A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

But should it. I didn’t see any outrage when they where looking into the Clintons…
We need to accept justice and its pursuit regardless of what party is accused.

It's problematic. Starr, Mueller, Smith, and now Weiss were or are in some respect "special" (I don't know whether they all shared the same powers) investigators of presidents or of matters closely adjacent to presidents. Facially, a presidential appointment requirement looks corruption-prone. But an AG appointment suffers the same weakness, at least since Eric "Wingman" Holder highlighted a tendency of AGs to think of themselves as adjutants ("keep the CO out of jail"). Senate appointment-and-confirmation might work. Sure, there would be times one party controls the executive and the Senate and could protect itself, but that doesn't last indefinitely. Polls I've seen indicate Americans don't look favourably on impeachment except for very serious reasons; I suppose that if a party were protecting itself or if the party controlling the Senate kept harassing the president with special investigators, voters would correct the problem in not longer than a couple of years. Obsession with settling political scores by judicial and quasi-judicial means just isn't as popular as some of the chattering classes think it is.

 

[kkwd]

Dunno, it’s not a rabbit hole I’m gonna dive into. It seems to make the claims, but I don’t believe SCOTUS actually ruled on that, they simply denied cert, which is unsurprising given how fast DCCA is moving- the hearing is on Jan 9th.

If there’s any merit to this particular argument, I’m sure we’ll hear about it in a decision… But I would have expected to long before this point.

Since it was 1 day since it was filed, a decision that fast would be impossible.

 

[brihard]

Since it was 1 day since it was filed, a decision that fast would be impossible.

What I mean is I’m sure someone would have raised this argument much earlier on in the various court proceedings that have flowed from Jack Smith’s prosecutorial work.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not really; that application directly to SCOTUS was a hedge against a slow DC Court of Appeal, and was filed before the DCCA agreed to expedite and set a very fast briefing schedule. The final of three briefings on that appeal is due Jan 2nd, so this is still moving quickly.

Until it goes back to SCOTUS for a decision based on their time table, not Smith's? As far as I can fathom, SCOTUS determines their own schedule deciding whether your super important case is super important to them. Who knows? I'm just adopting a wait and see attitude for most things in this thread anymore. I've decided hoping, arguing hypotheticals and parsing US law with non experts/ lawyers, is doing nothing for my health and blood pressure. Nor will it change whatever results are going to happen concerning the actual case. It's just useless aggravation I can do without. I'll still read the opinions, might ask a question or make an observation, but I'm going to try stay out of the weeds.

 

[brihard]

Until it goes back to SCOTUS for a decision based on their time table, not Smith's? As far as I can fathom, SCOTUS determines their own schedule deciding whether your super important case is super important to them. Who knows? I'm just adopting a wait and see attitude for most things in this thread anymore. I've decided hoping, arguing hypotheticals and parsing US law with non experts/ lawyers, is doing nothing for my health and blood pressure. Nor will it change whatever results are going to happen concerning the actual case. It's just useless aggravation I can do without. I'll still read the opinions, might ask a question or make an observation, but I'm going to try stay out of the weeds.

Totally fair.

I think it likely that SCOTUS will see the urgency - because absolutely, with a trial scheduled, there’s urgency - and will move their part of it quickly as soon as it gets there. But it’s also entirely reasonable for SCOTUS to let DCCA take its kick at the can given that it can and is being done expeditiously.

I completely respect your choice not to take much further part in discussions on this one. Any posts you do make may still get replies, but speaking for myself I might throw in my two cents in reply, but won’t hound you for answers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

On the question of special counsels, it might simply be that no-one has thought to look deeply into it. For senior appointments, the president might be able to delegate authority to appoint, but certainly can't delegate Senate's advise-and-consent role. So that leaves inferior officers, but those positions have to be explicitly provided for by Congress. I doubt there's an easy slap-down response; most lawyers and legal scholars are reasonably careful to identify objections and address them in advance. If a court takes up the question, it might result in an outcome that shakes the ground a bit.

 

[Remius]

Now Maine.

Donald Trump blocked from Maine presidential ballot in 2024

The decision increases pressure on the Supreme Court to rule on his eligibility to run for the presidency.

www.bbc.com

But Michigan however

Trump election: Michigan supreme court rejects ballot disqualification bid

The former US president can stand in next year's presidential primary in the battleground state.

www.bbc.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wasting the SCOTUS time. Meanwhile red states will do the same to Biden until a decision comes in. Taxpayers should be livid about the amount of money their representatives are spending on this.

 

[brihard]

Now Maine.

Donald Trump blocked from Maine presidential ballot in 2024

The decision increases pressure on the Supreme Court to rule on his eligibility to run for the presidency.

www.bbc.com

But Michigan however

Trump election: Michigan supreme court rejects ballot disqualification bid

The former US president can stand in next year's presidential primary in the battleground state.

www.bbc.com

Specifically, I believe Maine has stricken his eligibility from the primary- although I understand that she has stayed her own decision pending appeal to state court, which of course will probably be the first in a series of appeals. Unlike Colorado, this decision was made by the state Secretary of State as the initial decision maker, rather than in a court trial.

I haven’t read any of the Maine decision yet. It will likely differ from Colorado in some ways given that each state has its own state laws concerning how elections are held and candidacies challenged. An appeal decision binding on one may not bind on the other, depending on the precise questions of law in play. Appeals don’t have to, and often will avoid, “big picture/bottom line” questions if the specific question at bar can be decided on a more narrow limited issue.

 

[KevinB]

Wasting the SCOTUS time. Meanwhile red states will do the same to Biden until a decision comes in. Taxpayers should be livid about the amount of money their representatives are spending on this.

Dude, under what rational to ban the current POTUS? I mean I have not see him leading an insurrection…

I think he’s a pretty poor President, but unlike ole 45, he hasn’t been charged with anything, and none of the rather flimsy corruption allegations are grounds for being held off the ballot under the constitution.

 

[brihard]

Having now had a chance to read it, here’s the decision by the Maine Secretary of State. https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023...e to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions.pdf

34 pages double spaced- pretty clean and easy read. It largely tracks the same reasoning adopted in the Colorado case.

Trump has five days to file an appeal in state court. Maine also has a primary date in early March, so this will need to be taken up through the courts quickly.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Having now had a chance to read it, here’s the decision by the Maine Secretary of State. https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions.pdf

34 pages double spaced- pretty clean and easy read. It largely tracks the same reasoning adopted in the Colorado case.

Trump has five days to file an appeal in state court. Maine also has a primary date in early March, so this will need to be taken up through the courts quickly.

Fifty states, fifty ways of doing it. But the devil is in the details.

In the Maine Secretary of State ruling, she states in the opening part;



She goes on to hinge her argument on Mr. Trump's disqualification due to the standard commentary about his actions in relation to insurrection. However, while she does not specifically go on to identify why Trump's "declaration on his candidate consent form is false", she does very much identify the form, her role in the "administrative procedures" and the need for fairness. On reading that excerpt, my question was, 'what does the form say' and (okay, maybe a second question) 'what does Maine law say about eligibility'. Well, on the SofS site they do link to the form in question.

Title 21-A, §336: Consent of candidate to be filed

1. Consent. The consent must contain a statement signed by the candidate that the candidate will accept the nomination of the primary election. The Secretary of State shall provide a form on which the consent of the candidate is made that must include a list of the statutory and constitutional requirements of the office sought by the candidate. The statement may be printed as a part of the primary petition.

https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/candidate/pdfs/presprimarycandconsent24.pdf

If, as the Secretary ruled, that Mr. Trump is ineligible for the primary because he made a false declaration on his consent form, perhaps she could explain which of those qualifications he does not meet. I have yet to find anything else in Maine's code that gives the Secretary of State authority to pass judgement on anything other than "administrative" irregularities. Much like some of the other states.

 

[brihard]

Fifty states, fifty ways of doing it. But the devil is in the details.

In the Maine Secretary of State ruling, she states in the opening part;

View attachment 82068

She goes on to hinge her argument on Mr. Trump's disqualification due to the standard commentary about his actions in relation to insurrection. However, while she does not specifically go on to identify why Trump's "declaration on his candidate consent form is false", she does very much identify the form, her role in the "administrative procedures" and the need for fairness. On reading that excerpt, my question was, 'what does the form say' and (okay, maybe a second question) 'what does Maine law say about eligibility'. Well, on the SofS site they do link to the form in question.

Title 21-A, §336: Consent of candidate to be filed

https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/candidate/pdfs/presprimarycandconsent24.pdf

View attachment 82069

If, as the Secretary ruled, that Mr. Trump is ineligible for the primary because he made a false declaration on his consent form, perhaps she could explain which of those qualifications he does not meet. I have yet to find anything else in Maine's code that gives the Secretary of State authority to pass judgement on anything other than "administrative" irregularities. Much like some of the other states.

She did discuss all of this in pages 13-15 of her decision, noting, for instance, that the form also doesn’t list the 22nd Amendment eligibility requirement of no more than two terms as president, yet she would be bound by that too. However I’m sure that this point will be a key argument in any appeal by Trump. The resultant appellate decision will be an interesting deep dive into legislative intent.

 

[QV]

People attempting to ban the 2024 front runner from the ballet. What could go wrong telling tens of millions of people their ballot choice is deleted for no legitimate reason?

And on the premise that Trump incited insurrection... laughably delusional. What's more is that we have on record 45's performance as POTUS (ie: not Hitler) and on record the corrupt establishment's seditious actions throughout his tenure.

The radical left is going to destroy America.

 

[dapaterson]

Banned from the ballet?

 

[lenaitch]

Banned from the ballet?

Perhaps, in a sense, it is somewhat accurate. The US electoral system is a bit of a dance.

 

[Remius]

Banned from the ballet?

I would be fine being banned from that.

 

[dimsum]

Banned from the ballet?

I’m out of the loop - context?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Dude, under what rational to ban the current POTUS? I mean I have not see him leading an insurrection…

I think he’s a pretty poor President, but unlike ole 45, he hasn’t been charged with anything, and none of the rather flimsy corruption allegations are grounds for being held off the ballot under the constitution.

Dude, that's not up to me, but the red states that have said and have been saying since Colorado, they are looking to explore the possibility. It’s been in the news. As I said, a monumental waste of taxpayer money. Try not jump down my throat too quickly.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Banned from the ballet?

Down here, that means banned from the peeler bar.