16
votes
Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of January 1
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
The Polls Prove It: Many Republicans Love Fascism (The New Republic)
About Stephan Miller who wants to be Donald Trump's new right-hand man.
https://newrepublic.com/article/177611/stephen-miller-2023-immigration-lawfare
https://www.pennlive.com/politics/2024/01/lawsuit-seeks-to-remove-pa-rep-scott-perry-from-2024-ballot.html
14th amendment challenge to Freedom Caucus leader Scott Perry running for reelection
The supreme court is in a real pickle with the 14th amendment claims. If they rule Trump ineligible, they're going to disqualify hundreds, if not thousands, of other people, including some who are currently seated in congress.
Now on the other hand, if they rule that president's can't be held liable for things they did as president, as the Trump team is arguing, what's to stop Joe Biden frkm shooting Trump on 5th Avenue?
It's definitely going to be interesting to see how it plays out. SCOTUS has already has record low approval and trust after the Dobbs decision.
I fully stand by the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment, but I feel there should be a system of due process determining that the person engaged in insurrection before disqualification.
Well I guess that's another thing they're going to need to acknowledge. What constitutes an insurrection? Do you have to be convicted of "insurrection" (is that even a legal crime? I honestly don't know) or is Donald Trump's second impeachment enough or does he have to be found guilty in a court of law by Jack Smith? Either way, the decade of "Trump" will go down in history, and Trump won't be remembered fondly, especially if he wins again and is the president he promises to be.
It really shouldn't be given that impeachment is just the equivalent of charges being brought. He was found not guilty by the standards of an impeachment trial.
Which is ridiculous and shows how deeply entrenched the MAGA way of thinking is. We all saw it on live television. Republicans could have solved this issue years ago, but they're more concerned with courting his supporters then they are with the continuation of American democracy.
The house impeached him already, so I'm sure it could be argued that he fits the requirements for the 14th, but again, who knows what the outcome will be.
I think you're missing my point, because this 100% should not be the case. Impeachment is the bringing of charges. He was not convicted on those charges. I care more about proper due process than I do about any damage Trump could do (and yes I think it's massive).
What this is essentially saying is that if you have a majority in the house you can bring charges of impeachment on whatever the hell you want (since impeachment is NOT beholden to normal due process standards) and then bounce the president on grounds for the 14th.
Trump is a problem, this solution is worse.
The solution is absolutely not worse. The options are: hold Trump accountable for his crimes, even when Congress refuses to, or allow him to further erode the principles that this country was founded on. Unfortunately, our Founding Fathers naively believed that politicians would be working on good faith, so many of our traditions, and rules of government were not codified into law, and instead, politicians are just expected to uphold those policies.
States removing Trump from the ballot is a direct response to the Federal Government's lack of action with regards to Trump's crimes.
Donald Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, which directly disqualifies him for office. The Senate's refusal to hold him accountable is irrelevant, at least in my mind, to whether he qualifies as ineligible for office. Senate Republicans were not acting under good faith, and their opinions in the matter are bunk, especially considering how many of them directly, or indirectly, participated in the insurrection.
There are more options than this and many of them involve holding him responsible and following due process.
Impeachment is due process.
I agree with you, he should be in prison, but we should not ignore the fact that Donald Trump was afforded due process already. They televised his trial, they televised the Jan 6th hearings. The reason that he has not yet faced consequences is because people are afraid of his supporters, which is completely justified considering who has courted over the last 6 years.
The 14th amendment does not require people to be "convicted of insurrection", it only states
The house found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, even if the Senate didn't.
The House didn't find anything. You're fundamentally misunderstanding how impeachment works.
Then please elaborate and explain why you believe I am wrong.
In impeachment proceedings, the House acts as a prosecutor in a trial. When a prosecutor charges someone with a crime, that’s not the same as finding them guilty. That’s what the trial is for. The trial takes place in the Senate.
But this is a side issue. Impeachment (or conviction) doesn’t seem to be necessary to show that someone is disqualified from office according to the 14th amendment? When it was passed, everyone who fought for the Confederacy was disqualified, and most of them were never in a position to be impeached.
A more general question, though, is who decides that for each candidate. For example, someone might be disqualified for running for president due to age, or because they weren’t born in the US. If they tried to run anyway, couldn’t election officials just say no? What sort of evidence would they need?
This doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that can answered without studying the law, and even then it’s going to come down to the Supreme Court’s interpretation (when they take it up).
Another question I have is what actions count as “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Does giving an incendiary speech count? What does giving “comfort” mean?
Anyone can have an opinion about this stuff but our opinions don’t count for anything. Unfortunately, I expect it won’t be decided according to any abstract principles, though I expect it will be justified that way.
Right, the House Impeachment inquiry is more akin to a grand jury indictment rather than a criminal trial, but that's my point, a criminal trial is not required under the 14th, the House still found enough evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to impeach him, which should be enough to disqualify him. However, the Senate was an obviously biased "jury". It's like the deep south juries who found lynchers not guilty, except in this case it would have just resulted in a hung jury.
The thing about Colorado, and they use a decision from Gorsuch himself, is that people who are disqualified to run, and not allowed on the ballot at all. That's not true in the other states who ruled he can still be on the ballot.
So that's why I said it's going to be a sticky situation for SCOTUS. Multiple bodies have found Trump engaged in insurrection, and his lawyers aren't even arguing against it, they're just arguing he is not liable for any actions he took as president. So that's what I mentioned in my earlier comment, when is a president actual liable for actions he took as president. Could Joe Biden murder Trump during the first debate and not be charged? If SCOTUS rules that presidents are immune from legal action, a 2nd Trump turn would be horrific.
The actual wording in the law states that “the senate has the sole power to try the impeachment “
So no. It is not. This is like saying that because the state thought there was enough evidence for a trial you are guilty.
The house does not have the ability.
Edit:
And now that I have a keyboard-
So i'm sorry, but this is black and white, and you are wrong. To be guilty there must be a trial and you must be convicted. It is extremely clear that only the senate holds that power, and conviction requires a 2/3rds majority. He is flat out not guilty.
You are, in your ignorance of the law, arguing that we throw out the law to get what you want. It is this exact same kind of ignorance that trump, and people like him, constantly take advantage of to get what they want, by spreading falsehoods about how things work to get people to back decisions that are ultimately dangerous for the health of the country as a whole.
So yes, I see this as only making trumps argument's stronger when people who fundamentally do not understand the situation or the case that will be brought to SCOTUS spouting off falsehoods and making an already bad situation worse.
It does not say "Senate". The House is a part of Congress and the second impeachment could be used as justification for disqualification.
Not only that, SCOTUS has used the 14th amendment several times over the past century to grant rights that minorities were entitled to. The Brown v Board of Education and the Obergefell decisions were decided based on the wording of the amendment. Arguing that Donald Trump can't be held accountable under the 14th amendment because Congress didn't pass that law would go directly against decades of important jurisprudence. Unfortunately, this SCOTUS has been known to use poor justification to overturn decades of precedence so I could honestly see it happening.
This was your argument that I was refuting. You cannot be found guilty without a conviction. The senate has the power to convict. Everything else is just moving the goal posts.
Being "found guilty" is absolutely not required, because it's not a criminal trial. Due process, and criminal trials are not the same thing. You can be fired from your job without being convicted of a crime, and you can still get a meeting, or a hearing, or arbitration and that is still considered due process. At no point does the amendment mention anything about a trial or conviction. In fact, it only says "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion". Both Colorado and Maine have found that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection, and is thus disqualified from office.
The House also found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, and he was impeached for it. The Senate refused to enforce any actual punishments for it, but that doesn't nullify the findings of the House impeachment. Donald Trump was afforded due process during all of those times.
At this point, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe the burden of proof necessary to disqualify Trump has been reached, you do not. Hopefully the criminal cases against him are enough to disqualify him in your eyes when they are completed and we can finally put this dark chapter of American history behind us. Unfortunately, that's probably optimistic, because I fear what his supporters will do should he be convicted, and I fear what he may do should be regain power. Anyway, have a nice night, hope you had a happy new year!
What are you quoting from? Article 1 Section 5 doesn’t say what you wrote there, and neither of the other articles has a 5th section. If you go to Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, then you’ll see exactly what Eji1700 referenced regarding the Senate having the sole power to try all impeachments.
Amendment 14, Section 5 is what I quoted from. I must have misread their original quotation. Thanks for pointing that out.
Nitpick: we did not all see it live on television. Some people don't watch television at all, or only rarely.
(I read a fair number of news articles about it in the following days.)
That's fair, but lots of us saw it live on TV, or read about the aftermath, or the hearings about it. There are some who deliberately ignore the severity of the situation, but of course, those are the ones who would support Trump if "he shot someone on 5th Avenue"
Fear of MAGA "backlash" is no reason to let Donald Trump make an illegal run for president (Salon)
Michigan Republicans vote to remove chair Kristina Karamo as she promises not to accept result (Politico)
It's crunch time in Iowa and New Hampshire (ABC News / 538)