I forgot I have an actual job so this will have to be fast. Thread:
There are five judicial opinions out of Colorado on this Trump ballot thing: the trial court opinion, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and three Supreme Court dissenting opinions.
None of the opinions agree with each other (except maybe the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Boatright and Justice Berkenkotter).
The most compelling and - in my view - correct decision was the dissent from Justice Samour.
Justice Samour reached holdings that none of the other four groups did.
He examined the issues with the depth and close examination of the case law that is most like how SCOTUS does it.
I think SCOTUS will reverse the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, and will largely follow the dissent of Justice Samour. I think the SCOTUS decision will be either 9-0 or 7-2.
When the SCOTUS does so, I will remind of you this tweet and gloat. There will be no dealing with me after that.
Before we get to Justice Samour, first some background on the Colorado Supreme Court. It is not typically a deeply divided or partisan Court. They are all Democrats, and they were all appointed by Democrat governors with similar liberal/libertarian leanings.
We get a lot of unanimous opinions. Divisions when they occur are typically respectful and intellectually honest. No vitriol.
I was surprised that this case was a 4-3 opinion, and even more surprised at how sloppy the majority opinion was. Knowing that SCOTUS absolutely has to take this case, I figured they would write something stronger. Ah well.
One more tweet about Justice Samour before we get to the law stuff -- he was born and raised in El Salvador, but fled the country at the age of 13 due to the risk of civil war.
Not necessarily relevant but . . . maybe it is.
Ok, onto the law stuff.
This case is about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, Section 3 says that insurrectionists can't hold certain offices.
The trial court held that Section 3 did not apply to the President, and the trial court might be right. Justice Samour did not need to resolve that issue, though . . .
Because of Section FIVE of the 14th Amendment. That section says hey -- you know the whole insurrection thing we just talked about?
How is this supposed to work? Who gets to decide who engaged in an insurrection? What sort of standard of proof applies? Is it a civil trial or a criminal trial? Is it a judge or a jury or someone else who decides that a particular person engaged in insurrection and therefore disqualified? What if they're already appointed - do they still get paid while the proceedings are going on?
The 14th amendment doesn't answer any of these questions. Instead, Section 5 says that Congress gets to pass legislation to give enforcement power to carry out Section 3.
And Congress did just that! Justice Samour points out that in 1870, Congress passed a law that allowed for both civil and criminal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
This law was when repealed and replaced in 1948.
1948: Congress replaced the 1870 statute with a criminal insurrection law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383.
If convicted under that statute -- with full criminal due process afforded the defendant -- one of the punishments is to be banned from holding office in the United States.
Trump has not been charged under this statute.
So. Congress -- and only Congress -- gets to pass legislation enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Congress did so, and it chose to enact a criminal statute that bars anyone convicted under it from holding any office in the U.S.
Trump has not been charged or convicted under that statute.
Therefore, Trump can appear on the ballot.
That's pretty much it.
There is case law backing up all of this analysis. Justice Samour engaged in a lengthy discussion of Griffin's Case, but I'll let you read that for yourself. I predict that SCOTUS will heavily cite Griffin's Case in its decision reversing Colorado.
This analysis renders a lot of the other questions irrelevant. Did Trump engage in an insurrection? Does Section 3 apply to the President? Should Trump be off the ballot nationwide or just in states like Colorado that found that he engaged in an insurrection?
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that Congress followed the 14th Amendment and established a procedure for barring someone from office for engaging in an insurrection, and that procedure was not followed here.
Alright. Back to pornography.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Sydney Sweeney is elite race car driver Elizabeth Fastrubber BUT can she win the season title and become a master grand champion? Find out this fall only in theaters - it’s MASTER RACE!
2. “Excuse me miss, but I couldn’t help noticing that you have absolutely massive milkers.”
With that one cheesy pickup line, Hank Henderson landed the girl of his dreams. But what will it take to keep her? Find out this winter on ABC’s new drama, FOURTEEN WORDS ❤️
3. Audrey Hiller, a young woman injured in war, returns home in order to fight new domestic enemies not to mention her own inner demons. Next spring in: MY STRUGGLE.
With the boomers deciding to live forever I'm not sure there's any way AROUND doing this. I've had several family members buy big houses when they had young families, but then the value of their house increased 10X over the decades (not unheard of in Colorado).
So by the time they're empty nesters and would love to downsize, their capital gains at 20% would have been ENORMOUS. Capital gains of $1M plus broker fees plus moving fees and maybe you're giving up $250K+ just for the privilege of having a smaller house.
As a result, the boomers are living in big empty houses while young families can't afford enough space. I have several old ass neighbors occupying these big houses like Zuccotti Park but for some reason I can't call in the NYPD to tase the shit out of them.
I don't want to give the boomers ANOTHER tax break but we have to find some humane way to make nana homeless.
But . . . writing a script of an imaginary commercial or something with a voice over and use of these words, many of which have more than one syllable . . .
If they said Trump sent Epstein a glossy picture of a chick with huge tits and had written HEY JACKOFF GET A LOAD OF THESE I might believe it. But not this.
Who knows maybe Trump is composing tastefully drafted dialogues and sketching nudes in his spare time and then only pretends to be Trump in public who the fuck can say.
I'm a big fan of judicial impeachments and we should do it more often! Only 8 US judges in history have been impeached and convicted, and we need to get that number up!
There's this one dude in Nevada who can only be described as an unrestrained lunatic. Here is his story.
Bob Jones is his name! He seemed like a sensible guy as a bankruptcy judge and was actually on the Judicial Conference Committee where he handled ethical issues for other judges.
George W nominated him and he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2003. Good start!
But then he went crazy.
Nevada had an old law on the books that offered voters a protest vote on the ballot - they could for "none of these candidates." It's a dumb law, but states have a ton of leeway in how they run elections, so it's obviously constitutional.
He declared the law unconstitutional, and did so at the last possible moment. He delayed for months on end, more or less bragging in open court that he was trying to avoid appellate review.
The appellate court reviewed his decision despite the fact that he never even wrote an opinion. They reversed him - upholding the law - and called him out for intentionally delaying.
Good afternoon, friends. A bit of "personal news" as they say.
I am thrilled to announce that I have resigned effective immediately from my lucrative $4M/yr law partnership in order to devote my time to my new Substack vertical, THE CULTURAL ENGAGER.
I want to reiterate that I resigned due to me being brave and bold and I was not at all fired by my management that objected to me spending 16 hours a day hitting on girls on X The Everything App.
I can hear you ingrates now. "Oh, another centrist blog. Yawn."
Well shut the hell up and listen a minute because that's not what this is AT ALL.
I mean it is, but it's THE CULTURAL ENGAGER has so much more than that!
FIRST it's not JUST politics. I mean yes Ivanka Trump's dad might come up on occasion, but TO WIN IN POLITICS FIRST YOU AHVE TO WIN IN CULTURE WHICH IS AN IDEA I JUST CAME UP WITH NOW.
That means we're going to have HUMOR. We're going to have PHOTOGAPHY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FUCKING SPORTS. REVIEWS OF OPERAS YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF WE'RE DOING ALL THAT SHIT OK? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TAKES ON SHIT THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!