Part of my disquiet with the CO Supreme Court decision is the same as my disquiet with reactions to Mueller and then Jack Smith and all of the cases: the court system isn’t a deus ex machina that can save you from your electorate sucking. It’s not designed to.
Comments
If the provision isn't going to be enforced, it might be salutary at least for Trump to be made to publicly defend his conduct
i appreciate the stand CO took - hey, i live here - but it does seem like a 'so what?' moment. GOP is gonna burn stuff down anyway.
And they suck at it.
But I’m queasy about the portrayal of enforcing law as a “deus ex machina” and the implication we should not feel entitled to be protected by the Courts.
You are realism. I am idealism. It’s fine.
But because 50% of voters can just believe absolute lies, it's now a close call. I don't want to have to depend on the courts.
They have been, are, and will be angry regardless. But you cannot say this amendment of the Constitution does not apply and was not written for this purpose.
If he is on the ballot and loses, they will riot.
They riot either way. Why not enforce the constitution and the law?
But by the way, it did happen. And the dipshits still rioted. And the guy who led the riot has yet to suffer any consequence for that.
So we should also do consequences.
As they say.
Is this not exactly the problem that the layers of selection of the best men that the framers gave us was designed to combat?
That is not my preferred answer, but is there a better one?
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:elnkpk4lkgz6s63itucoo3jn/post/3kgwwd5bage2t
You do not want that world.
https://bsky.app/profile/paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3kgyvcwzwo42s
Or is it that sufficient legal barriers *cannot exist*?
"Oh yeah? Well we've got a court order that says you can't do that!"
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
We are either a nation of laws or we are not. If we do not hold Trump and those like him accountable under the law, then what exactly are we fighting to save?
people from being massacred?
It took another 100+ years for us to break down those protections (not that I think they'd help today given who's in state legislatures these days).
The problem isn't the document. It's the bad actors.
We’re having a “the institutions designed to subvert democracy, in the name of protecting us from the whims of the mob, turned out to be corruptible” problem.
He is saying that “whims of a mob” is not true because it is not frivolous, indulgent or narrow - that it is representative.
This isn't over. He's still out there.
Hot take—the way to solve this is to have parties pick their nominees instead of outsourcing it to the base.
They wouldn’t have in 2016 (probably), but they’re all in now!
In 2016, they were doing everything they could to stop him
It’s certainly not perfect, but hyper populists will have a much harder time getting through. The easy answers presented by people like Trump are harder to sell to people with some knowledge of political reality.
The crazy thing here in the US is Trump just said he was running as a Republican in 2015. The party didn’t even give him permission to join its primary.
To me, that’s insane.
Hillary Clinton could run as a Republican.
The politicized/vexatious thing is a double-edged sword. It presents opportunities to resolve issues that otherwise might not arise. Like presidential immunity for an insurrection.
He deserved counsel! And he deserved to be told he could have counsel! And he also, almost certainly, deserved his second conviction.
The combination of the lure of fascism, the incentives for media (clicks), and the design of our legal system to not step on the will of the voters... Yeah, not feeling optimistic over here
She did not word that well.
If a majority in a red state want it to suck, it’s going to suck. The 5th is basically your recourse.🤷♂️
If not the courts, who is supposed to enforce it? Because the other options are all more problematic.
Well, he'll run as a write-in, and instruct the GOP House to certify him winner (and certify themselves winners if Dems win the House elections). It won't be over.
But it'll still be a nasty struggle.
And it won't be fun until it's won.
This is another curtain around that structure being yanked down.
I do expect them to help expose how nakedly corrupt at least part of this political reality is, and potentially expose some of its own shortcomings while it goes about it.
A caveat being if SCOTUS kicks Trump to the curb, but that won’t happen.
“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes….Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
An oath is the same as a contract !
Because only the people bringing the case up are at fault.
Certainly not Trump.
* Laws may not be enacted as expected.
DOJ and IRS were not designed to be weaponized by the president. SCOTUS was not designed to be run by grifters. Yet we are where we are.
Do we allow Trump and his goons to weaponize things without response?
It's very important and yet its chances of affecting the election outcome are still fairly low.
If they actually held on the merits that he's disqualified (which they will not), and then most states let him stay on the ballot, what happens next?
Do we just... have an election on those terms? If he wins does he take office??
I wonder if there would be hydraulic pressure for a different approach
This is also why it's very likely the current court will find a way to deny it, despite obviousness
One of the *biggest* things that keeps dictators in check are other people who want power and also have access to that power. Any wannabe Trump needs to *remove* Trump first, and he's given them *plenty* of ammo.
No one case will stop him, and it's definitely going to come down to the election, but it does help move people over to "This man should not be in power".
Probably time for my lie down 🤷♂️