I appeared before Justice Engoron a couple of times ten or fifteen years ago suffice to say I’m barely surprised -- if that much -- by his rulings in the case.
Anyway.
Frum’s position is kind of obscene. In a bare democracy, the former GE Bush speechwriter and something of a professional never-Trumper is blatantly putting politics before rule of law. Now, if he wanted to say the rule of law is far less important than politics, well, maybe as a practical matter. But the defendant here is running for POTUS even after having tried to fraudulently and illegally reverse the 2020 election. If keeping fPOTUS off the ballot by rule of law results in violence, I expect that even given law enforcement’s love fPOTUS there would be enough personnel to deal with the lawbreaking.
Besides offensive, Frum’s position is also just wrong.
As for any actions by secretaries of state to keep fPOTUS off the ballot there would be no reason to expect same not to be fast tracked so that ballot printing deadlines could be met.
So, good luck to any and every SS being a 14th amendment action.
Full disclosure: I support every effort to drive fPOTUS yet crazier. That it would involve the rule of law (see above) or delay of same (highly doubtful any would be finally resolved before the election), all the same.
As for the MaL case, y’all know you love the idea the primary defendant testifying.
In Colorado the Plaintiffs is CREW a sophisticated Constitutional litigator.Standing is always an issue but, there will be numerous cases in different states to properly set up CERT review which only takes 4 Votes
CREW won’t be the plaintiff, Colorado’s will be. Suit has not been brought yet.
And contrary all the static, there’s a very good chance that there is in fact five justices at SCOTUS to be disloyal to fPOTUS. They’ve decided against him every time. And they have no need for him. To the contrary, they’d be serving the GOP by him to be removed from ballots. That’s something elected Republicans can’t do because of their fear of being primaried by MAGAts. SCOTGOP has no such fear.
Who just read the linked piece. I’d like to think that a single voter would be a proper plaintiff but I wouldn’t bet on that. I read somewhere (maybe correctly?) that a Secretary of State elsewhere is considering bringing suit with themselves as plaintiff. They’d be requesting guidance whether fPOTUS’ name can go on the ballot they’d approve. That of course would trigger an analysis of the applicability 14a.
Thank you for noting Billy Barr smear role in the Hunter Biden saga. I often wondered if the DEA’s (under Barr) raid of HB’s doctor’s office in Newburyport, where cellphones and computers were seized, was be part of the smear.
Dear David Frum: I read you and often agree with you, but “If you do this legal thing, it will piss off the conservatives and may make them violent” does not persuade me as you might think it does.
Amendment 14 Section 3 was tested last year when Couy GRiFFIN was DQ'd in New Mexico last year after his conviction & 14 days in Jail for J6 Criminal act.
I appeared before Justice Engoron a couple of times ten or fifteen years ago suffice to say I’m barely surprised -- if that much -- by his rulings in the case.
Anyway.
Frum’s position is kind of obscene. In a bare democracy, the former GE Bush speechwriter and something of a professional never-Trumper is blatantly putting politics before rule of law. Now, if he wanted to say the rule of law is far less important than politics, well, maybe as a practical matter. But the defendant here is running for POTUS even after having tried to fraudulently and illegally reverse the 2020 election. If keeping fPOTUS off the ballot by rule of law results in violence, I expect that even given law enforcement’s love fPOTUS there would be enough personnel to deal with the lawbreaking.
Besides offensive, Frum’s position is also just wrong.
As for any actions by secretaries of state to keep fPOTUS off the ballot there would be no reason to expect same not to be fast tracked so that ballot printing deadlines could be met.
So, good luck to any and every SS being a 14th amendment action.
Full disclosure: I support every effort to drive fPOTUS yet crazier. That it would involve the rule of law (see above) or delay of same (highly doubtful any would be finally resolved before the election), all the same.
As for the MaL case, y’all know you love the idea the primary defendant testifying.
Gotcha but, you are underestimating A 14 Section 3. Talk to Judge Luttig.
No, no, no. There’s a question of standing in the first instance, so what I said: what kind of plaintiff can survive a motion for lack of standing?
In Colorado the Plaintiffs is CREW a sophisticated Constitutional litigator.Standing is always an issue but, there will be numerous cases in different states to properly set up CERT review which only takes 4 Votes
CREW won’t be the plaintiff, Colorado’s will be. Suit has not been brought yet.
And contrary all the static, there’s a very good chance that there is in fact five justices at SCOTUS to be disloyal to fPOTUS. They’ve decided against him every time. And they have no need for him. To the contrary, they’d be serving the GOP by him to be removed from ballots. That’s something elected Republicans can’t do because of their fear of being primaried by MAGAts. SCOTGOP has no such fear.
That said, time will tell.
icymi, Colorado lawsuit was brought yesterday https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/colorado-ballot-trump-disqualification
Then I either misread wherever I first saw mention of it or was just not fully up to date.
Of course, my comment didn’t relate to when a suit’s brought so much as who for the standing issue.
Always happy to be corrected; pretty good way to learn.
Concur 5-4:thumbs 👎 on tfg.
Who just read the linked piece. I’d like to think that a single voter would be a proper plaintiff but I wouldn’t bet on that. I read somewhere (maybe correctly?) that a Secretary of State elsewhere is considering bringing suit with themselves as plaintiff. They’d be requesting guidance whether fPOTUS’ name can go on the ballot they’d approve. That of course would trigger an analysis of the applicability 14a.
Not a single Voter but, YES on Secretary of States....
Thank you for noting Billy Barr smear role in the Hunter Biden saga. I often wondered if the DEA’s (under Barr) raid of HB’s doctor’s office in Newburyport, where cellphones and computers were seized, was be part of the smear.
Dear David Frum: I read you and often agree with you, but “If you do this legal thing, it will piss off the conservatives and may make them violent” does not persuade me as you might think it does.
Amendment 14 Section 3 was tested last year when Couy GRiFFIN was DQ'd in New Mexico last year after his conviction & 14 days in Jail for J6 Criminal act.
Those snowflakes ain't gonna do a damn thing if Frum's scenario comes to pass.