Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
They could also just ignore it. It's Friday. All 50 States and DC have certified their electoral slate of voters. The EC convenes on MONDAY.
Which is a better outcome? Blow it off, as seems likely, or issue some blistering response (or at least a good judicial scolding)? Maybe, "lol u serious dude?"

"Oops, moot" might be the safer option if the SC doesn't want to get into the fray.
 
I guess that question all depends on what point you think Trump and his supporters give up.
 
Which is a better outcome? Blow it off, as seems likely, or issue some blistering response (or at least a good judicial scolding)? Maybe, "lol u serious dude?"

"Oops, moot" might be the safer option if the SC doesn't want to get into the fray.

I've always wondered what those 9 people actually talk about, and how it sounds, when they sit around the conference table, real or virtual, to discuss a case. They probably did that this morning. Did they say, "No way am I touching this one." Did any of them say, "We have to take this just so we can squash it like a bug and make a precedent out of it so no one is stupid enough to do this again." Did Justice Thomas say anything at all? Did they make fun of Sydney Powell, just for some levity?


It seems to me that the most likely option will be to ignore it completely, issuing a curt statement that they aren't hearing the case and plaintiffs can go soak their heads, or to take it with the goal of establishing a more clear precedent. However, I don't get to vote, so I guess we'll see what the high nine have to say.
 
We live in Constitutional Federal Banana Republic

FTFY. BTW I see you are diversifying from COVID denialism over there to politics. That can end only well.

NOT a Democracy. The difference between the two are enormous.

Republiloons always whine about "it's republic not democracy reee" and I never ever got what exactly is their point. We all know USA is pseudo-democracy rotting into rightwing authoritarian corpofascist state as we speak. What is there to discuss?
 
Which is a better outcome? Blow it off, as seems likely, or issue some blistering response (or at least a good judicial scolding)? Maybe, "lol u serious dude?"

"Oops, moot" might be the safer option if the SC doesn't want to get into the fray.

I think not saying anything is saying something.

This case was filed 38 days after the election and after Safe Harbor day. 49 States plus DC had already certified Biden electors.

My father had on the wall behind his desk a sign that read "A lack of planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine".
 
I've always wondered what those 9 people actually talk about, and how it sounds, when they sit around the conference table, real or virtual, to discuss a case. They probably did that this morning. Did they say, "No way am I touching this one." Did any of them say, "We have to take this just so we can squash it like a bug and make a precedent out of it so no one is stupid enough to do this again." Did Justice Thomas say anything at all? Did they make fun of Sydney Powell, just for some levity?


It seems to me that the most likely option will be to ignore it completely, issuing a curt statement that they aren't hearing the case and plaintiffs can go soak their heads, or to take it with the goal of establishing a more clear precedent. However, I don't get to vote, so I guess we'll see what the high nine have to say.

You should read Bob Woodward's book The Brethren. I read it years ago. It's all about the inner workings of SCOTUS and most specifically the handling of United States v Nixon.

You're not far off. Although they don't necessarily all sit around a conference table and discuss the case. They do sometimes. Their process is both formal and informal.
 
Last edited:
I read the article.

The examples where Congress refused to accept electoral votes were very few, and all of them occurred before passage of the statute of 1887 was passed. Since that law has been on the federal books, no objection has ever been sustained.
And did the Civil War have anything to do with the cases before 1887?
 
Excellent. The more they roll around in the Trump stink the harder it will be for them to get it off.
It's kind of encouraging that some 40 percent of House Republicans are not joining this suit. I wonder if it's a matter of principle for any of them or just down to election math in their districts.

Ha. Who am I kidding.

No senators have joined, right? Those guys need to win statewide races which might have a moderating effect.
 
Which is a better outcome? Blow it off, as seems likely, or issue some blistering response (or at least a good judicial scolding)? Maybe, "lol u serious dude?"

"Oops, moot" might be the safer option if the SC doesn't want to get into the fray.

No, they need to stop this madness with a firm scolding about how inappropriate it is to try to overturn a legitimate election result.



Of course, the following part will be with us for a while longer.

Esquire: The Republican Platform Is a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of Unreason
On Sunday, the country was in receipt of the final proof that the Republican National Convention, due to kick off tonight from various bunkers, hideouts, and undisclosed locations here and around the globe, is going to be a profound test of whether or not the American republic has been rendered a vapid puppet show by the malignant moment through which it is now passing—a moment which is, in itself, the product of four decades of malignant moments that we all were asked to tolerate and applaud. Meeting in Charlotte, the RNC’s platform committee announced that, this year, there will be no party platform, per se. Instead, the convention will be dedicated to acts of fealty to El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago. It is giving him his own private North Korea....

... RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention; ...

... RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order.

So what did they do without a 2020 RNC platform?

(Freed from the obligation of producing a platform, the delegates in Charlotte busied themselves passing resolutions on a number of pressing national talk-radio concerns. It passed a resolution condemning the Southern Poverty Law Center for "putting conservative groups or voices at risk of attack.” It passed another one supporting the continued celebration of Columbus Day, and a third inveighed, "Freedom of speech is trampled on daily with the notions of 'political correctness,' the plan to eliminate so-called 'hate speech,' and the promotion of a 'cancel culture,' which has grown into erasing of history.” I’m surprised they didn’t include a commercial for auto-glass replacement or male enhancement potions, followed by a resolution announcing Traffic On The Threes.)
I love the literary flair of this piece.
Platforms are generally written to be ignored, but this is different. This is a loyalty oath to a government of witchcraft, a pledge of allegiance to the flag of unreason. ...


How long did the McCarthy Era last? :eek:
 
This should have consequences.

I say they should have to put their careers on the line with Trump's. If when the smoke clears he's not President, they don't get to keep their offices with them. When the King is usurped the Praetorian Guard doesn't stay to serve the new King, and none of the members of Congress are Barristan Selmy enough to deserve an exception that rule.

Make them put their money where their mouth is.

I'm sure this is more symbolic than anything else but there's this:
https://pascrell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/qualifications_letter_revised_version2.pdf

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
United States House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510

Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren
Committee on House Administration
United States House of Representatives
1309 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Chairwoman Lofgren:

On November 3, 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden was elected to be the 46th President of the United States by overwhelming margins in the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Despite his decisive victory, Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans have commenced a daily assault on the legitimacy of the election that includes filing dozens of frivolous lawsuits seeking to have the results invalidated. Tragically, Members of our House of Representatives are supporting and amplifying these attacks on democracy, now culminating in 126 House Republicans joining1 a malignant lawsuit filed by the state of Texas against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This suit demands the will of the voters of these states be overturned and the Electoral College votes be stolen and awarded to Donald Trump.

As you know, Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution gives each chamber of Congress ultimate authority to decide its membership, positing that “[e]ach House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” This is a responsibility the Congress has always exercised with the utmost care and probity. The parameters for membership are broad, requiring only that “[n]o Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

The courageous Reconstruction Congress implanted into our governing document safeguards to cleanse from our government ranks any traitors and others who would seek to destroy the Union. To that end, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates that:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof…”

Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress. These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the Rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid Members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber.

Consequently, I call on you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these constitutional violations this Congress and, if possible, refuse to seat in the 117th Congress any Members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.5 Just as the American people’s clear vote in support of President-elect Biden must be respected, so too must votes cast in favor of our Members-elect. But the actions of any of our colleagues to demolish democracy, regardless of party affiliation, must be repudiated in the strongest possible terms. Rising from the embers of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was written to prevent the destruction of the United States from without and within. The moment we face now may be without parallel since 1860. The fate of our democracy depends on us meeting that moment.

Sincerely,

Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Member of Congress
 
Stop the presses. Bob's going to have a hissy fit over the idea of someone being held to standards in a way that actually accomplishes something and makes a functional difference instead of standards being only these things that prevent anything from being done and we all spend all our time in decision vapor-lock.
 
Last edited:
As of today, they still think he has won.

And that's sort of my point.

Sure a few of them give up each loss, but not enough for us to like predict a trend here.

Again I very much try to keep the Left out of focusing too much on whether or not Trump "technically" or "according to the rules" can win. Of course he can't, that ship sailed a while ago.

But if a tipping point of his followers think (or pretend to think) that he still won, that's still a huge problem.
 
Stop the presses. Bob's going to have a hissy fit over the idea of someone being held to standards in a way that actually accomplishes something and makes a functional difference instead of standards being only these things that prevent anything from being done and we all spend all our time in decision vapor-lock.

Exactly.
 
The Editorial Board of the Orlando Sentinel, a traditionally conservative central Florida newspaper, has apologized for endorsing Mike Waltz, due to his attempts to overturn the election.

During our endorsement interview with the incumbent congressman, we didn’t think to ask, “Would you support an effort to throw out the votes of tens of millions of Americans in four states in order to overturn a presidential election and hand it to the person who lost, Donald Trump?”

Our bad.

Orlando Sentinel: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opi...0201211-a4er2nccfbbeznc6yyqbq5moku-story.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom