USA Politics

Yax said:
Honestly, it isn't something to be celebrated. Most quasi-MAGA or opportunistic collaborators (as well as any traditional, anti-MAGA) leaving congress will be replaced by real MAGA's in the districts not won by dems.
Click to expand...
Well it’s not that simple. For one thing, Kevin McCarthy was recently drawn into a district that was traditionally blue. While it’s not totally clear how things are going to shake out, him not running again is likely going to change that into a tossup race. A MAGA candidate isn’t really going to do well there anyway.

Add to that, McCarthy was one of the house GOP’s best fundraisers and helped deliver the majority and put those MAGA candidates into their seats. Anything that can chip away at the GOP’s campaign arm is going to matter in what’s going to be a close house race. And it does matter, just ask the Senate Republicans.

Edit: also not sure what special election rules are, but between this and George Santos the GOP is serious compromising its thin majority. This is going to create real problems for any impeachment or other legislative goals for the election year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
It's the money that hurts them most of all for McCarthy, I agree. That's a huge blow to the GOP in the House. Mike Johnson had the worst fundraising quarter in forever.
 
The most recent Speaker leaving before the end of his term in the same week a member was ousted by his own party does not project an image of confidence for the GOP going into 2024. This has to be one of the most disastrous congresses in history.
 
Serious question... What is going on with Matt Gaetz? I mean, Trump is facing at least 4 indictments, George Santos just got exiled... wasn't Gaetz also caught soliciting from minors or something like that and dude is just chillin'?
 
No, the house ethics Committee is/was ramping up its recently restarted investigation into him, and McCarthy said he would probably be ousted, and he was clearly out to get Gaetz as retribution for being dethroned as speaker. I doubt he will now though.
 
Totally messed up that the Florida and North Carolina Democratic parties haven't recognized Dean Phillips' candidacy and have just tossed all their delegates to Biden without a primary. This actually violates the North Carolina party's by-laws, so I think we can expect a legal challenge.

Kind of hard for Biden to bash Trump for skipping the primary debates when he's pretending there aren't any challengers on his side and is playing procedural games to box them out without a fair primary. If he can't convince Democratic voters that he's a better general election candidate than Phillips and Williamson, then he doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

 
That's going to go to the Supreme Court so fast it'll make your head spin. John Roberts hates Donald Trump, so we shall see what comes of it.
 
Jer said:
Totally messed up that the Florida and North Carolina Democratic parties haven't recognized Dean Phillips' candidacy and have just tossed all their delegates to Biden without a primary. This actually violates the North Carolina party's by-laws, so I think we can expect a legal challenge.

Kind of hard for Biden to bash Trump for skipping the primary debates when he's pretending there aren't any challengers on his side and is playing procedural games to box them out without a fair primary. If he can't convince Democratic voters that he's a better general election candidate than Phillips and Williamson, then he doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

Click to expand...
That's one of the flaws of the two party system: One candidate leads for the Republican and Democrat party, giving the other candidates basically no chance.
So even with the bad rep that Biden has been getting by both sides, I think he'll still win due to familiarity.
Also, independent parties have no chance at all.
And it's a shame, because candidates such as Dean Philips can do a better job, and you won't have to worry about progressing dementia/death by natural causes.
 
LooseCannon said:
That's going to go to the Supreme Court so fast it'll make your head spin. John Roberts hates Donald Trump, so we shall see what comes of it.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling the entire court does minus Clarance Thomas. Trump is a useful idiot and elected Republicans have to play along, but once you're a judge on the court it doesn't matter. Anyway, it's a states' rights issue at its core so it'll be interesting to see if SCOTUS feels Colorado should be free to run its elections as it sees fit. The more interesting and important case that SCOTUS is looking at though is whether Trump is immune from prosecution. My gut says he is not, but I can see that one swinging in a different direction.

As a Colorado voter, I have mixed feelings about it. If there is going to be a rule that says insurrectionists can't run for office, it needs to be enforced. On the other hand...

1: I think Trump should probably be convicted first.

2: I think Coloradoans (and Americans in general) should have the right to vote for whoever they want. This will do no more than fuel the narrative that Democrats are trying to steal elections.

3: I think this could backfire massively. For one thing, Trump can still win on a write in. Colorado is a blue state but it does have the potential to be competitive and I can see something like this galvanizing the conservative votes in Southern Colorado or along the Great Basin region. Additionally, I can see red states responding by finding an excuse to take Biden off the ballot. It just has a lot of potential to go wrong.
 
LooseCannon said:
That's going to go to the Supreme Court so fast it'll make your head spin. John Roberts hates Donald Trump, so we shall see what comes of it.
Click to expand...
Well, the Supreme Court only has until Jan 4 to do anything about it, because Colorado primary ballots are finalized on Jan 5. The Colorado ruling is stayed until Jan 4, but unless it’s overruled the ballots will go ahead without Trump on them.

It would certainly be best if the Supreme Court weighed in on this to resolve the issue across the board — but there’s still a slim chance they’ll decline to hear the appeal, since states generally have broad autonomy in how they conduct their elections, even for federal office.

Also, the judgment here could be different for a primary ballot vs. a general election ballot, as this was the distinction the MN Supreme Court made when they declined to ban Trump from the primary ballot here. From their perspective the primary ballot was an internal party matter and the 14th amendment was irrelevant unless/until the party tried to submit a person as their candidate in the general election, so they essentially said to try again after the conventions if Trump is the Republican nominee.

If the U.S. Supreme Court takes this up I only see two ways out for Trump: 1) The court establishes that the candidate must be convicted of insurrection-related offenses for the 14th amendment to apply (which I believe would contradict some past applications of the clause where convictions didn’t happen), and then Trump’s insurrection trial doesn’t finish before the general election ballots are printed, or 2) Every conservative justice other than Roberts throws any remaining integrity out the window and decides that Presidents are in fact above the law.

I’m looking forward to seeing Trump’s primary challengers start pointing to this as an unacceptable electability risk for him, since he’d only need to be disqualified from a couple more battleground states to make an electoral college win impossible. If the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case or rules against Trump, we’ll know the result before the Iowa caucuses, and that could completely upend the Republican primary results.
 
Mosh said:
1: I think Trump should probably be convicted first.
Click to expand...
IIRC the 14th doesn't require conviction. Also, a lower court found that Trump engaged in insurrection, so as far as I understand that is enough legal grounds to ban him from the ballots via the 14th.

That said, I think it'll go swiftly to the Supreme Court and I'm curious to see how it'll go.
 
When used in the Civil War, it didn't require conviction, because it was targeted at public figures who were, in fact, insurrectionists, but it wasn't applied evenly.
 
I utterly hope the SC will grab this straw that has been presented to them and stop the US from descending into authoritarian rule, or even outright dictatorship.
 
John Roberts hates Trump, and we've already seen that the three Trump appointees to the Supreme Court do not feel beholden to him (in the truest conservative position of "fuck you Jack, I got mine"). Thomas and Alito are the ones most likely to support him. But I wouldn't be surprised if they rule along lines similar to Minnesota, in that the primary is a private election, somehow, despite being run by the state. I also wouldn't be surprised if they issued an order noting that in the case of a conviction under certain statutes, he would be barred from office under the 14th Amendment.
 
LooseCannon said:
When used in the Civil War, it didn't require conviction, because it was targeted at public figures who were, in fact, insurrectionists, but it wasn't applied evenly.
Click to expand...
It officially doesn't require a conviction according to Congress's own Congressional Research Service, and as you noted there is plenty of historical precedent for it to be invoked without a criminal conviction.

From the link: "Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members."
 
Last edited:
Jer said:
It officially doesn't require a conviction according to Congress's own Congressional Research Service, and as you noted there is plenty of historical precedent for it to be invoked without a criminal conviction.

From the link: "Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust
officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members."
Click to expand...
Yes, while at the same time plenty of Confederate officers served in Congress. I'm not sure if they had their ineligibility removed or it was just quietly ignored. It's not great!

At the end of the day, the John Roberts SCOTUS loves to split silly hairs and kick cans down roads, so I just don't think they're going to rule definitively that Trump is disqualified.
 
It doesn't really matter whether he is convicted or not, or even if had anything to do with it. The insurrectionists were attempting to subvert democracy on HIS behalf and therefore that should be enough to disbar him from ever having anything to do with government again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top