrible historians.
Hold onto your hats. The fun is about to begin in about six weeks.
For more information.
BTW, on Thursday the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Colorado decision to ban Trump from the primary ballot. Arguments are sceduled to begin at 10:00 AM EST, It will be livesteamed.
So in some senses a narrow decision that doesn't rule on the immunity of a sitting president, but on the other hand a fairly sweeping ruling that there is no such thing as ex-presidential immunity.
For those who prefer journalistic accounts to fifty-seven page long court opinions, here is a link to CNN's account of today's ruling.
My guess is he'll start with an appeal to the en banc court. His strategy isn't to make plausible legal arguments, it's to delay the proceedings as much as possible. He'll pick the process that has two steps over the process that has one. We'll see if the court recognizes this and acts appropriately.
Indeed. Which means the key question is whether the prosecution can continue in the meantime. Has the Court of Appeal issued a stay pending further appeal?
AFZ
From the CNN article:
So what I'm getting from this (IANAL) is that the current stay will remain in place until Monday, unless Trump's lawyers successfully get the Supreme Court to issue its own stay.
Here's the final response brief [PDF] filed by Trump's legal team on the disqualification case. Their arguments are incredibly weak. For example, from pp. 22-23:
Italics from the original. Bolding added by me. Essentially the argument is that Trump can't be disqualified now because Congress might restore his ability to hold office in the future. If you see this as a way to prevent section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment from being applied to anyone ever, you win the prize. I guess this is the quality of legal argument you get when you have a reputation for stiffing your lawyers.
Vox has a breakdown of all the arguments and their apparent weaknesses.
And, if SCOTUS refuses to grant a stay?
The trial moves forward at the district court level. I think (though I have not seen the order yet and IANAL) that it does an end run around Trump's ability to appeal for an en banc hearing by the appeals court. Or rather, it forces him to choose between appealing directly to the Supreme Court and (maybe) getting a stay, or appealing to the full appeals court and having the district court start proceedings again.
I was talking about him getting a majority of the votes to overturn the Court of Appeals decision.
Trump's legal arguments in the immunity case are incredibly weak. I can't see even this court going along with them. The real question is whether they'll find a way to allow Trump to "run out the clock" with enough delays to push the trial past the November election. That seems a more plausible path for them to take, assuming they feel like throwing Trump a lifeline.
However, this may not end until after the general election.
Sounds like they will try to kick the can down the road.
The Supreme Court will typically adjourn sometime in late June or early July, so all court business has to be wrapped up by then. If they wait that long their ruling will happen after all the primaries are over. For reasons like this, most election-related lawsuits are typically decided fairly quickly.
Colorado's primary is on March 5. The state also votes entirely by mail, so there are the logistical challenges of printing and sending out the ballots. The Supreme Court is, of course, bound by none of these factors, but a serious institution would at least take them into account.
Here is a hypothetical. The court rules states cannot disqualify a candidate, but Congress can disqualify whoever is elected by a 2/3 vote. As if that will happen given the divisions in it. Might make Jan 6, 2021 look like a picnic.