Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Today’s gop: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

How any woman could possibly vote for this smug smarmy piece of misogynistic crap is beyond understanding.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Books are my comfort food!

Fight for a just cause, love your fellow man, live a good life.

This chaos was totally avoidable.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Also, are you sure you want people to rate your comments?

This country desperately needs a functioning fourth estate.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

The real work of an opposition party is to oppose.

I did not have this on my fuck 2025 bingo card.

Roe is not about choice. It is about freedom.

Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

You are here: Home / Politics / Trump Indictments / Open Thread: Hopefully This Hail Mary Pass Undercuts Trump’s Case

Open Thread: Hopefully This Hail Mary Pass Undercuts Trump’s Case

by | 64 Comments

This post is in: , ,

It appears that Trump and his attorneys have outdone themselves with their latest submission to the Supreme Court.

x 1

x

Will the 6 radical justices on the Supreme Court humiliate themselves?  Whatever happened to states rights?  Seems like just yesterday (it was!) that state’s rights were so very important.  Only time will tell.

Reader Interactions

64Comments

  2. 2.

    Scott P.

    It’s not really radical to wait, though. A major legal principle is that you don’t decide a question before it’s necessary. Tribe is just being a hack here.

     

    It’s not the only path the court can take but it’s a perfectly common one.

  4. 4.

    TBone

    Also too, the plain fact that this is a qualification requirement, not a political argument, seems to me to be crystal clear.  Under 35 y.o.? Not a natural born citizen? Committed treason? DISQUALIFIED.

  5. 5.

    Ken

    especially when Congress is most likely to grant a waiver after the candidate has been elected, as its members…

    … and their families will be held at gunpoint by the candidate’s paramilitary forces.

    I hope (but seriously doubt) the court will use this very argument to declare Trump ineligible, on the grounds that Congress can act to restore his eligibility.

  7. 7.

    Ken

    @Scott P.: A major legal principle is that you don’t decide a question before it’s necessary.

    A parallel legal principle is that you can make it necessary by hiring someone to file a case in the 5th circuit, hypothesizing that they might somehow someday in some unspecified way be harmed by whatever law you’re trying to overturn.

  8. 8.

    TBone

    Very interested to be able to hear oral argument tomorrow.  Chuffed actually. Hope I don’t throw things.

  11. 11.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @Baud:

    Glad to see some good news on this front.

    ETA: Hopefully, this puts the DC trial back on track, though I’m sure Trump will want to appeal this to the SCOTUS

  15. 15.

    Ken

    @Baud: @prostratedragon: I still can’t keep all the Trump criminal trials straight. Is that the one where the three-judge panel was taking a ridiculously long time, and people were speculating the one Trump-appointed judge was delaying?

    EDIT: I think it is, from the judges’ names.

  18. 18.

    WaterGirl

    @Scott P.: Seriously?  I think it’s nuts.

    “you can’t do it now.  you can’t do it then.  oops, sorry, it’s too late for you to do it.”

    Can you explain how that’s appropriate?

    It’s just like “you can’t bring charges while I’m still president.  Your option is impeachment.”  After he’s president, you can’t bring charges – you should have impeached.

    it seems like total nonsense to me.  How is it not?  what am I missing?

  21. 21.

    Snarki, child of Loki

    IF the Supremely Deplorable Six (Lawless John, StripSearch, Token, Boof, Coathanger, and Squi) let TFG off the hook for insurrection, we can conclude that they are “giving aid and comfort” to insurrectionists, and remove them from the Court.

    Kinetically.

  26. 26.

    dmsilev

    @Ken:

    and people were speculating the one Trump-appointed judge was delaying?

    Bush-appointed, if memory serves, but that’s not much of an improvement.

  27. 27.

    wjca

    @Scott P.: It’s not really radical to wait, though. A major legal principle is that you don’t decide a question before it’s necessary.

    But wouldn’t the Colorado finding make it necessary now?

  30. 30.

    TBone

    @WaterGirl: the astute prostrate dragon found & posted above ❤️ also I posted a link to an article about it.  I’m watching the Pointer Sisters sing Springsteen’s FIRE 🔥

  33. 33.

    New Deal democrat

    I haven’t read all of the comments, and almost none of the surrounding commentary, but let me make a shocking admission: I would support this Supreme Court itself deciding the entire 14th Amendment disqualification issue.

    The Amendment itself does not indicate who gets to make the decision that a candidate is qualified for office. For example, could Congress directly disqualify a candidate? Must it be left to each of the individual states?

    In the absence of specific direction, I believe the Supreme Court could decide that the issue as a an individual candidate, where there is a dispute, is ultimately a judicial function. And further, that given the importance of the issue – and again, with no specific direction either way – it is a decision that can be made by the Supreme Court itself as a matter of original jurisdiction; i.e., there is no need to wait for lower courts to rule.

    I could see the Supreme Court appointing a master or masters, to come to factual conclusions: was January 6 an insurrection (yes) and did Trump participate or direct it (yes). Ergo, Trump is disqualified.

    As horrible as this Supreme Court is, they have already cashed their checks, and Trump has no more leverage over them. And even this crew can probably see that in a second Trump term, he will feel free to ignore judicial rulings. Even by them. Better to get rid of him first.

  34. 34.

    Betty Cracker

    @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): He’ll definitely appeal it, and he’ll wait the full 30 days customarily granted to decide on an appeal, thus delaying the reckoning yet again. That’s the whole strategy: delay, delay, delay. It’s working so far. Our judicial system is vulnerable to a bad actor like Trump, who exploits provisions that are supposed to make the system work smoothly to evade justice.

  35. 35.

    mrmoshpotato

    Laurence Tribe above:

    I agree with @judgeluttig here. The argument that it’s always too soon to enforce the 14th Amendment’s disqualification safeguard — until it’s too late — is an insult to all nine justices and to the law itself.

    Scumbags are giving the ol’ mass shooting reaction “logic” a try I see!  Bastards.

  36. 36.

    smith

    @dmsilev: From what I’ve read about Judge Henderson, she’s conservative, but in a traditional law and order way. Nothing like that nutcase in the 5th Circuit. Still, it’s odd that it took them so long.

  40. 40.

    smith

    @New Deal democrat: And even this crew can probably see that in a second Trump term, he will feel free to ignore judicial rulings. Even by them.

    No doubt about it — just within the last day or so, J.D. Vance asserted that TFG has the right to defy SCOTUS, immunity ruling or not.

  41. 41.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @smith: My take on why it took so long was that they wanted to be absolutely certain that they dealt with all the possible legitimate arguments that trump’s “team” might conceivably come up with, in hopes of convincing the SC that there was no reason for them to take it up.

  43. 43.

    What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?

    @TBone: I mean, hell, why can’t the Democrats run Obama for POTUS again? Or make him the VP candidate? Sure he’s disqualified by having served two terms already but why should that matter when other disqualifying criteria get to be ignored? I mean, I have nothing against Kamala Harris but if Biden made Obama his VP he’s going to win in a cakewalk. People still love the heck out of Obama. Some people also love the heck out of Kamala but she’s not going to win that popularity contest

    It seriously would be hilarious to see Dems troll the Republicans by floating a Biden/Obama ticket.

  45. 45.

    catclub

    @mrmoshpotato: I think boof and squi actually refer to the same person.

    My guesses:

    Lawless John Roberts,

    Stripsearch Alito,

    Token Thomas,

    Boof Kavanaugh

    Coathanger Barrett

    Squi is also Kavanaugh?

  47. 47.

    Jackie

    Apparently Alina Habba is already sending “You owe the ‘president’” messages to certain Supreme Court justices.

    Thank You Alina!!! 😂

  49. 49.

    RevRick

    @WaterGirl: That’s the Red Queen’s argument in Alice in Wonderland. “There was jam yesterday and there will be jam tomorrow, but there’s never any jam today.”

  52. 52.

    Quadrillipede

    @WaterGirl: it seems like total nonsense to me. How is it not? what am I missing?

    It’s a narcissist’s conceit that the law should be applied with only their interests taken into consideration.

    Other people are just cardboard cutouts,  store mannequins or NPCs…

  53. 53.

    TBone

    The Dread Pirate Heather Cox Richardson made a great point in her Jan. 10 newsletter. “Interestingly, Trump’s argument that he cannot now be charged with crimes makes the Republican senators who voted to acquit him complicit. It’s an acknowledgement of what was clear all along: they could have stopped him at any point, but they repeatedly chose not to. Now he is explicitly suggesting that their behavior shields him from answering to the law.”

  54. 54.

    TBone

    A comment I pirated from elsewhere a while back:

    “Scene from a family gathering:
    MAGAs: You need to beat God-Emperor Trump at the *ballot box*!”
    Non-MAGAs: Agree – we need to beat Spanky Two Scoops at the *ballot box*!
    Me: We did that in 2020 – convincingly. By millions of votes. He responded by spewing outrageous lies and tried to overthrow the US government – a multi-pronged plot involving attacks on election workers and officials, fake electors, and sending a militia to storm the Capitol. People got killed. Faith in democracy got badly damaged.
    Everyone else: But we need to do it again because his base didn’t believe it last time!
    Me: When we do, convincingly, by millions of votes, he will respond by spewing outrageous lies, and trying to overthrow the US government, with a multi-pronged plot involving attacks on election workers and officials, fake electors, and sending a militia to storm the Capitol – this time with the benefit of the practice round. People will probably get killed, and faith in democracy will be further damaged.
    Everyone else: But they will be ready for him this time!
    Me: ???… Can we at least agree on a cap on the number of mulligans / coup attempts we’ll give him?”

  55. 55.

    waspuppet

    “It’s always too soon to enforce the law until it’s too late” is how Donald Trump has lived his entire life. He doesn’t and couldn’t have any other argument.

    Now we’ll see how many Supreme Court justices are Americans in even the most technical sense. It certainly won’t be nine.

  56. 56.

    Chief Oshkosh

    @TBone: I have been repeating your point to non-MAGAs ever since I read it here originally. It does have some impact, especially when the non-MAGA and I go through the shampoo-rinse-repeat schtick as you’ve done here.

  57. 57.

    Shalimar

    @WaterGirl: Scott is saying the Supreme Court plays these kinds of standing games all the time to avoid questions it doesn’t want to consider.  Which Tribe is well aware of, since he has spent his entire adult life teaching constitutional law.  Calling Tribe a hack was way too far imo.

    Also, as to Trump’s argument that Congress can theoretically restore him to the ballot so nothing can be done now, the logical result of that reasoning is to let states disqualify him and then Congress can restore him if they want to.  It is not logical to keep states from disqualifying him, which is their constitutional right.  You can’t restore rights if there is no mechanism for revoking them.

  59. 59.

    TBone

    @Chief Oshkosh: I wish I could take credit for it but it was something I found along my wildly swerving path across the nets.  I’m VERY glad if it is helpful to anyone and everyone!  I play a game where I send a “Comment of the Day” to my brother, started to keep me sane when I had forsaken all social media.  I originally forsook Fascistbook due to Cambridge Analytica and lasted quite a long time, but got sucked back in during Covid (not too long before I earned a lifetime ban).  This place is so much nicer!  However, lately I feel like I’m a thread killer.  TBone, killer of threads!  I hope I haven’t irritated or unintentionally insulted anyone.

  60. 60.

    Anonymous At Work

    @TBone: 50% this and 50% the converse.  THIS = No disqualification requires enabling legislation.  Converse = Authors of 14th Amendment did pass a bill to remove the disqualifications, so the authors of the clause believed that (1) disqualification happened automatically and (2) no due process requirement for the automatic disqualification.

    The only thing left is whether this is a federal issue or a state-by-state issue BUT since the original disqualifications happened without specific findings, the only avenue is to say “evolving standards of due process”, which will result in at least 2 of Bought-For Six dying on the spot.

  61. 61.

    TBone

    @Anonymous At Work: Is it a coin toss?  I wish I had a crystal ball but gut instinct works purty good, usually.  There’s a reason we humans have instinct (for survival) but, alas, some cannot override their terrible ones.  Fuck those guys!  I cannot prognosticate like that famous groundhog, but I can curse like a drunken sailor and cheer like a champ!

  62. 62.

    Shalimar

    @WaterGirl: When we studied standing in law school, they said it was extremely complicated.  And it is.  But the basic rules are pretty simple and have obvious purposes.  All of the complications come from the Supreme Court twisting shit to get out of rulings they didn’t want to make.

  64. 64.

    Art

    Devilishly clever of the founding fathers to require the use of a time machine. They really were ahead of the curve.

Comments are closed.