Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 411: Presidential Election MMXX Rebirth

(+) Yeah! (+)

My experience is that pretty much anybody who goes out of their way to call themselves a "leftist" or "liberal" in conversation, especially unprompted, are at best bad faith arguing.

Coincidentally, I pretty much always see it as something like "I'm a liberal/leftist, but..."

I was in a leftist liberal coffee shop, and I overheard a leftist liberal say "I'm a leftist liberal but Trump is right about everything"

And then everyone in the coffee shop stood up and clapped!

That lefitst liberal's name?

ALBERT EINSTEIN

At this point I'm thinking something like Trump gets 60 million votes in the presidential election while Biden gets like 70 million or something, and third-party support goes way up compared to 2020. Still think Trump has more reason to lose ground on Biden compared to 2020 than the other way around, seeing how he's no longer the incumbent and wasn't the guy that was under criminal investigation for attempting to subvert election results back then - merely at worst the guy who saw millions of people die under his watch due to his mishandling of Covid after a strong economy during his tenure beforehand.

I then shouted oppa leftist style and the whole coffee shop started dancing

GANON1025 posted...

I then shouted oppa leftist style and the whole coffee shop started dancing

This actually happened, I was there

https://twitter.com/NYPDnews/status/1764010339811668173

god bless our boys in blue

Hope Rinoa can make bail for her bf

"...Whatever."

Kenri posted...

Hope Rinoa can make bail for her bf

Depends on if she is currently being possessed and/or in stasis.

haley wins her first (and likely only) primary - DC. ~62% of the vote and it was winner-take-all so she gets all the delegates from it.

haleymentum /s

---

Also, we're probably getting the Colorado 14th Amendment (Disqualifying Trump from the ballot) opinion out of SCOTUS tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1764353305369575925

And just so we're all on the same page, expectations are that they rule against Colorado (that is, that they can't disqualify Trump) - possibly even unanimously. Only question is how they arrive at that answer. I mean almost all the ways are dumb but some are more dumb than others.

"states don't have the right to do something like that"

Not an exhaustive list of reasons they can arrive at this, but from least dumb to most dumb (IMO):

• Need to convict him under US federal law regarding insurrection (which is historically NOT how it was used, but)
• Clause is not "self-executing," Congress has to proactively do something either to enforce it or apply it (again, not how it was done historically)
• Being on the ballot is different than holding the office so it's cool (what happens if he wins? lol we don't know)
• POTUS is not an officer of the United States

So, probably like an 8-1, 9-0 decision where most sign on for one of the less dumb opinions and Thomas and Alito sign on for "not an officer"?

Thorn posted...

Being on the ballot is different than holding the office so it's cool (what happens if he wins? lol we don't know)

My bet is on this one because it's the exact right proportion of cowardice to open corruption to fit the current court.

SCOTUS overturns Colorado 9-0 per curiam.

They seem to be going with: "Clause is not "self-executing," Congress has to proactively do something either to enforce it or apply it (again, not how it was done historically)" as their reason but opinion just dropped and I'm reading the syllabus.

Trump deserves to be removed, but as a practical matter it would be very dumb for it to be different state to state (and Im guessing if they did allow it a few states would remove Biden from the ballot in retaliation under some bullshit pretext)

Okay, digging into this and it's a bit more interesting (to a nerd like me) than it appeared at first glance. I think what's happening here is that 5 of the Justices (Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) took this opportunity to go a lot further than they needed to here to basically restrict how a disqualification under Section 3 could occur and much of the opinion that is delivered "per curiam" is in fact just the thoughts of those 5.

Here's what I can tell - the one and only thing that all 9 agree on is that "States do not have the power to enforce Section 3. Therefore Colorado was wrong and we must overturn." But immediately there emerges a split - on one side, the 5 above. On the other is Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson writing a joint opinion and Barrett who writes a single page.

The three liberals write (and cheekily cite Roberts in Dobbs to open) that that being the sole question before the court once they decided that States can't enforce Section 3 they were done here and no more need be or should be said. However, in their words, "five Justices go on." They accuse those five of going much further in their judgment and deciding entirely new questions in their reasoning "to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy" by just riffing on how they think Section 3 can (and must) be enforced and by whom (and only whom) thereby slamming the door on other possible avenues that Section 3 could be enforced federally.

They actually do raise my gripe about how everything else in the Reconstruction Amendments (and no brainers like the age or term limit) are self-executing and do not require additional legislation to enforce and that "Nor does the majority suggest otherwise. It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3." and "By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding office."

It's a pretty scathing opinion for what will surely be reported (technically correctly) as a unanimous decision.

For Barrett's part, like I said, it's basically a single page and while she agrees with those 3 that they should have stopped at the same "States lack this power" reason - she tries to strike a "Americans should take away from all this that all nine of us agreed on this case." In what comes off to me as a clear "Don't look behind the curtain here where actually there is a pretty striking argument amongst us over what we just decided here! We all agreed! Unity!" to deflect from any examination of the arguments raised by the liberals and their accusations of the five Justice majority.

Or to frame this another way:

9-0 on "States don't have the power to enforce Section 3"
5-4 on "Only Congress can do it and only in a way we like and only if we feel like it (and only if it's not used against Republicans who actually fomented insurrection)" [Less exaggeration than you might think. It really comes off as those five just riffing with asides like "oh and subject to judicial review of course" and "tailored to..." when they're just thinking out loud on how Section 3 can be enforced in their minds.]

But that nuance is likely to be buried beneath the coverage of the 9-0 bit. But that's one of the more pointed "concur in judgment" opinions I've ever read. They were not pleased here and you can tell with how much they call the five Justices out and some of those quotes from above like saying they're just trying to protect themselves, Trump, and future insurrectionists.

This might be a hot take but I think this could be a good outcome as it blunts Trumps theyre persecuting me, Im being targeted for political reasons rhetoric which is obviously tosh but I worry could win him some votes. Or not, just spitballing really.

It's a trash opinion though for the reasons the 3 liberal Justices point out. Buried under the headline of "unanimous ruling Colorado can't DQ federal office candidates" is a shadow 5-4 decision where 5 conservatives do their level best to make it as difficult as possible for the insurrection clause to be enforced when there is just plainly no need to do so and it outright contradicts both the text of the amendment and historical use.

I also happen to disagree with the reasoning all 9 seem to settle on with handwringing about how if States could enforce Section 3 you'd have patchworks of states with different candidates allowed and not allowed under different standards and like... as I said when they had oral arguments on this - they're literally describing our current electoral system. That's what it fucking is already. But what those 5 conservative Justices did was somehow an order of magnitude worse.

In contrast, not even a year ago...

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185364211/brazil-bolsonaro-court-banned-election

Expected. Not a big fan of the rationale but I don't really see anything better they could have done.

PeaceFrog posted...

In contrast, not even a year ago...

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185364211/brazil-bolsonaro-court-banned-election

I will say, the (corrupt, guilty of electoral fraud, tied to extremist groups) mayor of where I used to live got a similar temporary ban on standing, and the moment it expired he got right back in. It has to be a permanent ban to work.

I mean, to hammer home one way in which the extremists on the court went so far off the rails to cover for Trump - as the liberal Justices point out (and Trump's own lawyers acknowledged) the literal text of the 14th Amendment states that the disqualification can be lifted if 2/3s of Congress votes to do so. But according to these five Justices apparently a simple majority can just repeal the enforcement mechanisms if, as they claim, it requires legislation to do so - so how do you square that?

you can't

unless you're deciding on a purely partisan basis like this court

What does this do to the plenary authority argument?

If the delegate system supposedly allows states to decide their votes for president however they individually want at the end of the day (they don't even need to hold a vote or respect the vote), then why would the federal government be able to decide what they have on their ballots like this? Is that argument in shambles or does this not interact with it somehow?

https://twitter.com/hermitdeak/status/1764558196293730809?t=UidY8heoRXgjynr81VblmQ&s=19

CoolCly posted...

What does this do to the plenary authority argument?

If the delegate system supposedly allows states to decide their votes for president however they individually want at the end of the day (they don't even need to hold a vote or respect the vote), then why would the federal government be able to decide what they have on their ballots like this? Is that argument in shambles or does this not interact with it somehow?

I'd imagine it would end up being similar to the plenary authority an employer has to fire an employee - you don't need a reason, and you can do it for any reason EXCEPT one of the prohibited reasons stated in the Civil Rights Act or similar legislation.

I don't think this is very well thought out. Suppose Congress responds to this by passing a new law to create a Congressional Commission on Disqualification, to be filled entirely with political appointees. Then the Commission start disqualifying anyone from the other party they don't want to run. This is clearly a worse result than many states doing this because this can functionally end democracy in one blow.

I don't know if it means anything but a YouTube channel I follow put up a poll asking if they think the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and over 40% voted yes. I guess if you're deep enough in the echo chamber...

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I don't know if it means anything but a YouTube channel I follow put up a poll asking if they think the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and over 40% voted yes. I guess if you're deep enough in the echo chamber...

It means that you're following the wrong Youtube channel

https://twitter.com/senatorsinema/status/1765094840214127068?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

Hell yeah, Sinemas not running for re-election.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/hermitdeak/status/1764558196293730809?t=UidY8heoRXgjynr81VblmQ&s=19

what the

politics always finds a way to outweird itself

That link works for you?

Does it not for you?

The embed works for me, at least - for both those twitter links in posts 181 and 182

Yeah fuck Sinema, but oh yeah go Ruben. Potential future presidential candidate tbh.

Last night and earlier today it did not. It is now.
I even clicked into it thinking it was some embed bug, but no it was dead on the site itself too.

Dude had to private his account for a while because he was being doxxed. If you check the thread there's a very funny screen cap of the discord where a mod basically says "we can't stop Marty's supporters from being shitheads" which is a hell of a thing to just admit.

Trump met with Musk looking for cash. Because of course he did.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/us/politics/trump-elon-musk.html

---

Super Tuesday ongoing. The Needle is currently projecting a Haley win Vermont (but it's close so let's see). Almost certainly the only state she can win.

and she's done it (Update: AP calls it too)

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1765214865323352079

...But she's riding that momentum straight into... suspending her campaign? Weird move, IMO. She never had a chance to begin with so that never seemed to be her concern but if anything this was her biggest night (which says something, I know, but still!)

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1765337164965888450

Go out on a high note, I guess.

You call it a high note, but to a Republican candidate only winning DC and Vermont is probably worse than winning nothing.

But is Haley then going to say "...but we're all Republicans and this is what the majority of the party wants, so vote Trump"?

Obellisk posted...

But is Haley then going to say "...but we're all Republicans and this is what the majority of the party wants, so vote Trump"?

absolutely

just might take her a few days to get there.

McConnell is reportedly coming close to that point and he called Trump "morally responsible" for January 6th (and Trump repeatedly used racial slurs against his wife.)

flames... on the side of my face

Haley at least ensured that Al Gores record of being the only non-incumbent to win every primary remains.

Below the presidential primary, in North Carolina Republicans voted for a Holocaust denier to be their candidate for governor in the fall.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right-trump-favorite-mark-robinson-wins-north-carolina-gop-governor-primary

There is so much to cover with regards to this guy.

He's quoted Hitler, called LGBT people "filth," threatened to use an AR-15 against federal officials, and dismissed the Holocaust as "hogwash."

He also got Trump's endorsement with statements like, "This is Martin Luther King on steroids" and "I think you're better than Martin Luther King. I think you are Martin Luther King times two."

Y i k e s

I just cannot believe there are people like this that exist. This dude would be lynched or forced to be a slave if Republicans got to make America what they want it to be. Some absolutely massive brain rot in this country