Donald J Trump: Rip Van Winkle edition

DIDNT WATCH LOL

6 Likes

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755647384128790591?t=af-qd3bgYnGiVWQZobcCng&s=19

I believe Thomas was first off the blocks today.

https://x.com/NormEisen/status/1755610928597614963?s=20

All those pelosi fans were carrying trump flags and demanding trump be installed as president as part of a frame-up. Trump had nothing to do with it!

4 Likes

It was an insurrection. He admit it!

7 Likes

Guess it’s gonna be up to voters to decide if they want to elect an insurrectionist

:harold:

6 Likes

For those of us who may have failed to pay full attention, this Elie Mystal thread is pretty good.

Summary

Here we go. Trump v. Anderson live tweet thread:

Jonathan Mitchell out here making the claim that the President is not an officer of the united states.

Thomas wants to talk about whether S-3 is “self executing.” The conservative argument here is that Congress has to pass a law implementing section 3, as opposed to it just being a thing.

Mitchell is saying that Trump should be able to run even if he can’t hold the office, because Congress can remove the insurrectionists disability (by 2/3rds of a vote) after he wins if they want to.

Roberts seems skeptical. Sotomayor is pointing out that, much as Thomas might want to make it a thing, trying to make the 14th A non-self executing makes no sense. Mitchell was forced to agree with her on that point.

Kagan: “you’re not making a constitutional argument, you’re making a statutory pre-emption argument… is that right?”

So, one of the fun things about the Trump argument is that it’s actually not grounded in constitutional law.

Barret joined in. Mitchell had to admit that the constitutional arguments don’t get him to where he wants to go, or keep Trump on the ballot.

Alito to the rescue, restating Mitchell’s argument for him since he was flailing.

Sotomayor brings up the Gorsuch case, where Gorsuch excluded a person for not being a natural born citizen.

Mitchell says that’s different because Congress cannot remove the disability.

Jackson is having none of it. “Why does the fact that you can be excused from the category makes you not in the category.”

Mitchell says that Congress’s ability to remove the insurrection disability as “something akin to a pardon power”… I don’t see how that helps him. Like… even Alito doesn’t seem to see how that helps him.

So, what’s happening here is what happened in the briefs. Mitchell’s case is, shockingly weak. And the conservatives are struggling to see how his arguments get them where they want to go.

We are now into what Kagan called “the officer stuff.” This is probably what the case is going to turn on, and that’s said because it’s the dumbest thing.

I can’t tell is Jackson was buying the officer stuff or is baiting Mitchell to make a coherent argument about the officer stuff.

It’s hard to tell because Mitchell is doing so poorly right now.

Gorsuch: Much hinges on your distinction between office, and officer. What evidence do you have that two terms so closely related should be given such different weight?

Gorsuch: Is there anything in the original history, drafting, that would show why that distinction should have such profound weight?

Mitchell: “Not really”

Me: [Audible laughs]
Not gonna lie: this is harder for me to follow than most because Mitchell is doing so bad that when the justices are going at him I can’t tell if it’s because they agree, disagree, or are literally just asking him “WHAT IN THE GODDAMN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, HOMIE??”

Kagan: given that you don’t have a lot of evidence that the founding generation that they thought a lot about officer versus offices, perhaps we should ask why they would have made such a thing?

Mitchell: I don’t have a good reason.

This is amazing-bad. :)
This whole thing is like:
Court: Why don’t you make this argument?|
Mitchell: Cause it’s not good for us.
Court: Do you have any evidence for this?
Mitchell: Not really.

Kavanaugh has so far been the closest to “why does Colorado get to call him an insurrectionist???”

Barrett finally asks the due process question, which i thought would be a bigger deal. The argument that Trump didn’t have due process before being declared an insurrectionists.

Mitchell: “winning on due process really doesn’t do as much for our client as other arguments”
Just. wow.

Okay folks, WARNING… KBJ Is totally buying this officer shit. Jesus effing Christ.
Please God let this NOT be fucking happening right now.

Jason Murray up now, representing the people trying to get Trump off the ballot. We should learn more about where the justices are leaning from this part, I think, just because he won’t be as scattered as Mitchell was.

Thomas arguing that states don’t disqualify candidates, he’s saying that only the federal government can exclude national candidates.

Roberts now chiming in: “Whole point of 14th A was to restrict state power.” …“Wouldn’t it be the last place you’d look to, the states, to enforce the presidential election process?”

For those playing along at home, Thomas, and Roberts, who think the states have the right to prevent pregnant people from receiving health care and make it harder for poor people and Blacks to vote… suddenly think that the states maybe don’t have a lot of power after all.

Now Kavanaugh chiming in. Same song.
Folks, this is going to be the holding. Section 3 is self executing but states DON’T have the power to enforce section 3 for… reasons.

Now Kagan joining: “Why does one state get to decide who gets to be president of the United States?” These seem to be national issues.

Barrett: If we affirmed and we said he was ineligible to be president, other states would probably follow. And you say we have to review the colorado record… and it just doesn’t seem like a state’s call.

Me [whispering]: “Now watch the strength of Chancellor Valorum fail.”

Now Gorsuch is saying that the disability can be removed, so the state’s not allowed to enforce the 14th A.

This is the point that Mitchell was trying to make but very poorly. But, against a competent lawyer, it’s easier for Gorsuch to tip his hand.

Roberts: what do you do with the plain consequences of this decision? If Colorado is upheld… a goodly number of states will say “whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot”

Ah yes, Republicans acting in bad faith is what the law is really about.

Roberts now worrying about all the candidates who might commit insurrection.
“Other states may have different views about what constitutes an insurrection. And we’d have to develop rules about what constitutes insurrection.”

Murray: YES!
Me: IT’S KIND OF PART OF YOUR JOB
Kavanaugh has evidently read one case and it’s the only thing he can think about. It’s, like his whole personality now.

Alito, who should know, is now talking about other bad faith things that Republicans might do.

I really hate that Republicans acting like assholes is used as A REASON for Republicans on the Court to ignore the law. It’s circular and maddening.

If I was @Redistrict I’d be at the “I’ve seen enough” phase. Trump wins 9-0.

But I’ll stay here just to make fun of these people for another hour and a half.

@Redistrict Gorsuch is spinning out something about how a sitting president who committed insurrection should still be able to give orders I have no idea how this has anything to do with anything, and neither does Murray. But Gorsuch is being pissy so we all have to sit here till he’s done

@Redistrict Jackson is worried about the lack of uniformity, with different states saying different candidates are ineligible. She doesn’t think the framers would have designed such a thing.

She’s gone, folks. I suppose… Sotomayor could still be holding out but… this is done.

@Redistrict Sorry folks, Alito is asking a hypothetical and I think it’s not that different from what Kagan and Jackson have been asking, but he’s doing it in such an asshole way I can’t be bothered to translate it from Mordor to English.

@Redistrict Essentially, I think he’s arguing that Trump isn’t an insurrectionist. But, like, whatever, it’s not really what the case is turning on.

@Redistrict If I were in the mood to be a really curmudgeon, this might be where I point out that Merrick Garland/Jack Smith not charging Trump with insurrection or treason probably made this whole attempt DOA. But, that’s milk that was spilled a long time ago.

@Redistrict Kagan and Jackson have done so much of a better job making Trump’s case than Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Mitchell. Once again: women >> Texas assholes who take away abortion rights.

@Redistrict Murray: “Some states may allow insurrectionists to be on the ballot… that’s just a function of the state’s power to govern their own elections.”

Yeah, boss, that’s exactly what Kagan and Jackson are worried about.

@Redistrict Should I order a Bloody Mary or a Mimosa from room service?

@Redistrict Kav now bringing up the due process argument. Only the second mention of it so far. They really don’t give a crap about it.

@Redistrict Kavanaugh now directly on about Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection. And he’s pretty much saying that if he had been, and he was convicted, he’d be off the ballot.

So… [deep fucking sigh] I do in fact agree with Kavanaugh about that.

@Redistrict Kav “What about the idea that we should think about democracy?”

First of all, what a dumb way to phrase this question.

Second: Kav’s whole bit here is “I read the WSJ while the other justices were talking and came up with some more questions”

@Redistrict Jackson’s main point is that section 3 was trying to stop “the south from rising again” in their local and senate elections, but not about presidential elections.

Again, KBJ is all in on this “President is not an officer” thing. Big win for this conservatives here.

@Redistrict I really think this is the weakest argument available, and she’s all for it. I’m so sad. “President is not the list.”

SO THE FUCK WHAT? Jeff Davis is clearly covered.

@Redistrict Colorado solicitor general arguing now.

If anything, all I’m listening for now is how they’re going to force Trump back on the Maine ballot, as well as Colorado.

@Redistrict Alito driving at this now

@Redistrict WHERE WAS ALL THIS SKEPTICISM ABOUT STATE’S POWER TO MAKE ELECTORAL RULES THAT ARE NOT UNIFORM WITH OTHER STATES WHEN STATES MAKE VOTER ID LAWS AND CUT OFF EARLY VOTING YOU HYPOCRITICAL JERKS??

@Redistrict Five stages of Elie grief

  1. Cynicism
  2. Anger
  3. Alcoholism
  4. FURIOUS ANGER
  5. Crushing depression.

Entering stage four pretty hard here.

@Redistrict Kagan now saying that 14th A is completely different from 22nd A (which bars President from seeking a third term).

@Redistrict Mitchell back for final rebuttal. When I say oral arguments don’t matter, it’s because of things like this: Mitchell was so bad the justices had to make up arguments for him. But him being bad has no effect on the final ruling because the justices made up their minds weeks ago.

@Redistrict The case is submitted. I think it’s 9-0 Trump on the ballot. I’m going to scream into the void and then write.

Thank you all for joining me on yet another journey of “How Democracies Die” that took an unexpected detour into “Why Democrats Fail”

5 Likes

I don’t get it tbh, seems like states preventing accused “insurrectionists” from election eligibility is a bad thing. Is everyone rooting for this because Trump?

There is no air quotes here. He did the thing on live tv

2 Likes

Hey, thats what I said

1 Like

You could have just said yes, you’re rooting for this because Trump.

This isn’t going to stop fascists. It’s just going to be used as ammunition against leftists, because socialism or communism will = insurrection/sedition (as it has in the past).

Jackson with an absolute fail

Also need to establish what the due process is for determining an insurrection has taken place.

Yeah, Im sorry, but just because cucklord Garland wouldnt charge him with insurrection doesnt mean it didnt happen. The states aren’t making up what we saw willy-nilly. They have evidence.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court need not look far for answers to these questions. They can simply look across the street at the Capitol, where majorities of both chambers of Congress already found that January 6 was an insurrection and that Trump not only engaged in it but “incited” it.

This may come as a shock. When, one might ask, did Congress ever hold such votes?

Those votes came in the second impeachment of Trump, in January and February of 2021, in which majorities of both the House and the Senate backed an article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

LOL

https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1755626125848457285?t=_3eYXNpColFeTeyarYvs5A&s=19

Basically sums up how the argument went, imo.

1 Like

The immunity argument is out the window for today.

https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1755739333494255684?s=20