Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric Fish, DVM's avatar

It makes my head hurt to see the same party that spent 20 years mocking Bill Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of the word is is" go down these navel gazing rabbit holes of sophistry, arguing absurd ways out of their core issue like "What if the holder of the OFFICE of the presidency isn't an Officer???" or the insane argument "it only bars him TAKING office, not running" as if kicking off someone who won the election somehow wouldn't lead to catastrophic violence from the MAGA side. Oh, and don't even get me started on how the people who spent the last 40 years arguing for MuH StAteS RiGhTs!! suddenly flipping the script and deciding states are powerless.

The only question here is this: Did Trump's conduct qualify as insurrection per the text of the 14th amendment? If yes, he is ineligible. If no, case dismissed.

Expand full comment
cruxdaemon's avatar

I think the "one state spoils the bunch" is, in fact, the best argument to be made against Colorado's disqualifying Trump. It gave me pause when I initially read it in Slate. But then I thought about it. The presidential election is 50 state elections. The sainted founders set it up that way. If Kavanaugh, et. al, don't like that, they only have those they worship to blame.

In fact, if the presidential election was not 50 state elections, we wouldn't need to care what Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Coney Barret, or Gorsuch thought about this case because neither George W Bush nor Donald J Trump would have been President.

Expand full comment
24 more comments...

No posts