#vote against insurrectionists

[the-demure-abstract]

My favorite part of the article:

Carlson featured prominently in a $1.6 billion lawsuit brought against Fox News by voting equipment company Dominion Voting Systems, which was the subject of conspiracies of widespread election fraud and other wrongdoing in the wake of the November 2020 presidential election.

Now that their favorite Fox news bigot is gone, who will they find to replace him with? 🤔

#cnn news #tucker carlson #donald trump #fuck trumpf #white twitter #maga insurrectionists #maga #Republicans #vote out the gop #republican gop #republican party #trump for prison #never trump #trump2024 #against trump #fuck trump #trump indictment #trumplicans #donald j trump #vote out republicans #republican #racist republicans #jan 6 insurrection #election fraud #election year #presidential elections #corrupt gop #scotus #racist dictator #racism

[wilwheaton]

The five Justices in the majority opinion, however, went farther than necessary to insulate insurrectionists from being disqualified from federal elections. They didn’t just rule that states cannot disqualify Trump, or Presidential candidates, but rather that states cannot disqualify any insurrectionist candidates for federal office. The Justices gave all the power to a notoriously dysfunctional Congress to do so, even though Section Five did not explicitly make Congress the sole enforcing authority of Section Three. As in the Dobbs case that overturned 50 years of Roe v. Wade, the conservative principle of “judicial restraint” does not exist with this Supreme Court. Republicans like to blast “activist judges,” but as we see yet again, an “activist judge” is just someone who rules against you. Under the Supreme Court’s expansive ruling, a state is currently unable to disqualify a candidate for federal office who engaged in insurrection, even if that person has been charged and convicted of insurrection. Even a federal court would be unable to bounce an insurrectionist from the ballot absent a law enacted by Congress.

There's No Restraining This Activist Supreme Court

This SCOTUS needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt with actual Justices, instead of these unelected activists who are opposed by nearly 8 in 10 Americans.

The Courts are not going to save us. The Courts aren’t even going to enforce existing laws that were written to protect us. The Courts are actively working against Democracy and doing everything The Courts can do to hasten Fascism’s hold on the levers of power. Fascism has already come to America. It is taking root in every state that is under Republican occupation, urged on and enabled by this SCOTUS majority, and their ideological partners in the House and Senate. The only way we can stop this from spreading like a Zerg creep over all of America is to overwhelmingly put Democrats into office and then force them to act.

If Congress won’t do something to limit the grotesque abuses of power by people who don’t interpret the law, but make law from the bench, it will be up to America to rise up and demand action. 

I refuse to be ruled by 6 Christofascist Nationalists, and I refuse to sit quietly while people who have the legal means to do something throw up their hands and furrow their brows.

This is going to be our last election that matters, if we don’t.

I’m serious. If Trump somehow gets into the White House again, we will never have another election in my lifetime.

LISTEN TO ME: any vote that is not for Joe Biden is a vote to end Democracy in America. Any vote that is not for a Democrat is a vote to end Democracy in America. When I see people insisting they won’t support Biden or Democrats because they aren’t Left enough, I want to pull my hair out. The stakes are too high for all of us -- especially the most vulnerable among us -- to indulge temper tantrums.

It’s a very simple choice: you can vote for Biden and Democrats, or you can vote to turn America into a Christian Nationalist Theocracy, ruled by autocrats.

This will be our last free election, if Republicans are not resoundingly and forcefully rejected at all levels.

#uspol #scotus

[robertreich]

Does the Constitution Ban Trump from Running Again? 

Donald Trump should not be allowed on the ballot.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who has held public office and taken an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office again if they “have engaged in insurrection” against the United States.

This key provision was enacted after the Civil War to prevent those who rose up against our democracy from ever being allowed to hold office again.

This applies to Donald Trump. He cannot again be entrusted with public office. He led an insurrection!

He refused to concede the results of the 2020 election, claiming it was stolen, even when many in his inner circle, including his own attorney general, told him it was not.

Trump then pushed state officials to change vote counts, hatched a plot to name fake electors, tried to pressure his vice president into refusing to certify the Electoral College votes, had his allies seek access to voting-machine data, and summoned his supporters to attack the capitol on January 6th to disrupt the formal recognition of the presidential election results.

And then he waited HOURS, reportedly watching the violence on TV, before telling his supporters to go home — despite pleas from his staff, Republican lawmakers, and even Fox News.

If this isn’t the behavior of an insurrectionist, I don’t know what is.

Can there be any doubt that Trump will again try to do whatever it takes to regain power, even if it’s illegal and unconstitutional?

If anything, given all the MAGA election deniers in Congress and in the states, Trump is less constrained than he was in 2020. And more power hungry.

Trump could face criminal charges for inciting an insurrection, but that’s not necessary to bar him from the ballot.

Secretaries of State and other chief election officers across the country have the power to determine whether candidates meet the qualifications for office. They have a constitutional duty to keep Trump off the ballot — based on the clear text of the U.S. Constitution.

Some might argue that voters should be able to decide whether candidates are fit for office, even if they’re dangerous. But the Constitution sets the bar for what disqualifies someone from being president. Candidates must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born U.S. citizen. And they must also not have engaged in insurrection after they previously took an oath of office to defend the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has already been used to disqualify an insurrectionist from continuing to hold public office in New Mexico, with the state’s Supreme Court upholding the ruling.

This is not about partisanship. If a Democrat attempts to overthrow the government, they should not be allowed on ballots either.

Election officials must keep Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024. 

Democracy cannot survive if insurrectionists hold power in our government.

#youtube #video #videos #Donald Trump #politics #election

[odinsblog]

Musk reactivated the accounts of Brazilian far-right politicians Carla Zambelli, Gustavo Gayer, and Nikolas Ferreira. Ferreira, a Bolsonaro supporter, openly questioned the security of Brazil’s electronic voting machines, even though he won his local legislative race.

“All of these names have been problematic for years on social media,” says Flora Rebello Arduini, campaign director at the nonprofit advocacy organization Ekō. “They've been pushing for the far-right and election misinformation for ages.”

When Musk purchased Twitter in 2022, later renaming it X, many activists in Brazil worried that he would abuse the platform to push his own agenda, Arduini says. “He has unprecedented broadcasting abilities. He is bullying a supreme court justice of a democratic country, and he is showing he will use all the resources he has available to push for whatever favors his personal opinions or his professional ambitions.”

Under Musk, X has become a haven for the far right and disinformation. After taking over, Musk offered amnesty to users who had been banned from the platform, including right-wing influencer Andrew Tate, who, along with his brother, was indicted in Romania on several charges including with rape and human trafficking in June 2023 (he has denied the allegations). Last month, one of Tate's representatives told the BBC that "they categorically reject all charges."

A 2023 study found that hate speech has increased on the platform under Musk’s leadership. The situation in Brazil is just the latest instance of Musk aligning himself with and platforming dangerous, far-right movements around the world, experts tell WIRED. "It's not about Twitter or Brazil. It's about a strategy from the global far right to overcome democracies and democratic institutions around the world," says Nina Santos, a digital democracy researcher at the Brazilian National Institute of Science & Technology who researches the Brazilian far right. “An opinion from an American billionaire should not count more than a democratic institution.”

This also comes as Brazil has continued working to understand and investigate the lead-up to January 8, 2023, when election-denying insurrectionists who refused to accept right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro’s defeat stormed Brazil’s legislature. The TSE, the country’s election court, is a special judicial body that investigates electoral crimes and is part of the mechanism for overseeing the country’s electoral processes overall. The court has been investigating the dissemination of fake news and disinformation that cast doubt on the country’s elections in the months and years leading up to the storming of the legislature on January 8, 2023. Both Arduini and Santos believe that the accounts Musk is refusing to remove are likely connected to the court’s inquiry.

“A life-and-death struggle recently took place in Brazil for the democratic rule of law and against a coup d'état, which is under investigation by this court in compliance with due legal process,” Luís Roberto Barroso, the president of the federal supreme court, said in a statement about Musk’s comments. “Nonconformity against the prevalence of democracy continues to manifest itself in the criminal exploitation of social networks.”

Santos also worries that Musk is setting a precedent that the far right will be protected and promoted on his platform, regardless of local laws or public opinion. “They are trying to use Brazil as a laboratory on how to interfere in local politics and local businesses,” she says. “They are making the case that their decision is more important than the national decision from a state democratic institution.”

Though Musk has claimed to be a free-speech advocate, and X’s public statement on the takedowns asserts that Brazilians are entitled to free speech, the platform’s application of these principles has been uneven at best. In February, on order of the Indian government, X blocked the accounts Hindutva Watch and the India Hate Lab in India, two US-based nonprofits that track incidents of religiously motivated violence perpetrated by supporters of the country’s right-wing government. A 2023 study from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard found that X complied with more government takedown requests under Musk’s leadership than it had previously.

In March, X blocked the accounts of several prominent researchers and journalists after they identified a well-known neo-Nazi cartoonist, later changing its own terms of service to justify the decision.

—Elon Musk Is Platforming Far-Right Activists in Brazil

#politics #brazil #elon musk #disinformation #twitter #nikolas ferreira #misinformation #libertarians #fascists #fascism #elon musk is an enemy of democracy #democracy #eugenics musk #apartheid clyde #crypro grifters #techno grifters #crypto bros #election interference #electioneering

[deadpresidents]

A perfect demonstration of how gutless most of the Republicans in the House of Representatives are is the fact that, in a public vote, there were 25 Republicans willing to vote against Jim Jordan for Speaker of the House. In a secret ballot, where their names would be withheld from the insurrectionist cult followers who they've allowed to take over their party, 112 Republicans voted against Jordan. Those votes happened on the same day.

#Shitshow at the Fuckfactory #Congress #Politics #U.S. House of Representatives #Speaker of the House #Republican Party #GOP #Jim Jordan

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 4, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 5, 2024

Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution from holding office. The court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment leaves the question of enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment up to Congress. 

But the court didn’t stop there. It sidestepped the question of whether the events of January 6, 2021, were an insurrection, declining to reverse Colorado’s finding that Trump was an insurrectionist.

In those decisions, the court was unanimous.

But then five of the justices cast themselves off from the other four. Those five went on to “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy,” as the three dissenting liberal judges put it. The five described what they believed could disqualify from office someone who had participated in an insurrection: a specific type of legislation.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in one concurrence, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in another, note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote. Seeming to criticize those three of her colleagues as much as the majority, Barrett wrote: “This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency…. [W]ritings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” 

Conservative judge J. Michael Luttig wrote that “in the course of unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case, the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, participated in the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, notably did not recuse himself from participating in the case.

There is, perhaps, a larger story behind the majority’s musings on future congressional actions. Its decision to go beyond what was required to decide a specific question and suggest the boundaries of future legislation pushed it from judicial review into the realm of lawmaking. 

For years now, Republicans, especially Republican senators who have turned the previously rarely-used filibuster into a common tool, have stopped Congress from making laws and have instead thrown decision-making to the courts.

Two days ago, in Slate, legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern noted that when Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was Senate majority leader, he “realized you don’t need to win elections to enact Republican policy. You don’t need to change hearts and minds. You don’t need to push ballot initiatives or win over the views of the people. All you have to do is stack the courts. You only need 51 votes in the Senate to stack the courts with far-right partisan activists…[a]nd they will enact Republican policies under the guise of judicial review, policies that could never pass through the democratic process. And those policies will be bulletproof, because they will be called ‘law.’”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters from an American #Heather Cox Richardson #corrupt SCOTUS #illegitimate SCOTUS #14th amendment #election 2024 #insurrectionists #Mitch McConnell #J.Michael Luttig

[spiderlegsmusic]

Future generations will look back on this time period like we do the dark ages. Religion, in its death throes, is fighting to make a comeback in relevance by banning women’s healthcare because they want more babies born whose health and well being they won’t contribute to.

And fuck you if you were raped and molested by a stranger or family member resulting in pregnancy. Even if you’re 12. You have to carry your rape baby, especially in Texas where we lead the nation in rape babies doubling the next highest state.

Like we view the dark ages

We have a depraved degenerate piece of shit subhuman claiming to be ordained by god, confirming that yes, religion is bullshit and just a way to control the superstitious masses. If god existed, it would in no way want to be associated with trump and would actively distance itself.

The fact that that traitor insurrectionist piece of shit is allowed to run for president after trying to overthrow the govt by force (jan6), bureaucratically(fake electors scam), and by extortion (the Georgia find me more votes scam), is beyond me.

The whole country saw what he did. It’s just that republicans have gotten sick of losing elections so now they embrace fascism. They will support trumps authoritarian autocratic dictatorship because it means they won’t lose anymore elections.

And we will just let him.

See, this election isn’t Trump vs Biden. The democratic challenger could be a flaming bag of shit, it wouldn’t change the stakes. Every year, people say this election is so important and they’ve been wrong. But this year they are correct. This isn’t Trump vs Biden. It’s dictatorship vs democracy. Trump wins and he’ll crown himself king for life. Anyone who opposes him will be thrown in prison. Listen to his speeches, he says the quiet part out loud. Everyone in his campaign is saying trump’s next term will be all about retribution. RETRIBUTION against those who wouldn’t allow him to steal the last election.

There is no love, no goodness in Trump. He’s an asshole to everyone. He quotes Hitler and counts Putin, Kim, and the Hungarian dictator Orbàn as friends. He’s a scumbag using religion to solidify his cult status over the simpleminded racists who support him. He’s not a christian, he’s not friendly and he thinks Hitler did good things

Even if you hate Biden, it’s not him you are voting for by voting for him. You’re voting for a continuation of democracy, which may be battered by things like horrible Supreme Court rulings (citizens united, repealing Roe v Wade, corporate personhood) but it’s better than a Trump led dictatorship. Once democracy is gone, it’s never coming back without war and death. Is this what you want? Do you think you will survive bombs hitting your neighborhood, your apartment building? Ask people in Ukraine what that’s like.

It’s not Biden vs Trump. It’s dictatorship vs democracy. It’s black and white, no shades of gray. If trump wins, you will never vote in a meaningful election again. And if you or anyone you know complains, they will disappear. Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it. And history is repeating itself. Hitler won by one vote. Trump won in 2016 despite getting fewer votes because of the electoral college. And if he loses again, he’ll pull the same shit as in 2020, but more forceful.

Keep trump out of the White House.

For fucks sake!

#trump #Biden #democracy #dictatorship #republicans #authoritarian #autocracy

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

The belief that “military tribunals” will aid Trumpublikkkans against Dems is a fallacious facet of Qanon ideology. The military took a massive swing away from the Republikkkan party during the Trump reign of terror. While anecdotally aging white male veterans leaned Republikkkan in the past their have been major shifts.

Since Vietnam in the ‘60’s the makeup of the military has been disproportionately “minority”, poor, urban, northern, Catholic, and recent immigrant. What do these groups have in common, they are all majority democratic and targets of Republikkkan hatred and derision. Since the Vietnam era the military has become 15% female which is also typically democratic. While the leadership is still clinging to just over 50% white male they are an educated class and draw heavily from the aforementioned demographic groups. Military leadership disproportionately and publicly rejected Trump with the notable exceptions of the Flynn brothers who ironically hail from Rhode Island.

Curiously, a significant percentage of troops who identified as conservative were not registered to vote. In the 2020 election nearly 3/4 of the military mail-in vote favored democrats. Don’t buy into Republikkkan propaganda that they “own” the military. Their support is aging white, rural, southern, high school educated veterans that are diminishing with each passing year. Remind those around you that Republikkkans hate veterans as they prove with each Veterans Administration bill they reject. Veterans, like poor southerners, are completely brainwashed by Republikkkan/Fox propaganda.

Also when Republikkkans give their fiery speeches rambling off names of expensive weapons systems they wish to purchase it is because they and their puppet masters own stock in the defense industry. They support sales of often flawed weapons, not for the benefit of the troops, but for the benefit of their own stock portfolios.

Democrats would be wise to start preaching their support for active duty military and veterans. Changing the perceived notion that the military is Republikkkan territory would be very helpful in winning future elections. President Biden is the first high profile Dem in ages, perhaps since the Republikkkans turned racist in the Civil Rights era, to try and reclaim the military. At a time when Republikkkan insurrectionists are planning for a literal civil war and actively recruiting police and military in would be in our best interests to shut them down.

Feel free to do some googling of your own and as always never just read one source article.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

The Supreme Court spent about an hour and a half on Tuesday morning arguing over whether to make it much harder for the Justice Department to prosecute hundreds of people who joined the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. It appears, after Tuesday’s arguments, that a majority of the justices will side with the insurrectionists — though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome. The case, known as Fischer v. United States, involved a federal law which provides that anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” commits a very serious federal felony and can be imprisoned for up to 20 years — although, as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out during Tuesday’s argument, actual sentences against January 6 defendants convicted under this statute have been much shorter, normally ranging from a little less than one year to slightly over two years.

According to the Justice Department, more than 1,265 people have been arrested for playing some role in the attack on the Capitol. Approximately 330 of them have been charged under the obstruction statute at issue in Fischer. One of them is Donald Trump. As a federal appeals court held in its decision in this case, the obstruction statute is pretty darn clear that it applies to an effort to obstruct any congressional proceeding intended to certify the result of a presidential election — like the proceeding that the January 6 rioters attacked. And very few of the justices seemed to agree with Jeffrey Green, the lawyer representing a January 6 defendant, who proposed one way to read the statute more narrowly.

Nevertheless, many of the justices expressed concerns that the law sweeps too broadly and that it must be narrowed to prevent people who engage in relatively benign activity from being prosecuted. Justice Samuel Alito, for example, expressed uncharacteristic sympathy for hecklers who interrupt a Supreme Court hearing — suggesting that prosecuting them under a statute that can carry a 20-year sentence goes too far. Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed similar concerns about prosecuting someone who peacefully conducts a sit-in to delay a court hearing, or someone who pulls a fire alarm to disrupt an official proceeding.

Indeed, Tuesday’s argument had a bit of a split personality. During Green’s time at the podium, most of the justices took turns criticizing his attempts to read the ban on obstructing an official proceeding narrowly. Even Alito, who is normally the Court’s most reliable vote for any outcome preferred by the Republican Party, got in on the game — telling Green that he “may be biting off more than [he] can chew” by arguing that the statute must be read to benefit his client. By the time Green sat down, it appeared that he could lose in a 9–0 decision. But any optimism that the Justice Department might have had early on in the argument must have been shattered almost as soon as Prelogar began her argument. Most of the justices peppered her with skeptical questions, although the justices who seemed to want to limit the obstruction statute struggled to agree on a single legal theory that would allow them to do so. So the bottom line is that this case is probably going to end well for many January 6 defendants, but it is far from clear how the Court will justify such an outcome.

[...]

The Court’s sympathy for political protesters appears to be quite selective

Much of the skepticism Prelogar faced seemed to be rooted in some of the justices’ fears that ordinary political protests may be squelched by an overbroad reading of the obstruction statute. So it is worth noting another decision that the Court handed down just one day before the argument in Fischer. In Mckesson v. Doe, the right-wing United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit effectively eliminated the right to organize a political protest — holding that protest leaders could face ruinous financial liability if a single protest attendee commits an illegal act. This decision is completely at odds with a long line of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents. And yet, on Monday, the Court announced that it would not hear the Mckesson case, leaving the Fifth Circuit’s decision in place. It is still possible that the Supreme Court will correct the Fifth Circuit’s error in Mckesson at some later date. But it’s notable that the Court felt no urgency to do so in that case, while it spent the Fischer argument thinking about how to shut down some hypothetical future case where the government may not show adequate respect for First Amendment rights. The Mckesson case, moreover, involved a Black Lives Matter protest, while the Fischer case involved a pro-Trump insurrection. If nothing else, this is a terrible look for the Supreme Court. And it suggests that many of the justices’ concerns about free speech depend on whether they agree with the political views of the speaker.

Based on the oral arguments heard in the Fischer v. United States case at SCOTUS, the right-wing majority on the court is likely to side with Capitol Insurrectionists charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

Combined with this and the refusal to take up McKesson v. Doe, SCOTUS is in the tank for sympathies for right-wing protesters.

See Also:

HuffPost: Supreme Court Conservatives Appear Skeptical Of The Law Used To Charge Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Insurrectionists

#SCOTUS #Capitol Insurrection #Fischer v. United States #Donald Trump #US Department of Justice #Elizabeth Prelogar #Jeffrey Green #Joseph Fischer #McKesson v. Doe

[longwindedbore]

Evidently legal scholars are arguing that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1866 the third clause (below) did NOT require a conviction in a court of law to ban those who took arms to fight for, who aided or who abetted the government of the Confederacy.

Or any acted/aided/abetted any future insurrections.

It is incumbent on the accused insurrectionist to petition Congress.

Clause 3:

‘No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.’

In 1866 the federal government did not intend to try hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Original intent.

A rarely used clause.

[robertreich]

This One Thing May Stop Trump From Running For Re-Election

Far-right politicians are dragging America back to the 19th century.

Reproductive rights in Wisconsin are now governed by an abortion law passed in 1849 — and in Arizona, a judge recently reinstated a ban on abortion first adopted in 1864.

Well, if Republicans are so keen to wind back the clock, I suggest reviving a different 19th century provision of the Constitution : Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

It states that, anyone who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution can be barred from holding public office if they “have engaged in insurrection” against the United States.

Sound familiar?

A judge in New Mexico thought so — and recently used it to permanently ban an insurrectionist from ever holding any state or federal office again.

The official — Commissioner Couy Griffin — spent months normalizing violence to keep Trump in office and urged supporters to travel to Washington with him on January 6th.

Griffin also voted twice against certifying New Mexico’s 2022 primary election, fueled by conspiracy theories about the security of voting equipment.

His case proves that it is possible to expel public officials who violate their oaths to the Constitution.

Any lawmakers who engaged in insurrection on January 6th must be held accountable and barred from holding public office now and in the future.

And yes, that includes Donald Trump.

#youtube #donald trump #January 6th #videos #video #politics #election

[soberscientistlife]

Here's to the officers and families who refused today to shake hands with McConnell or McCarthy when accepting Congressional Medals for their Jan 6th service!

WOULD YOU BELIEVE 21 HOUSE GOP REPS VOTED AGAINST honoring these officers who were savagely beaten, and some killed, to defend our democracy and the lives of our representatives that day!!!

THOSE 21 are on the side of the insurrectionist mob to their eternal disgrace -- they include:

Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Andy Harris (Md.), Lance Gooden (Tex.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Michael Cloud (Tex.), Andrew S. Clyde (Ga.), Greg Steube (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.) and John Rose (Tenn.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Barry Moore (Ala.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matthew M. Rosendale (Mont.), Chip Roy (Tex.), Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Scott Perry (Pa.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Mary Miller (Ill.).

In contrast, Pelosi gives her heartfelt thanks to one of the officers. (Officer Michael Fanone)

H/T E Q Freeman

[schraubd]

The Tennessee Three: Whataboutism as Fascism Apologia

You've no doubt heard at this point about "the Tennessee Three", three Democratic members of the Tennessee State House facing an expulsion vote for their role in a protest against gun violence that occurred on the state legislative floor. Expulsion is a rarely-invoked procedure in Tennessee, typically reserved for obvious cases of criminality of misconduct (e.g., a bribery scandal) in cases that garner bipartisan support. To use it to kick out minority party members for a raucous protest the majority found embarrassing is a huge overreach, an exploitation of the GOP's supermajority status to further undermine basic democratic principles.

I wanted to flag a particular comparison Tennessee Republicans are using to justify their conduct -- comparing the protest to the attempted insurrection on January 6:

House Speaker Cameron Sexton compared the incident to Jan. 6: "What they did today was equivalent, at least equivalent, maybe worse depending on how you look at it, to doing an insurrection in the State Capitol," he said.

Sexton also noted that Jones and Johnson had previously been "very vocal about Jan. 6 and Washington, D.C., about what that was."

There was, of course, no insurrection here: the protest had no ambitions of overthrowing the government. But there's something revealing about this rhetorical move that I think typifies the way conservatives are normalizing and justifying fascist behavior.

Even now, many Republicans are kind of willing to concede that there was something ... untoward about January 6, and the broader campaign of election denial that spawned it. "Kind of" because they face tremendous pressure to outright endorse it, as Sexton's "maybe worse" aside makes clear. But to the extent they to recognize that there's something wrong with what happened on January 6, what they want to do is present things like January 6 as an ordinary sort of ugliness, the sort of foul or misconduct one can see from all parts of the political spectrum. Yes, maybe the January 6 thing went a bit too far. But it's not distinctive; this is a problem one can see across the aisle too. Look at Black Lives Matter protests -- why aren't they being treated like the insurrectionists? Maybe Trump shouldn't have denied the election, but is it really any different from Al Gore demanding a recount in 2000? Trump stole classified documents; well, what about her emails? Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.

By transferring these egregious examples of anti-democratic thuggery into the realm of "normal" politics, Republicans justify treating them via the "normal" (partisan) political process. Sure it might be a bit distasteful, and more than a little opportunistic, but hey, that's politics. There's nothing exceptional here that demands standing on a broader principle. Everything blurs into an indistinguishable mush of "sometimes politics gets ugly." And in that universe, well, it's just realistic that Republicans probably won't pay much attention to their "normal" nips that might cross the line. Cynicism styles itself as realism, but it's really just cowardice.

None of this is to say that straightforward political thuggery isn't sufficient explanation for why Tennessee Republicans are acting the way they are. But there is a broader justificatory narrative being crafted here. The Tennessee Three isn't just about state and national Republicans being contemptuous of democratic norms (though it's certainly about that too). It's yet another effort to pull the extreme conservative threats to basic rule of law principles out of the realm of "extreme" and blur them into the normal hurly-burly of every day politics. Exploiting the media's instinct to "both sides" everything, the GOP will just troll all the way down

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/Z25W97O

#democracy #Democrats #GOP #Republicans #Tennessee

[hadeantaiga]

I'm listening to opening arguments for the Supreme Court opening arguments about whether or not Colorado has a right under section 3 of the 14th Amendment (insurrectionists can't hold office) to remove Trump from their ballot.

All of this is based on civil war policy, if you didn't know what the 14th Amendment was.

Trump's lawyer is arguing that section 3 is not "self executing", which means the state can't prevent Trump from being on the ballot themselves - he could run, but then when he got elected, Congress would have to pardon him by a 2/3rds vote for him to actually be president.

Trump's lawyer's first argument: Using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is placing a new requirement on candidates before they are elected that is not stated in the Constitution.

One of the justices said that for her the issue are: in what sense does history say that states can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against their own office holders, can they enforce it against federal officers, and can they enforce it against the office of president?

Trump's lawyer is claiming a state cannot do those things because of an earlier ruling (Griffin's Case) (not a Supreme Court case).

One of the judges has said "so you're not making a constitutional argument" to Trump's lawyer - aka he's not relying on the Constitution, he's relying on a secondary case.

When asked how he'd argue this case without Griffin's case, Trump's lawyer admits it'd be much harder because every other part of the 14th amendment has been self executing.

They are discussing a bit what "self executing" means.

Sotomayor has noted that other qualifications can disqualify a candidate prior to running (e.g. age). She is questioning why section 3 is different. Trump's lawyer is claiming that because Griffin's case set precedent that section 3 is not self executing, that states cannot ban him from the ballot, because Congress may pardon him from that after he is elected.

According to Trump's lawyer, being an insurrectionist is allegedly not categorical because Congress could pardon him afterwards. He is arguing that if someone's category could change via a vote, it isn't fair to impose it as a limit on the candidate prior to the election, and should therefore not disqualify Trump from being on the ballot.

Trump's lawyer's second main argument: Trump and the office of president is exempt from section 3 due to its phrasing.

Trump's lawyer is also arguing that technically, "president" isn't on the list in section 3. A lot lays in the importance between "officers" and "office" - in this case, the difference means if you are an officer you cannot hold an office - you can't be both. The President isn't an officer, he holds the position of the office of the president. This means Trump specifically is excluded from the wording of this because he never actually was an officer, and has only held office.

Paraphrase of some of the justices: "Why would they have written that presidents who were never officers would be excluded from section 3? Why would they have done that at the time of the civil war, when there was a strong motivation to keep any inssurectionist out of office?"

Trump's lawyer is also claiming Trump has presidential immunity and can't be prosecuted for anything about Jan 6th anyway.

#uspol #us politics

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The New Yorker

* * * * *

“Trying to steal history.”

January 9, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

On Monday, President Biden delivered a stirring and spirited speech at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. In June 2015, members of the congregation at the church invited a stranger to join them for services. The stranger killed nine members of the church in the worst church-related shooting (to that point)—a mass killing that was racially motivated. President Obama delivered a eulogy for Pastor Clementa Pinckney of Mother Emmanuel AME Church that included his rendition of Amazing Grace a cappella.

[The video is here, Joe Biden speaks at Charleston church (start at the 26:00 minute mark), and the full text of the speech is here: Remarks by President Biden at a Political Event | Charleston, SC.]

Against the backdrop of the 2015 racially motivated mass shooting, President Biden addressed Trump's use of the “lost cause” of white supremacy to bolster his hate-fueled campaign. Biden said, in part,

On June 17th, 2015, the [nine] beautiful souls and five survivors invited a stranger into this church to pray with them. The word of God was pierced by bullets in hate and rage, propelled by not just gunpowder but by a poison — a poison that’s for too long haunted this nation. What is that poison? White supremacy. Oh, it is; it’s a poison. Throughout our history, it’s ripped this nation apart. This has no place in America. Not today, tomorrow, or ever. Now — now we’re living in an era of a second lost cause. Once again, there are some in this country trying — trying to turn a loss into a lie — a lie, which if allowed to live, will once again bring terrible damage to this country. This time, the lie is about the 2020 election, the election which you made your voices heard and your power known.

Biden tied the lost cause of white supremacy to Trump's 2020 loss, identifying both of as existential threats to the nation. He then pivoted to Trump's insurrection on January 6 and Trump's threat to continue that assault on democracy if he is elected to a second term in 2024.

Biden said, Just two days ago, we marked the third anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history: January the 6th. The day in which insurrectionists stormed the United States Capitol, trying for the first time in American history to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the country. We all saw with our own eyes the truth of what happened. That violent mob was whipped up by lies from a defeated former President . . . . We saw something on January 6th we’d never seen before, even during the Civil War. Insurrectionists waving Confederate flags inside the halls of Congress built by enslaved Americans. A mob attacked and called Black officers, Black veterans defending the nation those vile of racist names. And yet, an extreme movement of America, the MAGA Republicans, led by a defeated President, is trying to steal history now. They tried to steal an election. Now they’re trying to steal history, telling us that violent mob was, and I quote, “a peaceful protest.” The lies that led to January 6th are part of a broader attack on the truth America today that we all have seen before. The same movement that, throughout the mob at the United States Capitol, isn’t just trying to rewrite history of January 6th, they’re trying to determine to erase history and your future: banning books; denying your right to vote and have it counted; destroying diversity, equality, inclusion all across America; harboring hate and replacing hope with anger and resentment and a dangerous view of America.

Powerful words delivered with passion and dignity befitting the hallowed ground and the proximity to January 6. As Trump's speeches are becoming more unhinged and hateful, Biden’s are becoming more forceful and direct in challenging Trump. If you can spare twenty minutes, watch the video linked above, beginning at the 26:00-minute mark. Your confidence will be renewed.

But I can’t leave this story without commenting on the media coverage. Biden delivered a truly inspirational and important speech on race and democracy. For sixty seconds during Biden’s speech, a protestor stood up and demanded that Biden call for a cease-fire in Israel. Biden handled the protestor with skill and grace. As the protestor was escorted from the church, Biden said,

It's alright. I understand their passion. I’ve been quietly working with the Israeli government to get them to reduce and significantly get out of Gaza.

That sixty-second incident of an otherwise historic speech dominated virtually every headline describing the speech. See, e.g., NYTimes, Protesters Calling for Gaza Cease-Fire Interrupt Biden Speech; The Hill, Biden address in Charleston church interrupted by protesters; and NPR, Protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza interrupted Biden's campaign speech.

The bias against Biden is just unbelievable. I wonder if the headline writers or journalists who wrote the articles even bothered to read or listen to the substance of Biden’s speech. I doubt it. Shame on them!

Meanwhile, Trump hopes the economy crashes before he is re-elected.

As Biden continued to call for the preservation of democracy and mourned the tragedies of January 6 and the AME shootings, Trump was telling an interviewer he hoped the economy would crash during Biden’s remaining time in office. See The Hill, Trump says he hopes economy crashes in next 12 months: ‘I don’t want to be Herbert Hoover’.

Trump said,

We have an economy that’s so fragile, and the only reason it’s running now is it’s running off the fumes of what we did. It’s just running off the fumes. And when there’s a crash — I hope it’s going to be during this next 12 months because I don’t want to be Herbert Hoover. The one president I just don’t want to be, Herbert Hoover.

Ha! Trump remembered as Herbert Hoover? He should be so lucky! He will be remembered as Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jefferson Davis, and Aldrich Ames—combined!

And, in case you think I am resorting to hyperbole, Trump refused to sign a traditional pledge in Illinois in which presidential candidates pledge not to overthrow the US government. See The Guardian, Donald Trump did not sign Illinois pledge not to overthrow government. Trump signed the pledge in 2016 and 2020, but not in 2024. Hmm . . . it’s almost like he’s planning ahead to overthrow the US government!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

#Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter #Robert B. Hubbell #Election 2024 #Democracy #rule of law #american history #The New Yorker