zataomm
3mo ago
Thanks for this. I hadn’t realized there was a second body cam, from the first one I wasn’t seeing the throw at all and was wondering how this was even controversial. Very questionable tactics by the officers, but it seems very clear she was trying to throw the water at them.
So this morning I am inspired by a clip from the otherwise-decent (from a libertarian perspective) movie Captain Fantastic. In the scene, a small child laments the pernicious implications of the Citizens United ruling, saying it means "our country is ruled by corporations and their lobbyists." I'm wondering whether, as a matter of rhetoric, it would be effective to embarrass people with the specific facts of the Citizens United v. FEC case. "Defend this, if you dare!" While for many, that descision represents all that is evil as they champion the high-minded principle of "preventing corporations from buying elections," I suspect few would defend the particulars of how the law would have applied in that instance.
The usual story is this: the Supreme Court decision's decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates for corporate money to dominate American elections, as the Supreme Court outrageously declared that "corporations are people." But this portrayal overlooks the specific and basically indefensible details of the case itself. Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, sought to air a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton leading up to the 2008 primary elections. The Federal Election Commission blocked the documentary, citing campaign finance regulations that restricted "electioneering communications" by corporations and labor unions within a certain time frame before elections.
Imagine an analogous case today: a group of citizens is determined to prove that the prosecutions against Donald Trump are not politically-motivated "lawfare", but rather solid and legitimate cases, and produces a documentary to make that argument, only to be blocked by from disseminating the film. Is this not an outrageous position for the government to take?
Opening up this line of attack could easily backfire: if I make people defend the facts of specific Supreme Court cases, I am sure they can find their own Supreme Court decisions which I like, but which side with unsympathetic parties. I don't really want to stand up next to the guy holding a "God hates fags" sign. But the iconic and notorious status of the Citizens United case in popular discourse deserves some effort at pushback.
tl;dr: If you are so worried about for-profit corporations buying elections, why not pass a law that is narrowly-tailored to prevent just that, without going after someone who creates a kickstarter for their latest documentary "Trump: the Orange Menace"?
zataomm
4mo ago
Nice to know there are at least two of us for whom the memories of that time are indelible in the hippocampus. What's notable about the clip I linked is that it occurred before the Blasey Ford allegations. I can almost forgive the Democrats for pushing the Blasey Ford story because they really had a chance to take down Kavanaugh, and the Supreme Court is worth a lot of dirty tactics. But Harris's questioning of Kavanaugh about Bob Mueller stood out to me because it was so pointless (and because she was so incredibly annoying).
zataomm
4mo ago
Not everyone wants to follow some random link to watch a video, but it's hard for a transcript to convey her smug, condescending tone as she asked that ridiculous question over and over, acting as if it was Kavanaugh that was making things difficult by being evasive. Making matters worse is the fact that she never offered a post-questioning follow-up to let people know what the hell she was talking about.
zataomm
4mo ago
Out of curiosity, am I the only one will never get over Kamala Harris's insane questioning of Brett Kavanaugh, asking him over and over again about whether he has discussed "Bob Mueller or his investigation" with anyone? She may actually be the most unpleasant person to listen to in all of politics.
zataomm
4mo ago
The post-debate spin/cope that "sure, Biden was incoherent, but that's because he cares about the truth while Trump just lies!" is so absurd. I am sure that Trump told lies, like "millions of illegals coming from prisons and mental asylums". I don't actually know that it's false, but it seems like it couldn't possibly be true or well-sourced.
On the other hand, Biden's claim that Trump said people should inject bleach to cure COVID is something I have personally investigated and know to be false. I view Biden's lie as more damaging, because it is not an obvious exaggeration or hyperbole, it's just a false statement about what Trump said about COVID.
A different media would be screaming about Biden's repeated claim that billionaires only pay 8.2% in tax, because it is basically a lie, but no, it's okay because some think tank did a study where they counted unrealized capital gains as income and came up with that figure.
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal is bizarrely insisting on fact-checking what they call Trump's "false claim that 'every legal scholar' wanted Roe v. Wade overruled". While I think Trump said "every serious legal scholar", which of course allows him to no-true-scotsman the statement into being true, but also, could any viewer seriously think that Trump was saying every single person who studied Roe v. Wade thought it should be overruled?
I've long been uncomfortable with the media consensus that Trump's lies are out of proportion to any other politician, and I think the treatment of this debate provides a great example. If there is a difference, it is that Trump's lies tend to be "bullshit", claims that both he and we know aren't literally or precisely true, but express some true feeling, whereas Biden's lies masquerade as careful, reasoned analysis.
zataomm
9mo ago
Sorry to be graphic, but as a logistical matter, it's very hard to imagine how Trump could have inserted his penis into her vagina while she was both 1. standing up and 2. actively resisting him. In this scenario as written, he has his hand with fingers in a V-shape at her crotch, surrounding her vagina, and then he sort of squats down while maintaining pressure against her crotch, in order to thrust upward with his penis through his open fingers. At the same time, he is supposed to be pinning her against the wall with his shoulder. The shoulder of the same hand or of the other hand? At one point he grabbed both her arms and pinned her against the wall, but then he is using his hands to undress himself and putting one hand between her legs. Is she still resisting at this moment or not?
As written, the whole thing just seems impossible, it could have happened if she "gave up" at some point, but it could not have happened in the way she describes.
zataomm
10mo ago
Horrifying. Context makes it a little better but definitely bad to imply any kind of debt owed to Trump by any of the justices. Not sure who Alina Habba is exactly though, she’s not one of the lawyers whose name appears on Trump’s petition to the court, all of whom surely want to kill her right about now.
zataomm
10mo ago
Trump has filed his petition to the Supreme Court asking them to review the Colorado decision. Lawyers writing briefs don't generally have the same opportunity for snark as judges when they write their opinions, so my favorite quote was:
constitutional speech protections should not turn on opinions from sociology professors
Which seems reasonable to me.
The brief contains a variety of arguments, some of which are stronger than others. One interesting argument I hadn't heard before is that while someone may be disqualified from holding office, they are still permitted to run for office. A bit hard to swallow in the case of a candidate counting on Congress to "remove the disability" after he gets elected to office, but, like I said, interesting.
The brief points out some deficiencies specific to the Colorado proceedings. Candidates are required to file a paper affirming that they meet the qualifications to be President, but the Colorado Secretary of State is not required to independently investigate this affirmation, and thus had no business doing so. A good point, but by now we have challenges across several states, so the Supreme Court is going to need to go bigger to resolve this issue.
The brief argues that the events of Jan. 6 were not an "insurrection", and even if it was, Trump did not "engage" in the insurrection. I agree with this, but my instinct is that the Supreme Court is not going to want to go so far as to make that determination.
The Supreme Court's two main options are unpalatable. They can:
- Point out deficiencies specific to the Colorado procedure
- Take up the case of Trump's eligibility themselves
The first doesn't go far enough, and won't resolve other states' cases, while the second goes too far, taking on more responsibility than the Supreme Court likes to have. For this reason, my expected outcome is for the Supreme Court to lean on section 5 of the 14th Amendment, saying that Congress and only Congress is able to determine eligibility for federal office. As @AshLael has pointed out, this is standard operating procedure for Roberts, he loves to write opinions which conclude by saying, in effect, "if Congress doesn't like this outcome, they are free to pass a new law to achieve the outcome they like."
zataomm
10mo ago
ProPublica thinks they are running an effective pressure campaign on Clarence Thomas because they have succeeded in moving the NYT and WaPo editors from "convinced that he should resign" to "really, really convinced that he should resign," but they haven't actually changed the mind of anyone who wasn't already convinced.
zataomm
10mo ago
Yes, I agree with your assessment of Gorsuch and Roberts, which is why if they do agree I could pre-commit to following whatever they say as both wise and respectful of the relevant laws as written. Not sure what I'd do if they disagree but again I think you're right, Gorsuch is more likely to apply the law with strict correctness while Roberts will look for the decision that is best for the political system overall. My heart is with Gorsuch but I think I'd have to go with my head and favor Roberts.
Yes, even if the judge went with "clear and compelling evidence" instead of "balance of probabilities," Trump supporters would still be up in arms. But here's the thing: it's like if your Uncle Barry was making the decision. Uncle Barry might genuinely be the fairest guy in the world, but if people don't know him, they are not going to trust his judgments, fair or not. And your average American doesn't know anything about the Colorado legal system or how they reached their conclusion. But they've heard about Congress and the Supreme Court their whole lives. These bodies carry weight. They're like the household names of American justice. So, if a ruling comes from them, even though some percentage of people will just never be persuaded, for another portion, they at least recognize that the judgment is coming from a place they recognize and understand.
To answer your question for me, personally, I'm not really a Trump supporter, but I do currently think that the process by which this disqualification happened was unjust. But if the SCOTUS takes this case and, concretely, Roberts and Gorsuch vote to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, that would bring me a lot closer to accepting that Trump at least has gone through a legitimate process leading to disqualification. I don't always agree with those two but I do have massive respect for both of them.
zataomm
10mo ago
My point is not that we should ignore the Constitution if a candidate is 29 years old, a born Frenchman, or is running for a third term. What I'm saying is that, rather than trying to divine the appropriate standard of review based on criminal and civil law, let's think about this concrete case. Nobody in 1865 was disputing that the "insurrection" of the 14th amendment applied to the Civil War; in fact, it's safe to say that if by any quirk of interpretation the amendment didn't apply to the Civil War, it would have been re-written until it did apply to that case. So it's really crystal-clear that the disqualification provision applied to those who "engaged in" insurrection by being part of the Confederacy.
In contrast, there are a lot of people who think that the 14th amendment's "insurrection" is not properly applied to the events of January 6th, and that even if it was an "insurrection", Trump did not engage in it. The man literally said, "everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Just as I, an honest person, can see why many believe that the phrase was empty BS after Trump spent months claiming fraud on the thinnest of evidence, an honest person on the other side should also see why the application of the 14th amendment to Trump is nowhere near as clear-cut as it was to Civil War participants in the 1870s.
So, just like we have different standards in civil and criminal cases, we need to think about what we're really trying to achieve with the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. It's not just about the law; it's about making sure everyone, including honest Trump supporters, can trust and accept the outcome. Right now, there's a big gap between the two sides. We need to bridge that by understanding the why behind the law, ensuring the process is fair, and making the outcome something people can believe in, even if they don't like it.
Ilya Somin addresses the gravity of civil liabilities compared to criminal penalties. He suggests that sometimes, a short prison term might be preferable to substantial civil damages. And he is approaching a really good point when he writes:
There are situations where the consequences of civil liability are so grave that the civil-criminal distinction may seem artificial, as when defendants end up paying enormous damages that force them into bankruptcy. A short prison term might be less painful than that.
Unfortunately, the next sentence is
But Section 3 disqualification isn't one of those cases.
I say "unfortunately" because he was on the verge of an important conclusion. His analysis goes beyond simply stating, as a fact, that the criminal standard of proof is different from the civil standard of proof, and actually explains why the legal system makes such a distinction. He even points out that in some cases, a light criminal punishment would be preferable to a harsh civil punishment. And yet, for some reason, his analysis stops there, just saying that "disqualification isn't one of those cases" where we really need to really think about what standard of proof is appropriate.
So, instead of just stating, without evidence(!), that "disqualification isn't one of those cases", let's think about the importance of Section 3 disqualification. If you become the nominee for one of the two major parties in the US, a reasonable estimate would be that you have a 50% chance of becoming President. How much time would you be willing to spend in jail to get that kind of chance? For me personally, I have basically no desire to be president, and even so I would be willing to spend, say, 6 months in jail, for the salary and pension alone (N.B. I am poor). Actual ambitious people would probably be willing to give up a lot more.
From the perspective of the American voter, not being able to vote for their preferred candidate is a big deal. This is the kind of statement for which no proof should be necessary, but as an attempt at proof I will offer the time and energy Americans dedicate to voting each election year. That behavior seems like sufficient demonstration that it is really important to them.
I do get it, we have to have standards in legal matters because we can't just let every judge and jury make decisions based on their own idiosyncracies. But rather than falling back on the claim, "well, disqualification is not really a punishment, because no one has the right to be President of the United States", I would suggest taking a second to think about what this concrete case of disqualification means, both to Trump and to his supporters. It is actually, to quote President Biden, "a big fucking deal", and should be treated as such.
Dismissing the severity of disqualification without deeper analysis underestimates its substantial impact on individuals and the democratic process. It deserves the same rigorous debate and consideration as any severe legal sanction.
zataomm
10mo ago
zataomm
10mo ago
Looking at the IRS IRA required minimum distribution (RMD) table, at age 80 you are required to withdraw 5% from your 401k, and the percentage goes up each year after that. At age 75 your withdrawal already exceeds 4%. You don't have to spend it, but you do have to take it as income and pay taxes on it.
zataomm
10mo ago
Yes, good call, I was confusing the criminal cases about interference with the current case.
zataomm
10mo ago
Look, obviously, I agree that it’s ridiculous, but I like that it has a parallel to Trump’s encouraging the mob who rioted at the capitol. Could one of the people held up in traffic have been a government official on their way to an important meeting? So the protesters were interfering with a government function.
zataomm
10mo ago
This is beautiful in its simplicity, and the Right Thing To Do for the sake of America. But woe unto the Democratic senator or congressman who voted to remove Trump’s disability if Trump actually wins the 2024 election.
zataomm
11mo ago
I’ve heard it said that Republicans are getting ready to nominate the only person who can lose to Biden, and Democrats are getting ready to nominate the only person who can lose to Trump. Obviously, a bit overstated, but it feels true. Sensible people in both parties would love to get away from their party's likely presidential candidate, but the Republican experience over the last seven years basically proves that it’s hard to do in the real world.
But yeah, it’s nice to see someone acknowledge that if there were any responsible adults involved, both parties would be taking seriously the major deficiencies in their candidates, rather than just spending their time and energy trying to make the other party’s candidate look worse.
zataomm
11mo ago
The sad part is they couldn't even find a good "insurrection" to allege. Hunter Biden's dealings with China? Come on. Can't they argue that Biden in some way encouraged the protesters who block traffic to fight climate change? Or the people who graffiti'd the Lincoln memorial in support of Palestine? Everybody hates those guys, why not go ahead an call it an insurrection?
zataomm
11mo ago
The thread is intended as a follow-up to this comment. America-centric for sure but it seems pretty important. Donald Trump, a leading candidate for one of the two major political parties has been declared ineligible for the presidency because, according to the supreme court of Colorado, he engaged in an insurrection against the US government.
Link to the Axios community-noted tweet: https://x.com/axios/status/1816078350659494130
More options
Context Copy link