Thank you for putting up a megathread, and so quickly!
Just tell us how this is Spez’s fault.
please bare with us.
How drunk is you, my friend?
No… thakn you! Lol. [Added filler text to meet minimum character requirement.]
No, thakn you [Added filler text to meet minimum character requirement.]
I’d rather keep my clothes on, thank you.
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
This was, imo, a savvy move.
Reading through the opinion, the core part of it ( overturning the notion that the president is not an officer of the United States) leans heavily on the analysis by Baude and Paulsen, the two Federalist society law professors that wrote a definitive, recent paper on article 3:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
(there’s long sections in there to support the ideas that art. 3 is self executing, that the president is an office holder, and that freedom of speech is not a viable defense. It’s worth a read)
By quoting Gorsuch, they are putting him in a bit of a bind. If he is to be internally consistent, he should affirm the SCCO ruling.
Not to mention that a majority of the conservatives (if not all?) are FedSoc members, so the conclusions of Baude and Paulsen should carry some weight with them.
Its quite plausible that Gorsuch and Roberts would join the liberals on the court to uphold the Co ruling.
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS has shown itself to be quite willing to be inconsistent in service of conservative goals.
This was, imo, a savvy move.
Reading through the opinion, the core part of it ( overturning the notion that the president is not an officer of the United States) leans heavily on the analysis by Baude and Paulsen, the two Federalist society law professors that wrote a definitive, recent paper on article 3:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
(there’s long sections in there to support the ideas that art. 3 is self executing, that the president is an office holder, and that freedom of speech is not a viable defense. It’s worth a read)
By quoting Gorsuch, they are putting him in a bit of a bind. If he is to be internally consistent, he should affirm the SCCO ruling.
Not to mention that a majority of the conservatives (if not all?) are FedSoc members, so the conclusions of Baude and Paulsen should carry some weight with them.
Its quite plausible that Gorsuch and Roberts would join the liberals on the court to uphold the Co ruling.
They don’t need Trump to reach their conservative goals. They want to enforce the existing hegemony, not wreak havoc for their wealthy benefactors.
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
Nikki Haley polls well against Biden and would further their goals just fine I think.
You’re assuming that the MAGA crowd will vote for a woman.
Even if they would Nikki would be awful terrible choice
You’re assuming that the MAGA crowd will vote for a woman.
For rational people yes, she’s awful
For maga reactionaries, she’d be just fine. She fear mongers, hates, makes extreme promises, and defended the worst of Trump
Even if they would Nikki would be awful terrible choice