2024 Election

[Bubba]

No no no. Under Trump we had the most secure border in all of history. Just ask him.

He's truly a God. He made Taylor Swift a billionaire even

He parted the East River and built in Manhattan. He turned an Atlantic City casino’s ink from black to red. And he’s turned a number of his employees into inmates. He can do it all.

[easyrider16]

Sheesh, talk about easy marks...

Roughly a third of Republicans believe in a "covert government effort" for Taylor Swift to help President Biden win the 2024 presidential race, new polling reveals.

Why it matters: The conspiracy theory is one of many that Republicans embrace about nefarious "covert government efforts" related to anything from elections to criminal indictments against former President Trump.

By the numbers: While nearly three-quarters of adults do not believe that a "covert government effort" exists, 18% do, according to a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

Among the 18% of believers include 32% of Republicans, 18% of independents and 6% of Democrats.
Meanwhile, the 73% of nonbelievers comprise 89% of Democrats, 72% of independents and 57% of Republicans.

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/14/taylor ... party-poll

[XtremeJibber2001]

Sheesh, talk about easy marks...

Roughly a third of Republicans believe in a "covert government effort" for Taylor Swift to help President Biden win the 2024 presidential race, new polling reveals.

Why it matters: The conspiracy theory is one of many that Republicans embrace about nefarious "covert government efforts" related to anything from elections to criminal indictments against former President Trump.

By the numbers: While nearly three-quarters of adults do not believe that a "covert government effort" exists, 18% do, according to a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

Among the 18% of believers include 32% of Republicans, 18% of independents and 6% of Democrats.
Meanwhile, the 73% of nonbelievers comprise 89% of Democrats, 72% of independents and 57% of Republicans.

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/14/taylor ... party-poll

Seems to align with studies, which suggest the following types of people are likely to engage in conspiracy ideation:

- Perceiving threat and danger
- Relying on intuition and having odd beliefs and experiences
- Being antagonistic and feeling superior.

Fox News, OAN and Newsmax plants seeds for the above, waters the seeds, and what you grow is a modern day Republican.

[easyrider16]

Marjorie Taylor Greene has been chosen by House Republicans as one of the impeachment managers. I guess if you're going to put on a clown show, you might as well put your biggest clown in charge of it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ma ... r-BB1ijQzE

[XtremeJibber2001]

Marjorie Taylor Greene has been chosen by House Republicans as one of the impeachment managers. I guess if you're going to put on a clown show, you might as well put your biggest clown in charge of it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ma ... r-BB1ijQzE

GOP is just giving her some scraps to keep her happy ... no way does this go to trial in the Senate.

[XtremeJibber2001]

SCOTUS grants cert. Wild.

SCOTUS sits on it for weeks and now arguments will start in April.

Is there any Trump trial scheduled to wrap up before November? Starting to look like a no.

[easyrider16]

Eh, it's not that wild. I can see the judges on SCOTUS thinking this is such an important issue that it merits their attention. Taking weeks to decide to grant cert is actually pretty fast by their reckoning, and setting deadlines for briefs in three weeks and oral arguments in April is a pretty aggressive schedule.

That said, expensive lawyers are really good at creating delay. There's still a chance this case goes to trial before the election, as the SCOTUS decision should be out by June, but it's looking less and less likely now. On the other hand, it would be a worst-case scenario for Trump if the trial started in August or September when he really needs to be on the campaign trail.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Eh, it's not that wild. I can see the judges on SCOTUS thinking this is such an important issue that it merits their attention. Taking weeks to decide to grant cert is actually pretty fast by their reckoning, and setting deadlines for briefs in three weeks and oral arguments in April is a pretty aggressive schedule.

That said, expensive lawyers are really good at creating delay. There's still a chance this case goes to trial before the election, as the SCOTUS decision should be out by June, but it's looking less and less likely now. On the other hand, it would be a worst-case scenario for Trump if the trial started in August or September when he really needs to be on the campaign trail.

Isn't there a chance SCOTUS just sends it back down to the lower court asking them to assert whether Trump's acts on Jan 6 are covered under 'an official act'?

[easyrider16]

My guess is they will render an opinion that discusses the key legal issues for the immunity argument, and instruct the trial court to proceed based on their opinion. Then the case gets scheduled for trial, and if convicted, Trump will appeal again. All told, this case won't be fully wrapped up until well after the election.

Long and short of it is, Trump likely makes it to the election as a candidate. If democrats want to beat him, they'll have to beat him at the ballot box.

[Low Rider]

Took the opportunity to vote early today.

Chose the republican ballot and voted for Haley.

[easyrider16]

As expected, SCOTUS reverses CO Supreme Court on whether they can disqualify Trump. Taking a quick look at the decision, it seems to be entirely based on the thesis that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The per curiam (unanimous) part of the decision stops there and doesn't weigh in on questions of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, etc. The concurring opinions talk about the mechanisms of how Congress can enforce Section 3, but to me it's all kind of moot because it will never happen in real life.

Here's a link to the decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

[boston_e]

Filled in the bubble for Haley and the non-Maga committee candidates this morning.

[XtremeJibber2001]

As expected, SCOTUS reverses CO Supreme Court on whether they can disqualify Trump. Taking a quick look at the decision, it seems to be entirely based on the thesis that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The per curiam (unanimous) part of the decision stops there and doesn't weigh in on questions of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, etc. The concurring opinions talk about the mechanisms of how Congress can enforce Section 3, but to me it's all kind of moot because it will never happen in real life.

Here's a link to the decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

With this ruling, what's the difference now between Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the Impeachment Clause?

[easyrider16]

As expected, SCOTUS reverses CO Supreme Court on whether they can disqualify Trump. Taking a quick look at the decision, it seems to be entirely based on the thesis that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The per curiam (unanimous) part of the decision stops there and doesn't weigh in on questions of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, etc. The concurring opinions talk about the mechanisms of how Congress can enforce Section 3, but to me it's all kind of moot because it will never happen in real life.

Here's a link to the decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

With this ruling, what's the difference now between Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the Impeachment Clause?

It's a different mechanism. The way it's written, section 3 says the person is disqualified if they participated, aided, or abetted rebellion, but it says nothing about how that's determined or who gets to enforce it. It only says that congress by 2/3 majority can remove the disability. All this SCOTUS decision does is say a state can't enforce it.

It seems to me there are only two ways this section can be enforced after this ruling - either via a Federal court lawsuit or an act of Congress. In theory a candidate could sue another candidate and ask the Federal District Court to find they engaged in rebellion and insurrection, and therefore should be disqualified. I highly doubt a Federal court would do that - they'd probably say it's a nonjusticiable political question.

Congress could act to enforce section 3, but it's not entirely clear whether that would only require a simple majority or a 2/3 majority. Congress could theoretically pass legislation that creates a mechanism for enforcing section 3. I doubt any of this will ever happen, though.

[XtremeJibber2001]

As expected, SCOTUS reverses CO Supreme Court on whether they can disqualify Trump. Taking a quick look at the decision, it seems to be entirely based on the thesis that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The per curiam (unanimous) part of the decision stops there and doesn't weigh in on questions of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, etc. The concurring opinions talk about the mechanisms of how Congress can enforce Section 3, but to me it's all kind of moot because it will never happen in real life.

Here's a link to the decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

With this ruling, what's the difference now between Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the Impeachment Clause?

It's a different mechanism. The way it's written, section 3 says the person is disqualified if they participated, aided, or abetted rebellion, but it says nothing about how that's determined or who gets to enforce it. It only says that congress by 2/3 majority can remove the disability. All this SCOTUS decision does is say a state can't enforce it.

It seems to me there are only two ways this section can be enforced after this ruling - either via a Federal court lawsuit or an act of Congress. In theory a candidate could sue another candidate and ask the Federal District Court to find they engaged in rebellion and insurrection, and therefore should be disqualified. I highly doubt a Federal court would do that - they'd probably say it's a political question.

Congress could act to enforce section 3, but it's not entirely clear whether that would only require a simple majority or a 2/3 majority. Congress could theoretically pass legislation that creates a mechanism for enforcing section 3. I doubt any of this will ever happen, though.

Senate requires 2/3 majority to convict for impeachment. If convicted, it would bar the individual from running for office in the future. If SCOTUS felt a simple majority would be sufficient, don't we already have this with the insurrection impeachment (House: 232-197, Senate 57-43)? As a result, I assume SCOTUS would require a 2/3 majority.

Mechanism is different, but result is the same? Why would Congress waste time on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment if Impeachment Clause would have the same result?

Seems Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would never really be used now?