2024 US Presidential Election

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is intriguing:  14th Amendment Section 3

Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society —  that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

They make the case that Section 3 is self-executing and requires no conviction for the insurrection and no Congressional enforcement. Essentially, Trump can be barred from holding ANY public office, not just the presidency, because his is already disqualified.

Boru

[LinuxGal]

They make the case that Section 3 is self-executing and requires no conviction for the insurrection and no Congressional enforcement. Essentially, Trump can be barred from holding ANY public office, not just the presidency, because his is already disqualified.

It requires Supreme Court enforcement and Trump can raise a lot of vacation money to pay off the justices.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

They make the case that Section 3 is self-executing and requires no conviction for the insurrection and no Congressional enforcement. Essentially, Trump can be barred from holding ANY public office, not just the presidency, because his is already disqualified.

It requires Supreme Court enforcement and Trump can raise a lot of vacation money to pay off the justices.

They addressed that in the paper. If just one supervisor of elections removes Trump from the ballot under Section 3, Trump would have the right of appeal. The authors don’t fancy his chances in front of a Supreme Court with so many originalists on the bench.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

They addressed that in the paper. If just one supervisor of elections removes Trump from the ballot under Section 3, Trump would have the right of appeal. The authors don’t fancy his chances in front of a Supreme Court with so many originalists on the bench.

Boru

I think the assumption that these justices are actually originalists is dubious, at best.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...sm/670561/

[The Architect Of Fate]

Originalism is like Biblical Literalism 

It's a sham because the authors of neither text adhered to them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originalism is like Biblical Literalism 

It's a sham because the authors of neither text adhered to them.

That's right. Additionally, both documents are heavily cherry-picked for what is literal/original vs what is metaphorical/inferred.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Former President Trump plans to skip next week’s first Republican presidential primary debate and instead sit for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, according to a new report.

Trump has made the decision to skip the debate and is currently planning to sit for an interview with Carlson, The New York Times reported, noting the former president has spent the last several days soliciting feedback from aides and allies on whether or not to participate in the debate.

When contacted for comment on the reported agreement between Trump and Carlson, an aide for the former president said his campaign “hadn’t confirmed anything on our end” and cautioned against “getting too far ahead” as it relates to the former president’s plans.

Trump, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, has for weeks signaled a hesitation to participate in the Aug. 23 debate, which is being hosted by the Republican National Committee and will be broadcast on Fox News.

[...]

Trump’s reported selecting of Carlson to host a counter-programming event of sorts to the first debate can be seen a significant slight to Fox, the cable news giant for which Carlson was at one time its top-rated host.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/41...ew-report/

Somebody's scared of hard questions.

[Aegon]

I'm actually kind of surprised he made that decision. Trump's usually good in debate situations... I mean, he doesn't know policy for shit but he's definitely mastered the art of the roast and has the charisma to make his opponents look small even when they're right. I still think some of the clips of him roasting Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz back in 2015/2016 are legitimately hilarious.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm actually kind of surprised he made that decision. Trump's usually good in debate situations... I mean, he doesn't know policy for shit but he's definitely mastered the art of the roast and has the charisma to make his opponents look small even when they're right. I still think some of the clips of him roasting Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz back in 2015/2016 are legitimately hilarious.

The difference being that in 2015/2016, Trump didn't have four indictments and a 35-point lead in opinion polls. He's got nothing to gain and everything to lose by stepping onto that debate stage.

Plus, I think he's actually afraid of Chris Christie.

Boru

[Aegon]

I'm actually kind of surprised he made that decision. Trump's usually good in debate situations... I mean, he doesn't know policy for shit but he's definitely mastered the art of the roast and has the charisma to make his opponents look small even when they're right. I still think some of the clips of him roasting Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz back in 2015/2016 are legitimately hilarious.

The difference being that in 2015/2016, Trump didn't have four indictments and a 35-point lead in opinion polls. He's got nothing to gain and everything to lose by stepping onto that debate stage.

Plus, I think he's actually afraid of Chris Christie.

Boru

His strategy of denial and deflection would work just as well now as it ever did, IMO. Only liberals see the indictments as final nails in the coffin. Many Republicans think Democrats fabricated the coffin.