Monthly Archives: February 2024

An Now for Something Positive

General, Politics,
Supreme Count of the United States
Formal group photograph of the Supreme Court as it was been comprised on June 30, 2022 after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Court. The Justices are posed in front of red velvet drapes and arranged by seniority, with five seated and four standing…Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan. .Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson…Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.

With all the liberal commentators running around with their hair on fire over with SCOTUS granting certiorari on the immunity case I thought I’d give into my contrariness and try to look on the bright side. First though let’s as acknowledge the win Donald Trump has gotten, it now looks very very doubtful that the trial of Donald Trump on his actions of Jan 6 2020 will take place before the Presidential election. Time is just getting two short. That said, here are a couple of positive things to look for when the court finally renders their decision.

The first thing I’m going to be looking for if they rule that Trump does have some kind of immunity for his actions on Jan 6th 2020 is just how much immunity does he, and all current and future presidents have. If they rule he has total immunity I want to see how they do not grant the same immunity to Joe Biden and all other future Presidents. If Donald Trump has total Immunity then it follows that Joe Biden does too. If not, why not. It is not good enough for the court to say that the ruling only applies to this one specific case with out an explanation of why it only apples to Donald Trump. To do otherwise would be an anathema to all MAGAs out there.

I can just see it now, SCOTUS rules that Donald John Trump, and only Donald John Trump has total and complete immunity for his actions as President. SCOTUS’ reputation with the American public took a bad hit with the Dobbs decision last year and to rule that Trump, and only Trump is immune would be so totally raw that it would totally throw the election against MAGA. So I would look for some very fine hair splitting on just why this case is totally unique. For the life of me I can not come up with any reasoning that would work. So let us wait and see just what happens.

I, personally expect SCOTUS to rule that Trump is not immune but the ruling will come down the last week in June. This will be done in the hope that the delay is enough to keep the trial from starting before the election and that the trial court or the DOJ will decide that it is too close to the election to be held so a trial date will be set sometime in November after the election. This leads us right to the fun part of having the President elect going on trial for Insurrection. Which leads us right to if he is convicted, who if anyone, keeps Trump from being sworn in? Again I’m sure SCOTUS is very aware of this and they are aware just how much blame the public will assign to them for all the trouble that will happen. I can see the security at the Capitol if it happens. Boggles the mind.

An just how is this last thing positive? Just this; No mater how the Court rules, they have just stepped in it. They have managed to get both moderates and liberals aware of the fact that SCOTUS maters to them. Personally! That means they are going to be paying attention to who is on the court and how they are ruling. This is something conservatives in general and MAGA in particular will despise. I look forward to the next SCOTUS vacancy and the hearings for the replacement. An since we can expect any nominee to decline to answer questions on how they might rule in the future we can look forward to an even closer scrutiny of their writings and if they were/are judges how they ruled in cases that could apply. Again something conservatives in general and MAGA in particular will not like. Personally I’d like to see the rejection of any candidate who does not have a track record on the expected issues to come before the court. I’d even like to see that anyone who is on the Heritage Foundation list of acceptable candidates to be subject to very close scrutiny.

Finally I look for the US Senate to change it’s rules so that there is a time limit only how long a nomination for the Court can be held up when the Senate is in session so we no long have what happed back in 2016. But those thoughts are for another posting.

My Thoughts on the Colorado case before SCOTUS

Law, Politics, ,
14th Amendment

“May you live in interesting times and People in High Places know your name.”

Ancient Chinese Curse

After listening to the Oral arguments before SCOTUS last week and listening to more legal scholars and talking heads than I care to remember I’d like to share my take away from “Trump vs. Anderson”. First off I want to make clear that I feel that this is going to be both a critically and historically important case. A case that will be thought in both history classes and in law classes in times to come. Also I am sure ever Justice on the Court believes this too. This is a ground breaking case and the only questions we have to face is who’s ground gets broken and what happens next.

My first take is I agree with the vast majority of the Scholars and talking heads, SCOTUS is going to over turn the case. I don’t have a clue on just how the will reason this nor what the vote is going to be. An I’m not brave enough to make a guess either. I also feel that no mater how they rule the Justices are in for a long hard few of years ahead. What I’m going to do here is talk about just one question facing them. If they rule such that no state can prevent a person from being on the ballot(s) of that state that does not meet the qualifications for being President or Vice President then just who and when are the requirements going to be inforced?

First question: Can the Congress pass a law on who can be on their ballot(s) (Either Primary or General). How can this law be constitutional when the Constitution give the several States sole rights on how their Presidential Electors are selected? If it is constitutional who actually enforces the Law, which agency of the Federal Government has the job (or who would want it)?

Second question: If the States do have the right to control the selection of their Presidential Electors can the State(s) at the time the electors gather at the appropriate designated place can the State(s) legislature disqualify all votes for the candidate who fails to met the qualifications? If they can, then who do they select as electors? Or do they just not send any electors at all?

Third question: If the several States do select and send electors for a person who does not met the qualifications for President/Vice President and accept their votes does the Congress have the right and/or duty to reject those votes when the votes are counted? Sub question, is the vote only not counted for the person who does not qualify? Would this not lead to the situation where we get the President disqualified and the Vice President who is qualified? Does he/she automation move up to the Presidency ?

Fourth question: If we get to the point where a person who fails to met the qualifications to be President is about to be sworn in what does the Chef Justice do? Does he/she actually administer the oath of Office?

Fifth question: If a person who does not met the qualifications for President is swarm in would he/she not be libel for immediate Impeachment?

See the problem? No matter what SCOTUS has some very interesting times a head and many many people in high places know all their names.

The Coming Time of Troubles

Law, Politics, , ,

Formal group photograph of the Supreme Court as it was been comprised on June 30, 2022 after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Court. The Justices are posed in front of red velvet drapes and arranged by seniority, with five seated and four standing…Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan. .Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson…Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Will wonders never cease? I woke up in time to listen to the live broadcast of the SCOTUS hearing on the Colorado case removing Donald J. Trump from the primary ballot. I got a lot of questions but I’m not going to go into them now as I’m sure most if not all will be both brought up by the “Talking Heads” in the days to come and also addressed by the courts ruling. No, what I’m going to deal with a question that has not even been addressed out loud yet. That question is:

“If the court rules that the several states can not enforce the qualifications to hold office before a person is elected when and who does enforce them?” Let me set up the hypothetical for you here:

A person who will not be 35 at the time of being sworn in, when I who says he/she can not be sworn in? Is it done when the electors of the several states are approved by the state legislatures? Is it done when the elector collage votes are counted by Congress? Or is it when he/she steps up to take their oath of office (and who does this)? See the problem?

Now it is possible for the Court to say that this is the responsibility of the Congress. But what do we do if the Congress does not act. The current House of Representatives does not fill me with confidence. What does congress do if it gets conflicting Elector ballots? If he/she is not allowed to take office, who does? The Vice President? The Speaker of the House? Who?

See the problem, no mater what the Court does we are in for some very hard times, some much much harder than others. Only time and the Court will tell.

A child of the 1960’s

Philosophy, Rants,

I was 17 back in 1968, one of the most important Presidential elections I ever voted in. No I didn’t cheat. My parents told my older brother , Al, and me that they would cast the vote for president we wanted. Papa for Al and Momma for me. This was because both of us were facing the draft and going off to the Vietnam War. I had been aware of presidential elections since 1964 (LBJ vs. Goldwater) but what the parties and candidates stood for really didn’t sink in. 1968 was totally different. For many reasons.

I shan’t go into the politics as you can find way too many books, blogs, podcasts, etc on that era. I’m going to talk about myself, personally. First of I was NOT a flower child nor hippie. I was quite emphatic in my being a radical “Middle of the Bird” (see Rowan & Martin Laugh-In). Also, like now, I have total intolerance of hypocrisy. I came by this both naturally and from the 60’s culture. The easiest and quickest way to get me to reject your idea is to appear to be hypocritical.

For example: If you want to have a “Double Standard” where you get to have or do something you do not want others to have or do I will accept the idea if you will just admit you want a double standard and not say that double standards are bad. The problem I have finally learn is that getting a double standard and saying you don’t like double standards is an application of the double standard. I couldn’t win. I challenge you to find a single ‘hypocrite’ who will admit to hypocrisy.

For all you out there who the 1960’s is just a decade in your history books, the 1960’s was a time where the teenagers of the decade took great joy in calling there elders “Hypocrites” in loud pear-shaped tones. While I think I rarely said this to my parents, I hope I didn’t, I did do it in school, clubs, and shouting at the TV. Please note that changing your mind was all too often taken as hypocrisy back then and I had a long hard road learning to tell the difference.

With time, age and a heart attack I think I’ve changed some. I still hold hypocrisy in great disdain but I hope I do not call it out so self righteously as my 18 year old self did. An if you find some of my ideas odd or dated please just remember where I came from.