Asha, I am not convinced that getting everyone, even our political opponents, to play by the same basic rulebook is possible. At least not between now and November. I just wrote this to a friend of mine who listens to right-wing media, who pointed out that support for Trump increases as he's sued:
I understand that as the rule of law is engaged, Trump gets more popular. That's because people who support Trump don't know what the rule of law is and how it is the foundation of our Constitutional republic. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't think they want a Constitutional republic with its free and fair elections, free press, and independent judiciary. They want an autocracy with a leader that considers them the in-group. In that case, they don't need such a republic.
Still, reminding everyone of the rules everyone holding an office or running for one officially has agreed on helps.
It's more for those who mostly avoid dealing with politics, who need to understand the importance of those rules. Then demanding compliance has a much better chance to succeed.
Yes, I would agree with this. Make the case for the rule of law and how Trump is trampling over it. That would be a worthy effort this year, if it is targeted to the swing voters in the swing states. It could influence enough of them to give Biden the EC win.
Sobering realization- instead of a constitutional democracy that endeavors to level the playing field, an autocracy with a leader that considers you the in group and hates everybody you hate. Instead of lifting everyone up, let's drag everyone down, because y'all been ridin high too long, and I kinda like it down here. "I might still hurt, but you're gonna hurt too for a change."
Asha, you always clarify things fir me and actually give me hope that perhaps this could be the tipping point. Now everyone knows that the figure applies to only the first two years. That makes it even more shocking. Thank you for your continuing efforts to uncomplicate everything.
As it turns out, it’s only because of the Electoral College that an obviously unfit moron like Donald Trump was put into office, and may be again.
Am I correct in recalling no election where it could be said “Whew! Thank goodness the Electoral College saved us from that popular vote winner--that would’ve been a disaster!”
Great piece Asha. I didn't realize the 8 million emoluments (it's fancy for bribes people) was only two years.
What my mind is going to is -how do we clean this up-? We have Obvious corruption without any consequences. It's huge and it keeps rolling as if invisible.
What corrupted the Republicans beyond redemption. That there's only Romney, Cheney and Kinzinger remaining. Who owns the Republican party what are they being controlled by? Is it blackmail. Money? Some sort of mob? Or elite mob oligarchy? What has corrupted them so completely and can it be exposed and cleaned up. How do we do it?
Even if Trump loses and Biden gets elected to second term, the Republican controlled house is deeply corrupted and disfunctional. Several justices of scotus remain deeply corrupted.
How do we clean it up. And If we can't addess it we are already a failed democracy and already a fascist state. .
I know trying & convicting trump on his 91 charges is a very important step. Hopefully we can see this to fruition. He is very dangerous now I fear for the judges and other people such as secretary of state for many states. Trump should be in prison pending trial for fomenting violence and violent threats.
Maybe the voters decide to give us more Dems in Congress. The Senate is barely dem controlled. Maybe more reps and McConnell plan their retirements. And we survive as a democracy. But this is an ugly time and nothing is guaranteed.
I believe the polls djt is citing as him being way ahead are corrupt too. (Bought) BTW.
Here's to some justice and consequences for trump, maga Republicans, and trumpism in 2024.
Lately far too many people locally seem to be driving like it is a Mad Max situation and aren’t obeying the same traffic laws as others. I have a quip about this when I’m driving. “Right of Way does not mean ‘I am right and you are in my way’.”
I’m expecting 2024 to be excessively exciting. We’re in a really bad place as a country.
Can Trump hide behind "my kids were running the business" or "they paid the Trump Organization not me"? He's very good at creating plausible deniability. Maybe 'plausible' is too strong a word. More he's good at coming up with a rationale which we know is total BS and he knows we know it's total BS, but he also knows it's enough to give him the legal cover he needs. This guy has gotten away with this kind of corruption his whole life, and it's not just dumb luck.
Great piece again, Asha. I can't think of a scenario that this year does not see political/cult violence as a principal force. The former Law & Order Party is now the Outlaws with Disorders Party, and their goal seems to be mayhem and seizing power, two auto-erotic principles of their rolling Insurrection.
Hopefully, if violence is brought to the table it will be brief and fruitless, but show the entire electorate a glimpse of what life in a Klepto-Fascist State will be like, and they vote for Democracy or sanity, or both.
I've started to say that we, the voting citizens, are the 4th (or zero-th?) branch of government. If we don't do our jobs, the rest of it winds up like where we are today. Civics education is badly needed at all grade levels.
While I don’t disagree, I don’t believe the conclusions of any polls, especially those conducted now, 8 months before the election while most of the discussion and controversy is really just repetition of #THE_BIG_FAT_LYING_RAPIST's daily rants and the outrageous statements of his pretend opponents for the GQP nomination.
Appreciate the references to Fed Papers by A.H! I also think about Madison's Fed 10 as well. Madison was savvy enough to know that disinformation exists.... but he obviously didn't know how communications technology would develop and exacerbate the proliferation of disinformation. The firewall in 2020 seems to have been the states stayed firm and certified the actual results. But in 2024? Who knows?
by, colluding with soviet Russia prior to being elected, he knowingly forfeited his right to hold.public office in the untied states. The coup started long before the stolen election of 2016. I believe Trump renounced citenzship, by knowingly committing treason. No one without citizenship shall hold public office in the United states. Citesen Trump, banon, Flynn, relinquished there right to due process once they knowingly provided aid and.comfort to.putins.soviet union. An overt act of war against other citizens of the untied states for the profit of.a.foreign.government. by voting in a democracy, citeseins sign a.waiver of agreement with a tyrant either knowingly or unknowingly, there implicate participation in a.democratic.instituition is "writ of habeas data". One thing that comes to mind is grants/lincolns/shermans willingness to commit to total war. I think Trump denounced.citezenship when he.colluded. he had not right to take office and has been committing a.coup since 2016.
In Volume 129, Issue 4, February 2016, of the Harvard Law Review, Eric J. Siegel wrote an excellent article titled, "The Constitution Means What the Supreme Court Says It Means" The full article with its citations can be found here: https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-129/the-constitution-means-what-the-supreme-court-says-it-means/ The article sums up what I think most anyone who's taken Con Law knows: The Constitution only means what a gang of lifetime appointed federal judges say it means, and they are selected by the temporary occupant of the White House to suit his agenda and for their perceived loyalty to him, his party, his interests , which most often means his base of financial sponsors and their interests. If during that president's term he is able to pack the court, the impact can be generations long.
The history of the court makes it clear that when the plain language of the text is in the way they will ignore it, and where plain Constitutional requirements are not specified, they will invent them. Anyone who's taken a Con Law class has gone through dozens of cases where the court has boldly done exactly that. Siegel quotes law professor David Strauss:
"The Constitution requires not following the dictates of the document, but working out, over time, a complex balance among institutional interests. That is how we do constitutional law . . . .It is never acceptable to announce that you are ignoring the text."
And, of course, they do ignore the text, but they don't announce it. Siegel also cites a speech at a Con Law conference at Loyola by Judge Richard Posner, wherein he said that when he decides cases, he does not care what people in the late eighteenth century thought about today’s legal issues or even what the constitutional text says about those problems, concluding:
"If you look at the entire body of constitutional law, that body of law bears very little resemblance to the text of the Constitution in 1789, 1791, and 1868. . . . That’s the reality. The only useful way to advocate with regard to constitutional law is to give a good contemporary argument for or against a particular interpretation."
I've always laughed when someone complains about "judges legislating from the bench" when that is what federal judges have always done and always will do and some will clearly accept bribes to rule a certain way. There is no effective legal means for the people to control these potentates or rein them in, and they know it and flaunt it. Short of revolution or assassination there is no remedy. Certainly not in senators. The founders never intended senators to be answerable to voters at all, and even with the amendment making them elected, they have six years to gather bribes for their votes before they face the electorate again. That's a virtual lifetime of grifting possibilities and the Senate is even more susceptible to loyalty to elites, bribery and corruption than the rogue judges they are supposed to remove.
Personally, I think this is all working just as that bastard Hamilton intended, despite his unconvincing apologetics in the Federalist Papers. There is no effective remedy as neither he nor the founders intended anyone but large land holders and commercial interests to actually have effective participation in the governing of the nation. They constructed the SCOTUS as a last line of defense against the vicissitudes of the rabble, as much as any excesses by a president or congress, as they feared the people and anyone they might elect as much as they feared any British troops.
There isn't a slim chance in hell of this court allowing the 14th Amendment to actually be enforced over an insurrection I think we can justly infer several would have been pleased to see succeed. And based on their past actions, I see no possibility of this court allowing the enforcement of the emoluments clause. Alito and Thomas have become notorious for accepting bribes themselves.
This SCOTUS is not only not a guardrail of our democracy, but the majority of the court either believes the people can't be trusted with self-rule at all and/or is more interested in feathering their nest by ruling as their oligarch/theocrat sponsors prefer, democracy be damned. And they aren't even close to being done.
Asha, I am not convinced that getting everyone, even our political opponents, to play by the same basic rulebook is possible. At least not between now and November. I just wrote this to a friend of mine who listens to right-wing media, who pointed out that support for Trump increases as he's sued:
I understand that as the rule of law is engaged, Trump gets more popular. That's because people who support Trump don't know what the rule of law is and how it is the foundation of our Constitutional republic. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't think they want a Constitutional republic with its free and fair elections, free press, and independent judiciary. They want an autocracy with a leader that considers them the in-group. In that case, they don't need such a republic.
Still, reminding everyone of the rules everyone holding an office or running for one officially has agreed on helps.
It's more for those who mostly avoid dealing with politics, who need to understand the importance of those rules. Then demanding compliance has a much better chance to succeed.
Yes, I would agree with this. Make the case for the rule of law and how Trump is trampling over it. That would be a worthy effort this year, if it is targeted to the swing voters in the swing states. It could influence enough of them to give Biden the EC win.
Sobering realization- instead of a constitutional democracy that endeavors to level the playing field, an autocracy with a leader that considers you the in group and hates everybody you hate. Instead of lifting everyone up, let's drag everyone down, because y'all been ridin high too long, and I kinda like it down here. "I might still hurt, but you're gonna hurt too for a change."
Asha, you always clarify things fir me and actually give me hope that perhaps this could be the tipping point. Now everyone knows that the figure applies to only the first two years. That makes it even more shocking. Thank you for your continuing efforts to uncomplicate everything.
As it turns out, it’s only because of the Electoral College that an obviously unfit moron like Donald Trump was put into office, and may be again.
Am I correct in recalling no election where it could be said “Whew! Thank goodness the Electoral College saved us from that popular vote winner--that would’ve been a disaster!”
I guess Hamilton was too optimistic. But he was writing in an effort to convince people to approve the proposed constitution.
Truth
Great piece Asha. I didn't realize the 8 million emoluments (it's fancy for bribes people) was only two years.
What my mind is going to is -how do we clean this up-? We have Obvious corruption without any consequences. It's huge and it keeps rolling as if invisible.
What corrupted the Republicans beyond redemption. That there's only Romney, Cheney and Kinzinger remaining. Who owns the Republican party what are they being controlled by? Is it blackmail. Money? Some sort of mob? Or elite mob oligarchy? What has corrupted them so completely and can it be exposed and cleaned up. How do we do it?
Even if Trump loses and Biden gets elected to second term, the Republican controlled house is deeply corrupted and disfunctional. Several justices of scotus remain deeply corrupted.
How do we clean it up. And If we can't addess it we are already a failed democracy and already a fascist state. .
I know trying & convicting trump on his 91 charges is a very important step. Hopefully we can see this to fruition. He is very dangerous now I fear for the judges and other people such as secretary of state for many states. Trump should be in prison pending trial for fomenting violence and violent threats.
Maybe the voters decide to give us more Dems in Congress. The Senate is barely dem controlled. Maybe more reps and McConnell plan their retirements. And we survive as a democracy. But this is an ugly time and nothing is guaranteed.
I believe the polls djt is citing as him being way ahead are corrupt too. (Bought) BTW.
Here's to some justice and consequences for trump, maga Republicans, and trumpism in 2024.
Vote 💙 Blue.
Today's GOP is unredeemable.
They need to be voted out of every political office until they clean up their own act (Increasingly unlikely at this point) or cease to exist.
After that, one can only hope a center-right party committed to democracy and the rule of law rises in their place.
Lately far too many people locally seem to be driving like it is a Mad Max situation and aren’t obeying the same traffic laws as others. I have a quip about this when I’m driving. “Right of Way does not mean ‘I am right and you are in my way’.”
I’m expecting 2024 to be excessively exciting. We’re in a really bad place as a country.
Can Trump hide behind "my kids were running the business" or "they paid the Trump Organization not me"? He's very good at creating plausible deniability. Maybe 'plausible' is too strong a word. More he's good at coming up with a rationale which we know is total BS and he knows we know it's total BS, but he also knows it's enough to give him the legal cover he needs. This guy has gotten away with this kind of corruption his whole life, and it's not just dumb luck.
Great piece again, Asha. I can't think of a scenario that this year does not see political/cult violence as a principal force. The former Law & Order Party is now the Outlaws with Disorders Party, and their goal seems to be mayhem and seizing power, two auto-erotic principles of their rolling Insurrection.
Hopefully, if violence is brought to the table it will be brief and fruitless, but show the entire electorate a glimpse of what life in a Klepto-Fascist State will be like, and they vote for Democracy or sanity, or both.
I've started to say that we, the voting citizens, are the 4th (or zero-th?) branch of government. If we don't do our jobs, the rest of it winds up like where we are today. Civics education is badly needed at all grade levels.
While I don’t disagree, I don’t believe the conclusions of any polls, especially those conducted now, 8 months before the election while most of the discussion and controversy is really just repetition of #THE_BIG_FAT_LYING_RAPIST's daily rants and the outrageous statements of his pretend opponents for the GQP nomination.
Appreciate the references to Fed Papers by A.H! I also think about Madison's Fed 10 as well. Madison was savvy enough to know that disinformation exists.... but he obviously didn't know how communications technology would develop and exacerbate the proliferation of disinformation. The firewall in 2020 seems to have been the states stayed firm and certified the actual results. But in 2024? Who knows?
Amazing! Very clever, clear and well written. Thank you Asha!
So what you’re saying is that Trump was a “best practices” president?
by, colluding with soviet Russia prior to being elected, he knowingly forfeited his right to hold.public office in the untied states. The coup started long before the stolen election of 2016. I believe Trump renounced citenzship, by knowingly committing treason. No one without citizenship shall hold public office in the United states. Citesen Trump, banon, Flynn, relinquished there right to due process once they knowingly provided aid and.comfort to.putins.soviet union. An overt act of war against other citizens of the untied states for the profit of.a.foreign.government. by voting in a democracy, citeseins sign a.waiver of agreement with a tyrant either knowingly or unknowingly, there implicate participation in a.democratic.instituition is "writ of habeas data". One thing that comes to mind is grants/lincolns/shermans willingness to commit to total war. I think Trump denounced.citezenship when he.colluded. he had not right to take office and has been committing a.coup since 2016.
In Volume 129, Issue 4, February 2016, of the Harvard Law Review, Eric J. Siegel wrote an excellent article titled, "The Constitution Means What the Supreme Court Says It Means" The full article with its citations can be found here: https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-129/the-constitution-means-what-the-supreme-court-says-it-means/ The article sums up what I think most anyone who's taken Con Law knows: The Constitution only means what a gang of lifetime appointed federal judges say it means, and they are selected by the temporary occupant of the White House to suit his agenda and for their perceived loyalty to him, his party, his interests , which most often means his base of financial sponsors and their interests. If during that president's term he is able to pack the court, the impact can be generations long.
The history of the court makes it clear that when the plain language of the text is in the way they will ignore it, and where plain Constitutional requirements are not specified, they will invent them. Anyone who's taken a Con Law class has gone through dozens of cases where the court has boldly done exactly that. Siegel quotes law professor David Strauss:
"The Constitution requires not following the dictates of the document, but working out, over time, a complex balance among institutional interests. That is how we do constitutional law . . . .It is never acceptable to announce that you are ignoring the text."
And, of course, they do ignore the text, but they don't announce it. Siegel also cites a speech at a Con Law conference at Loyola by Judge Richard Posner, wherein he said that when he decides cases, he does not care what people in the late eighteenth century thought about today’s legal issues or even what the constitutional text says about those problems, concluding:
"If you look at the entire body of constitutional law, that body of law bears very little resemblance to the text of the Constitution in 1789, 1791, and 1868. . . . That’s the reality. The only useful way to advocate with regard to constitutional law is to give a good contemporary argument for or against a particular interpretation."
I've always laughed when someone complains about "judges legislating from the bench" when that is what federal judges have always done and always will do and some will clearly accept bribes to rule a certain way. There is no effective legal means for the people to control these potentates or rein them in, and they know it and flaunt it. Short of revolution or assassination there is no remedy. Certainly not in senators. The founders never intended senators to be answerable to voters at all, and even with the amendment making them elected, they have six years to gather bribes for their votes before they face the electorate again. That's a virtual lifetime of grifting possibilities and the Senate is even more susceptible to loyalty to elites, bribery and corruption than the rogue judges they are supposed to remove.
Personally, I think this is all working just as that bastard Hamilton intended, despite his unconvincing apologetics in the Federalist Papers. There is no effective remedy as neither he nor the founders intended anyone but large land holders and commercial interests to actually have effective participation in the governing of the nation. They constructed the SCOTUS as a last line of defense against the vicissitudes of the rabble, as much as any excesses by a president or congress, as they feared the people and anyone they might elect as much as they feared any British troops.
There isn't a slim chance in hell of this court allowing the 14th Amendment to actually be enforced over an insurrection I think we can justly infer several would have been pleased to see succeed. And based on their past actions, I see no possibility of this court allowing the enforcement of the emoluments clause. Alito and Thomas have become notorious for accepting bribes themselves.
This SCOTUS is not only not a guardrail of our democracy, but the majority of the court either believes the people can't be trusted with self-rule at all and/or is more interested in feathering their nest by ruling as their oligarch/theocrat sponsors prefer, democracy be damned. And they aren't even close to being done.