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.
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.
Not to mention that the New Hampshire primary just took place without Biden on the ballot. Oh and Trump maneuvered to have anyone not named Trump to be ineligible for delegates in Nevada. So only NOW they’re worried about states’ equities?
Also, individual states already put their thumb on the scale. States require a different number of signatures for non-establishment candidates: MA is 2,500 signatures, TX is 113,151 signatures. The deadline is a number of months ahead of time actually needed to prepare ballots. One must also get certified electors. To appear in the statewide primary and garner the publicity of such requires more hoops to jump through (to create a party, etc). Having one more hoop to jump through to appear on the state's ballot, i.e. not having participated or given aid or comfort (which has undebatedly happened) in an insurrection certainly should not be a big deal.
And yes, the Dems do have a publicity problem. I don't know enough to offer a solution.
This is an excellent article regarding the chaos across our nation, and how the Republican Party has digressed over time. In 2024, I would not even call the Republicans a "political party" but a cult created through lawlessness, coercive and repetitive control techniques (aka brainwashing), and mindless vulgarity.
The Trump-appointed Supremes - the highest judiciary in our land, are a stark reminder that anyone can be "bought" - the bottom-line of Trump's approach to life. Their support of Trump - a man with 91 felony charges - with solid supportive evidence, a conviction as a sexual predator, a conviction of fraud - with endless documentation and proof, and perhaps most importantly a man who admires and wishes to emulate Vladimir Putin - is PROOF that those hard-working and honest folks in red states are running on prepared-propaganda and mass mind manipulation.
I spent the majority of my career living and working in communist and dictator-led countries. They all have two things in common - brainwashing and fear. Mitt Romney commented on the level of fear found in Trumpism. As a student of Vladimir Putin's, Trump operates with threats and violence. There were ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. Gonzales (R) from Ohio then refused to run for re-election and hired 24-hour armed protection for his family. The Russian Congress is elected every five years. No member of their Congress would dare vote or speak out against Putin for fear that they or a member of their family would be murdered or imprisoned. When a leader rules by using fear it is called a dictatorship and NOT a democracy.
Our country is half way there to loose our democracy. Trump's many-sided destructiveness has invaded the minds of millions of Americans and will continue to do so. Brainwashing is defined as "telling lies over and over until it is perceived as the truth." About 70% of the Republicans still believe Trump's lie that the 2020 election was stolen, when Biden won by over 7 million votes.
Brainwashing began in totalitarian countries about 100 years ago and was used in: Italy, Germany, China, Austria, Russia, and a host of other countries. IT WORKS. Lo and behold, it is now found in the United States and used daily by Trump. Where do you suppose he learned this skill?
The Mueller Report failed miserably. Barr appointed Mueller - a lifelong friend - to produce this report due to pressure from Democrats. The "report" did not inform the American public about the Trump-Russian relationships and their impact on the daily lives of Americans. Barr probably did not want to deal with a presidential treason trial on his watch as the AG.
The Supreme Court's reaction to keeping Trump off the ballot in Colorado (which was based on constitutional law) , and the MAGA Congressional members of Congress refusing to vote for a border protection bill which they demanded be created - are all due to Trump's cult's adherence and demands. Jim Jones, who thought he was God, created a cult of about 900 people. He ordered them all to drink Koolaid laced with poison and they all died.
The Supremes and the MAGA people do not understand that they are supporting a dictatorship form of government or that Trump's strings are ALL pulled by Putin. Read: From Democracy to Democrazy by Graham. It provides the evidence and proof of what is happening in our country.
Riding Metro North this week I watched a team huddle of track workers circled to hear the days plan of assignments. In listening to yesterdays Supreme Court Oral Arguments, I finished feeling like the Justices had had a similar assemblage before it began to determine how they would derail the arguments for Colorados Ruling in favor of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and Colorados desire-descision to remove dt from the ballot. It wasn't until I listened to Neal Katyal's discussion on the Last Word where I realized how the format of oral arguments worked and how the liberal Justices abandoned our young Jason Murray, Esq. leading him away from making the salient points needed, away from referencing the marvelous amicus briefs which have been written and into a pit against states rights. No one gave him a string to weave those arguments. I hope you are right Brian and that the Liberal Justices redeem themselves. This is Timothy Snyders Post 2/8 regarding his thoughts https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/trump-v-anderson?r=fa5ey&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
"a single state like Colorado could make such huge decisions affecting the whole country" I mean that's about as succinct a description of the Electoral College (and senate and gerrymandered house for that matter) as exists.
I would like Democrats and liberal justices to behave like better people than Republicans.. So much of your writing is "fight fire with fire" rather than "let's win elections by advocating for policy that matches 50+% of the electorate" (or whatever the electoral college math is ). Having more supporters rather than fewer is a great way to govern. Racing over to beg the referee to agree with you is an awful way to win political battles. Unfortunately it became an addiction the past 70 years.
Brian has never argued that Democrats should cheat or break the law, which Republicans clearly do all the time, nor that they should call for violence against their political opposition, which Republicans routinely do in their rhetoric. That would be "fighting fire with fire." Brian and others persuasively argue that liberals need to grow a pair and not let the right wing dominate the conversation with their lies. And standing in their way with more than hollow objections when the Republicans try to steamroll over the party that always plays fair and make the government a destructive force against the majority of people in this nation (and the world). Standing up to them means not fighting fire with fire but with grabbing a bucket and putting the fire out rather than futilely waving their hands and crying "fire!" I think the essence of some Brian's writing is that we need to use every tool at our disposal to fight the malign influence of the GOP and their propagandists in the right wing media sphere. And that means pressuring the mainstream media to get the Democratic message out, making sure that message is one that actually motivates people to vote for Democrats, using the courts and the levers of government more effectively. The Republicans lie, cheat and steal. Democrats need to push back forcefully so that they don't get to break the rules and rig the system without everyone knowing it, and do everything they can to stop it before it's too late. You don't get to 51% of the vote if the other side controls the debate and undermines truth and justice.
Oh JFC. Many of you like to pretend as if the media—which sets the national tone with its narrative and framing—would actually listen to Dems. Political reporters and their editors aren’t on Mars. They took Barr’s word for the Mueller Report and amplified it. Instead of seeing this report for what it is, they treat this hack’s word like it’s gospel. For another example, look at the “crisis at the border”. Instead of actually calling out the GOP—I mean that 24 hour turnaround was something—they resort to their usual “Congress” BS. They normalize this behavior. And Dems do speak out, use social media, etc. but these reporters do not care what the Dems say unless it’s a gaffe they can bludgeon them with. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs—on a media that plays favorites and has for a long time—it’s always about blaming Dems.
How come a recent poll revealing that 74 percent of Republican voters are in favor of Trump being a dictator (for only one day! As if) didn’t get five stories on the NYT front page, but Biden’s “mental fitness” did? Or Trump’s remarks about vermin or poisoning the blood? Oh, right because in Brian’s thinking it’s because the Dems didn’t push those enough. Same with project 2025. One story and done. There are tons of other examples. Funny, the minute this report came out the press was all over it without having to be prodded by the GOP. Now why is that?!
We have a media that denies, aids and abets a fascist and his party. But yep, like always it’s the Dems fault for not getting the word out that Trump is unfit and a threat to become president again. Oh but doing that would have “set the political tone” and would have swayed the justices. Brian refuses to admit (though he occasionally fesses up to it) just how biased and bad his friends in the media are at their jobs.
I think you are also pointing your attacks in the wrong direction. Brian is on the side of the Dems he just wants them to do a better job at persuading people and fighting back against the right. Maybe he could point out more often when Ds get it right. In this case the criticism is mostly about Garland and how bad he fucked up by appointing a partisan special counsel and not cleaning up his hackjob report. Do you think Garland is doing a good job holding Trump to account? Is it all going to plan? So far the courts are bungling the federal cases against him, and Trump may get away Scot free. Jack Smith also seems to be incompetent for not getting the documents case against Trump moved from that Trump toady judge in Florida. It doesn't do much good to say that's going well when it's clearly not. In the case of this Hur report, Garland fucked up but at least the White House saw the threat and met it head on by putting Biden in front of the press right away to answer back. But I sure hope they don't leave it at that. Biden needs to get out there in ads and in front of the cameras more to show he's not demented like Trump apparently is. At least Trump goes on offense about his obvious weaknesses! Anyway, it's not all about beating up on the D party. Criticizing the media and pointing out the horrors of what the Republicans are doing are regularly featured on this site. But somebody's got to try to push D leaders to take stronger positions. The barbarians are at the gate and so far the D response is not strong enough to rally the people to defend democracy and support Biden. He's getting crushed in the polls! Let's not pretend everything is fine.
Attacking the Dems consistently isn’t tough love. It’s just an attack, but from a different side than that of the GOP. And it’s consistent. Day in and day out. Criticism is warranted. A barrage in almost every newsletter is just overkill and breeds more cynicism with those (many on the left) who don’t like Dems and just gives them more “reason” to stay home. To paraphrase Obama, be the attack/voice you want to see. Yet instead of taking aim where it belongs Brian chooses friendly fire over and over again.
We are in a mess, but by blaming it all on Dems for not fighting hard enough, not playing the refs, not having balls, pick your criticism du jour, isn’t right or the solution.
Joe Biden gives speeches about protecting democracy and the threat of Maga and the press mocks him and yawns while the left says “warning about Trump isn’t enough reason to get us to vote.” Trump consistently makes outlandish statements and horrifying ones and the media calls them “unforced errors” rather than questioning his mental decline and barely covers them. And when he was in the Oval cleaned up his remarks to make him sound coherent.
For months the admin and Dems crowed about the good economic numbers and all you heard from the press was “recession.” And from the left? They called out Dems for being tone deaf because some people were struggling. And despite the economy being good, people think we’re in a recession. Guess the Dems didn’t talk enough about the good numbers, right?
Sure Brian takes on the media and the GOP from time to time but those observations almost always include barbs about Dems. It’s tiresome. Do you really think that if Biden and the Dems talked nonstop about the threat to Democracy that suddenly the media would take it seriously and start covering it with the same breathless attention they did to HRC’s emails and Joe’s “mental fitness”?
It's a little more nuanced than talking non stop and hoping the press covers it. I hear you, you want to build up your side not tear it down. But that's the job of the D party. Brian is not in the DNC or White House his job is to hold their feet to the fire.
This is why we need to fire the beltway consultants and hire the best advertising people we can get and then get our of their way. Also you are wrong about Brian, he shags media at every opportunity.
Agreed. I’ve put up with some of Beutler’s excesses to this point, but the vast majority of what he writes now is just the most generic base-pandering. I could get any of these takes off of a generic lefty Twitter thread. For me, to be worth reading, a writer has to have something original to say instead of shoveling red meat into my mouth. Unsubscribed.
To be clear, I think Brian is a better writer than this in a vacuum. He seems to have found some quick success doing this, and I don’t know if I can begrudge him for responding to incentives.
I am speculating here, but I think Justice Jackson wants to avoid an opinion that says Section 3 of the 14th is self-executing (ie, it requires an Act of Congress), because that creates an avenue by which consideratives can start pushing the argument that Sections 1 and 2 of the 14th, as well as the other reconstruction amendments, are also not self-executing.
It was a pleasure hearing Jason Murray respond thoroughly to every question, he was clearly superbly prepared. I do think, however, that he could have added repeated emphasis to the idea that Colorado only sought to decide the issue for Colorado and not to impose Trump's disqualification on any other state, which would have dispelled the disingenuous claim that Colorado seeks to disenfranchise anybody.
It's impossible for me to know their motivation, but Jackson's, Kagan's and Sotomayor's skeptical-sounding questions might have been their way of prompting Murray to speak to issues that they knew their conservative colleagues would employ in a ruling rejecting the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. I thought that Murray's masterful answers could be used to counter the Conservative's Leo-inflected predispositions.
This has been typical in many oral arguments from a variety of SCOTUS’es - they push away from how they’re expected to decide. Except Alito & Thomas, who project their predicated ideologies pretty blatantly. Especially when they arguably should have recused, if they were held to an ethical standard by the other 2 co-equal branches of the government.
Strange to hear KBJ insist on the "ambiguity" of whether a president is considered an office-holder in the 14th amendment, even after the Colorado attorney made it clear there was no ambiguity at the time it was drafted.
I don’t understand how they failed to halt the arguments after the first sentence of the amendment in question and call for the license of the petitioner’s counsel, TBH
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.
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.
Not to mention that the New Hampshire primary just took place without Biden on the ballot. Oh and Trump maneuvered to have anyone not named Trump to be ineligible for delegates in Nevada. So only NOW they’re worried about states’ equities?
Also, individual states already put their thumb on the scale. States require a different number of signatures for non-establishment candidates: MA is 2,500 signatures, TX is 113,151 signatures. The deadline is a number of months ahead of time actually needed to prepare ballots. One must also get certified electors. To appear in the statewide primary and garner the publicity of such requires more hoops to jump through (to create a party, etc). Having one more hoop to jump through to appear on the state's ballot, i.e. not having participated or given aid or comfort (which has undebatedly happened) in an insurrection certainly should not be a big deal.
And yes, the Dems do have a publicity problem. I don't know enough to offer a solution.
This is an excellent article regarding the chaos across our nation, and how the Republican Party has digressed over time. In 2024, I would not even call the Republicans a "political party" but a cult created through lawlessness, coercive and repetitive control techniques (aka brainwashing), and mindless vulgarity.
The Trump-appointed Supremes - the highest judiciary in our land, are a stark reminder that anyone can be "bought" - the bottom-line of Trump's approach to life. Their support of Trump - a man with 91 felony charges - with solid supportive evidence, a conviction as a sexual predator, a conviction of fraud - with endless documentation and proof, and perhaps most importantly a man who admires and wishes to emulate Vladimir Putin - is PROOF that those hard-working and honest folks in red states are running on prepared-propaganda and mass mind manipulation.
I spent the majority of my career living and working in communist and dictator-led countries. They all have two things in common - brainwashing and fear. Mitt Romney commented on the level of fear found in Trumpism. As a student of Vladimir Putin's, Trump operates with threats and violence. There were ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. Gonzales (R) from Ohio then refused to run for re-election and hired 24-hour armed protection for his family. The Russian Congress is elected every five years. No member of their Congress would dare vote or speak out against Putin for fear that they or a member of their family would be murdered or imprisoned. When a leader rules by using fear it is called a dictatorship and NOT a democracy.
Our country is half way there to loose our democracy. Trump's many-sided destructiveness has invaded the minds of millions of Americans and will continue to do so. Brainwashing is defined as "telling lies over and over until it is perceived as the truth." About 70% of the Republicans still believe Trump's lie that the 2020 election was stolen, when Biden won by over 7 million votes.
Brainwashing began in totalitarian countries about 100 years ago and was used in: Italy, Germany, China, Austria, Russia, and a host of other countries. IT WORKS. Lo and behold, it is now found in the United States and used daily by Trump. Where do you suppose he learned this skill?
The Mueller Report failed miserably. Barr appointed Mueller - a lifelong friend - to produce this report due to pressure from Democrats. The "report" did not inform the American public about the Trump-Russian relationships and their impact on the daily lives of Americans. Barr probably did not want to deal with a presidential treason trial on his watch as the AG.
The Supreme Court's reaction to keeping Trump off the ballot in Colorado (which was based on constitutional law) , and the MAGA Congressional members of Congress refusing to vote for a border protection bill which they demanded be created - are all due to Trump's cult's adherence and demands. Jim Jones, who thought he was God, created a cult of about 900 people. He ordered them all to drink Koolaid laced with poison and they all died.
The Supremes and the MAGA people do not understand that they are supporting a dictatorship form of government or that Trump's strings are ALL pulled by Putin. Read: From Democracy to Democrazy by Graham. It provides the evidence and proof of what is happening in our country.
Riding Metro North this week I watched a team huddle of track workers circled to hear the days plan of assignments. In listening to yesterdays Supreme Court Oral Arguments, I finished feeling like the Justices had had a similar assemblage before it began to determine how they would derail the arguments for Colorados Ruling in favor of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and Colorados desire-descision to remove dt from the ballot. It wasn't until I listened to Neal Katyal's discussion on the Last Word where I realized how the format of oral arguments worked and how the liberal Justices abandoned our young Jason Murray, Esq. leading him away from making the salient points needed, away from referencing the marvelous amicus briefs which have been written and into a pit against states rights. No one gave him a string to weave those arguments. I hope you are right Brian and that the Liberal Justices redeem themselves. This is Timothy Snyders Post 2/8 regarding his thoughts https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/trump-v-anderson?r=fa5ey&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Yes! I saw it the same way! The Justices might as well have been saying outright, "Please don't make us do our jobs".
"a single state like Colorado could make such huge decisions affecting the whole country" I mean that's about as succinct a description of the Electoral College (and senate and gerrymandered house for that matter) as exists.
I would like Democrats and liberal justices to behave like better people than Republicans.. So much of your writing is "fight fire with fire" rather than "let's win elections by advocating for policy that matches 50+% of the electorate" (or whatever the electoral college math is ). Having more supporters rather than fewer is a great way to govern. Racing over to beg the referee to agree with you is an awful way to win political battles. Unfortunately it became an addiction the past 70 years.
Brian has never argued that Democrats should cheat or break the law, which Republicans clearly do all the time, nor that they should call for violence against their political opposition, which Republicans routinely do in their rhetoric. That would be "fighting fire with fire." Brian and others persuasively argue that liberals need to grow a pair and not let the right wing dominate the conversation with their lies. And standing in their way with more than hollow objections when the Republicans try to steamroll over the party that always plays fair and make the government a destructive force against the majority of people in this nation (and the world). Standing up to them means not fighting fire with fire but with grabbing a bucket and putting the fire out rather than futilely waving their hands and crying "fire!" I think the essence of some Brian's writing is that we need to use every tool at our disposal to fight the malign influence of the GOP and their propagandists in the right wing media sphere. And that means pressuring the mainstream media to get the Democratic message out, making sure that message is one that actually motivates people to vote for Democrats, using the courts and the levers of government more effectively. The Republicans lie, cheat and steal. Democrats need to push back forcefully so that they don't get to break the rules and rig the system without everyone knowing it, and do everything they can to stop it before it's too late. You don't get to 51% of the vote if the other side controls the debate and undermines truth and justice.
Oh JFC. Many of you like to pretend as if the media—which sets the national tone with its narrative and framing—would actually listen to Dems. Political reporters and their editors aren’t on Mars. They took Barr’s word for the Mueller Report and amplified it. Instead of seeing this report for what it is, they treat this hack’s word like it’s gospel. For another example, look at the “crisis at the border”. Instead of actually calling out the GOP—I mean that 24 hour turnaround was something—they resort to their usual “Congress” BS. They normalize this behavior. And Dems do speak out, use social media, etc. but these reporters do not care what the Dems say unless it’s a gaffe they can bludgeon them with. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs—on a media that plays favorites and has for a long time—it’s always about blaming Dems.
How come a recent poll revealing that 74 percent of Republican voters are in favor of Trump being a dictator (for only one day! As if) didn’t get five stories on the NYT front page, but Biden’s “mental fitness” did? Or Trump’s remarks about vermin or poisoning the blood? Oh, right because in Brian’s thinking it’s because the Dems didn’t push those enough. Same with project 2025. One story and done. There are tons of other examples. Funny, the minute this report came out the press was all over it without having to be prodded by the GOP. Now why is that?!
We have a media that denies, aids and abets a fascist and his party. But yep, like always it’s the Dems fault for not getting the word out that Trump is unfit and a threat to become president again. Oh but doing that would have “set the political tone” and would have swayed the justices. Brian refuses to admit (though he occasionally fesses up to it) just how biased and bad his friends in the media are at their jobs.
I think you are also pointing your attacks in the wrong direction. Brian is on the side of the Dems he just wants them to do a better job at persuading people and fighting back against the right. Maybe he could point out more often when Ds get it right. In this case the criticism is mostly about Garland and how bad he fucked up by appointing a partisan special counsel and not cleaning up his hackjob report. Do you think Garland is doing a good job holding Trump to account? Is it all going to plan? So far the courts are bungling the federal cases against him, and Trump may get away Scot free. Jack Smith also seems to be incompetent for not getting the documents case against Trump moved from that Trump toady judge in Florida. It doesn't do much good to say that's going well when it's clearly not. In the case of this Hur report, Garland fucked up but at least the White House saw the threat and met it head on by putting Biden in front of the press right away to answer back. But I sure hope they don't leave it at that. Biden needs to get out there in ads and in front of the cameras more to show he's not demented like Trump apparently is. At least Trump goes on offense about his obvious weaknesses! Anyway, it's not all about beating up on the D party. Criticizing the media and pointing out the horrors of what the Republicans are doing are regularly featured on this site. But somebody's got to try to push D leaders to take stronger positions. The barbarians are at the gate and so far the D response is not strong enough to rally the people to defend democracy and support Biden. He's getting crushed in the polls! Let's not pretend everything is fine.
Attacking the Dems consistently isn’t tough love. It’s just an attack, but from a different side than that of the GOP. And it’s consistent. Day in and day out. Criticism is warranted. A barrage in almost every newsletter is just overkill and breeds more cynicism with those (many on the left) who don’t like Dems and just gives them more “reason” to stay home. To paraphrase Obama, be the attack/voice you want to see. Yet instead of taking aim where it belongs Brian chooses friendly fire over and over again.
We are in a mess, but by blaming it all on Dems for not fighting hard enough, not playing the refs, not having balls, pick your criticism du jour, isn’t right or the solution.
Joe Biden gives speeches about protecting democracy and the threat of Maga and the press mocks him and yawns while the left says “warning about Trump isn’t enough reason to get us to vote.” Trump consistently makes outlandish statements and horrifying ones and the media calls them “unforced errors” rather than questioning his mental decline and barely covers them. And when he was in the Oval cleaned up his remarks to make him sound coherent.
For months the admin and Dems crowed about the good economic numbers and all you heard from the press was “recession.” And from the left? They called out Dems for being tone deaf because some people were struggling. And despite the economy being good, people think we’re in a recession. Guess the Dems didn’t talk enough about the good numbers, right?
Sure Brian takes on the media and the GOP from time to time but those observations almost always include barbs about Dems. It’s tiresome. Do you really think that if Biden and the Dems talked nonstop about the threat to Democracy that suddenly the media would take it seriously and start covering it with the same breathless attention they did to HRC’s emails and Joe’s “mental fitness”?
Come on.
It's a little more nuanced than talking non stop and hoping the press covers it. I hear you, you want to build up your side not tear it down. But that's the job of the D party. Brian is not in the DNC or White House his job is to hold their feet to the fire.
This is why we need to fire the beltway consultants and hire the best advertising people we can get and then get our of their way. Also you are wrong about Brian, he shags media at every opportunity.
Agreed. I’ve put up with some of Beutler’s excesses to this point, but the vast majority of what he writes now is just the most generic base-pandering. I could get any of these takes off of a generic lefty Twitter thread. For me, to be worth reading, a writer has to have something original to say instead of shoveling red meat into my mouth. Unsubscribed.
To be clear, I think Brian is a better writer than this in a vacuum. He seems to have found some quick success doing this, and I don’t know if I can begrudge him for responding to incentives.
I am speculating here, but I think Justice Jackson wants to avoid an opinion that says Section 3 of the 14th is self-executing (ie, it requires an Act of Congress), because that creates an avenue by which consideratives can start pushing the argument that Sections 1 and 2 of the 14th, as well as the other reconstruction amendments, are also not self-executing.
Colorado did not send its best to debate a court that really is no longer interested in democracy.
I actually thought both CO advocates did a great job under very difficult circumstances.
It was a pleasure hearing Jason Murray respond thoroughly to every question, he was clearly superbly prepared. I do think, however, that he could have added repeated emphasis to the idea that Colorado only sought to decide the issue for Colorado and not to impose Trump's disqualification on any other state, which would have dispelled the disingenuous claim that Colorado seeks to disenfranchise anybody.
It's impossible for me to know their motivation, but Jackson's, Kagan's and Sotomayor's skeptical-sounding questions might have been their way of prompting Murray to speak to issues that they knew their conservative colleagues would employ in a ruling rejecting the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. I thought that Murray's masterful answers could be used to counter the Conservative's Leo-inflected predispositions.
This has been typical in many oral arguments from a variety of SCOTUS’es - they push away from how they’re expected to decide. Except Alito & Thomas, who project their predicated ideologies pretty blatantly. Especially when they arguably should have recused, if they were held to an ethical standard by the other 2 co-equal branches of the government.
Strange to hear KBJ insist on the "ambiguity" of whether a president is considered an office-holder in the 14th amendment, even after the Colorado attorney made it clear there was no ambiguity at the time it was drafted.
How many people later wish they had stood up to Hitler?
thieving crooked ancestors and descendants will never change
I don’t understand how they failed to halt the arguments after the first sentence of the amendment in question and call for the license of the petitioner’s counsel, TBH