The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Blackman & Tillman, On The Wall
After the Denver trial court held that the President was not an "Officer of the United States," I observed that the Blackman-Tillman position on Section 3 had moved from "off the wall" to "on the wall."
If there is a wall in the conservative movement, it is Fox News. Over the past two days, our work was cited and discussed in some depth on two Fox News programs.
And if there is ever a wall in the mainstream media, it is the New York Times. In the past two days, our work was cited in three articles.
Other scholars, notably Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law Houston and Seth Barrett Tillman of Maynooth University in Ireland, say that Section 3 does not cover Mr. Trump. There is, they wrote, "substantial evidence that the president is not an 'officer of the United States' for purposes of Section 3."
In 2021, two conservative legal scholars, Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Seth Barrett Tillman of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, published a law review article about the clause arguing on textualist and originalist grounds that a president does not count as an officer of the United States. Among other issues, they focused on language about "officers" in the original Constitution as ratified in 1788 — including language about oaths that can be read as distinguishing appointed executive branch officers from presidents, who are elected.
Others have argued the opposite, with the law professors Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman saying in a recent draft paper that they saw "no sound basis" for Mr. Baude's and Mr. Paulsen's conclusions.
We are grateful to the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty for publishing our article in late 2021. It's impossible to know in advance what pieces of scholarship will ever be relevant. Our article has been getting some attention of late.
There is much to say about what happened in Colorado. In due time. For now, I gave interviews on several radio stations (KPCC in Los Angeles, KOA in Denver, and KFI in Los Angeles.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You're bragging about being referenced by Fox News? You should add that to your c.v.; it's bound to help you move up to a real law school.
He does mention three separate articles in the NY Times too.
If it was just Fox News you would have a point.
Faux News is no longer the standard of conservatism and the NY Slimes never was.
Just sayin....
Pray tell . . . what is the current standard of conservatism press?
.
Go to a bus station in some bad part of town. While holding your nose — literally and figuratively — enter the bathroom and go into a stall. Read the graffiti there. There you go.
A more magnanimous contributor, such as Eugene or Ilya or Orin or William, might have noticed that each cite to Josh's "work" in the NYTimes was paired with a cite to William's own work. It might have been framed, not as a masturbatory self-promotion, but rather as a debate on the VC breaking out into the mainstream.
Never mind that, of Josh's three links to the NYTimes, one frames his work as a disfavored minority view, and another isn't really an "article" (it's more like a twitter feed for news updates).
The guy is pathetic. But if you're stuck at a 5th tier law school, self-aggrandizement is the best you can expect.
The guy literally gets cited in Supreme court cases. He's like the most pathetic athlete on the Olympic team, the worst Nobel prize winning physicist, the poorest guy on the Fortune 500 list...
He's only 'pathetic' compared to the guys who got the gold medal instead of the bronze.
And I say that despite his haircut.
He seems to regularly sneer at Kavanaugh. The easiest assumption is BK is insufficiently results-oriented than Blackman wants, but I have a supplemental theory:
Before he hit forty, Brett (the SCOUS Justice) had already run the most grotesquely partisan bit of hackery in the whole sordid history of Special Counsel investigations (Foster). He had been part of the phony Brooks Brothers Riot that shut down the Miami-Dade recount. He had squeezed himself a place in the loathsome GOP theatrics over poor Teri Schiavo. Brett (the SCOUS Justice) had himself willing to do any sleazy act to service his party's ends.
There's a scene in Body Heat where the (slightly dumb & scuzzy lawyer) William Hurt character meets Kathleen Turner's gangster husband. The latter tells a story about a guy "who couldn't do what needs to be done". He tells it with some contempt. Hurt laughs nervously and then admits he's that kind of guy (voiced tinged with embrassment and self-disgust).
That's how I see Blackman re Kavanaugh.
("shown himself willing" The edit function still doesn't work)
"He had been part of the phony Brooks Brothers Riot that shut down the Miami-Dade recount."
You need to be a Democrat to be horrified at the fact that when Miami-Dade found that they couldn't continue recounting outside of the view of elections observers, they decided it wasn't worth doing if they had to be watched while they were doing it. That was the only sense in which the 'riot' shut that recount down.
Anyway, my point remains: It is perfectly absurd for people who aren't members of the prestigious club to attack somebody as pathetic because they think them the least member of it. Blackman may have some less than ideal personality traits, and a haircut like a bad taxidermy job, but he is, none the less, an actually accomplished and recognized legal scholar of serious note.
And you, sir, are not. The envy burns, does it not?
Brett Bellmore : "couldn’t continue recounting outside of the view of elections observers"
I'm interested to learn just how delusional you are. Do you understand your statement above is totally wrong?
1. There were ALWAYS election observers at hand where the ballots were counted. There were observers representing both parties in the room. Surely even you know that ?!?
2. The media was located 25ft away. Is that what you think justified your tinhorn two-bit phony riot? The punching, kicking, trampling, shoving and shouting? It was always a carefully planned fraud, Brett.
The Right tried the same bullshit in Michigan during the '20 election count: Screaming, shouting and pounding the glass while the election counters & Republican-Democratic observers tried to do their work. Didn't you swallow the lie hook, line, and sinker then too, Brett?
"1. There were ALWAYS election observers at hand where the ballots were counted. There were observers representing both parties in the room. Surely even you know that ?!?"
Not according to the accounts I've read.
"2. The media was located 25ft away. Is that what you think justified your tinhorn two-bit phony riot? The punching, kicking, trampling, shoving and shouting? It was always a carefully planned fraud, Brett."
Yeah, I believe we saw that in Philly, too? Media allowed to be present, just not anywhere they could actually SEE anything.
For all the crap we give Josh for being an idiot he's not wrong here, even if his need to be relevant is pathetic.
You're still a bad person Josh. And what you're doing is a symptom of how sick you are inside. Seek therapy.
This is inappropriate -- he well may be saner than you are.
You think THAT'S inappropriate but don't bat an eye on comments like this:
Defenderz 2 days ago
All of the 7 judges were appointed by Democraps, and two of the four are women. I hope they get cancer in their nasty ovaries.
I, for one, don't bat an eye at those comments because I muted Defenderz very shortly after it started posting comments. It's a vile troll and I don't feel like feeding it.
Lets kill more sex workers, Ed, that's appropriate!
You are way too vile on this blog to attempt to tone police.
Thank you for your purchase from Non Sequiturs is Us. Please retain you receipt for refunds and adjustments.
You would think Republicans, conservatives, Federalist Society members, and right-wingers would have learned by now to avoid entirely the issues of
(1) the incessant stream of racial slurs and other bigoted content published daily at the Volokh Conspiracy (posts and comments);
(2) why the Volokh Conspirators are silent about calls at their blog for liberals to be gassed, exterminated, placed face-down in landfills, raped, shot in the face as they answer front doors, shoved through woodchippers, sent to Zyklon showers, etc.;
(3) why these right-wing law professors welcome racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, transphobic slurs and bigoted comments at this white, male, conservative blog; and
(4) why Prof. Volokh imposes viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship at this blog, scrubbing comments from or banning liberals for criticizing or making fun of conservatives.
Being a lawyer may be despicable, but it's still legal. Pretending to be a shrink and offering medical device is even scummier and probably illegal. Only a statist could think it reasonable.
Even a real shrink can't -- see Goldwater Rule.
Does suggesting someone get therapy qualify as offering medical advice?
Dislike him all you want. He's still more influential than about 99.95% of legal scholars. The judiciary seem to think he's the real thing.
I don't agree with his conclusion about Section 3 not applying to the Presidency, but it's far from unreasonable.
But he is wrong here. He was cited because the lower courts that adopted his viewpoint were determined to be wrong by the Colorado Supreme Court. He brags about being cited on a "news" channel that has paid the largest defamation settlement ever for knowingly telling lies about the election, lies that led to the insurrection that may bar trump from the presidency.
The rest of your comment is absolutely correct.
There's nothing shameful about being determined to be wrong by a court that's likely to be promptly overturned by the Supreme court.
Though I think most likely on due process grounds, NOT "The President is not an officer" grounds.
One could read this post without realizing that the per curiam opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is a thoroughgoing rejection of the Blackman/Tillman position.
Pathetic!!
Why per curiam and no authorship of the decision given?
Just curious.
Perhaps the justices would like to keep the death threats to a minimum.
With 3 signed dissents, identifying the 4 justices in the majority is not exactly gumshoe material.
I'm sure it's not stopping you, no. Call it phone-banking for MAGA!
So, are you aware of any death threats having been made?
I'm pretty sure the media would trumpet them if they existed.
...and still no edit function and no explanation as to why.
Well, there's a lot of violent rhetoric on right-wing sites, and doxxing of the justices. Based on how we've seen MAGA react to other cases, we can extrapolate.
But does it matter? Even if I could link to a specific threat being directed at the Colorado justices, I'm sure you'd write it off as being just "speech" as long as you could characterize it as less than credible or specific. And even if it were from a Coloradan with access to firearms and plenty of opportunity to carry through, you'd write it off as just a harmless crazy guy not representative of the movement. And on and on it'd go. Even if a justice were actually shot, you'd dig and dig until you found something in their history you could characterize as "liberal."
You're full of shit. I asked (in response to ng's post) why per curiam and no author mentioned and you chose to respond about imagined threats.
You haven't linked to any being reported and now claim it doesn't matter there might be, because you know MAGA.
Get a grip.
It's only a matter of time, Bumble-boy. Like I said, MAGA is mega-MAD about it, and are spouting off online about killing the Colorado justices. That much is known. I am not privy to the justices' private correspondence, but I am not going to allow you to declare that, just because no specific death threats have yet come to light, that none are reasonably to be expected.
One would think you'd know this about your ilk by now.
The CO Sup Ct decision itself states that per their own tradition in expedited election law related cases, the majority opinion is filed per curiam. So I think that is a creature of Colorado state supreme court specific procedure. The majority stated this to be the case and I don't think (although i haven't read all the dissents) anybody contested it. Its just how they roll.
Anything like camping outside of justices' homes as happened after Dobbs?
And then reporting on themselves before they acted on any kind of intentions? No, I haven't heard of that yet. MAGA death threats are common and widespread, but they're probably just a bunch of later-middle-aged, overweight disaffected VC commenters who think they're fighting the Lord's own battles by phone banking.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/21/trump-colorado-supreme-court-justices-death-threats
I can't tell if you are doing a bit
Dude, just stop with the ill-informed frothing before you embarrass yourself any further. Here's a piece by the alt-right Colorado Public Radio profiling all seven justices and explaining where they fell in the ruling. There are many others.
It does seem totally pointless to have made it per curiam, given all the dissents are named. Maybe nobody wanted to take named responsibility for saying that the lack of a minority report from the Jan 6th committee proved how bipartisan it really was...
As I mentioned in the other post where you complained about the admission of the congressional report - there are rules on this. The onus was on Trump to explain why the report shouldn't be admitted as evidence. It's true he claimed that it was improperly motivated. The courts considered that claim and concluded that he (i) did not carry his burden of proof and (ii) even if he had, improper motivation is only one factor among several that count against admission of the report, where all of the other factors weighed in favor of admitting it.
And even the admission of the Report itself was not determinative. Trump was at all points free to contradict the factual findings of the Report that were admitted with his own evidence. Again, he failed to carry that burden.
It's just really hard to make sense of your complaint, unless we are to understand you as saying that Trump and the Republican party aren't bound by the same rules of civil procedure that bind everyone else.
Yes, they did conclude he failed to carry the burden of proof. Absurdly so, given that they actually admitted that every last member of the committee had expressed prior animus against him, and that the composition of the committee was, literally, unprecedented in all of Congressional history.
As I said, they went to far as to declare the lack of a minority report to be proof of the committee's bipartisanship, rather than proof of it's lack!
Essentially, they put the bar for finding the committee improperly motivated so high that it was categorically impossible to clear. If that committee wasn't improperly motivated, no committee could EVER be improperly motivated.
I do believe they laid out the test; and then explained why it could be admitted under the relevant hearsay exception. Primarily because most of the evidence relevant to the question of Trump engaging in insurrection came from depositions and questioning of Trump's own administration, his own lawyers, and other GOP officials.
Your lack of legal training is showing.
Like I said - even if he had carried his burden on that point, he needed to argue that the other relevant factors weighing in favor of admissibility also cut against admission. Reading the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion, it appears that the didn't even bother to address them. Bad lawyering, perhaps.
Simon,
This is just one of Brett's hobbyhorses. It goes along with Steve Scalise, the PA Supreme Court, the mendacity of government statistics, etc.
No need to take it seriously. He not only absolutely refuses to accept any information or argument that suggests he is mistaken, he thinks it is offered in bad faith.
Ignoring "Birther Brett's" birther period seems strange.
A14 S3 is meaningless without due process, as is with every other amendment which contains a section stating that there will be laws written to enact the amendment.
If no law exists to determine, such as, who is an "officer", a court may write an opinion. However, opinions must be challenged since there is no law.
For the everyday citizen, the Colorado Supreme Court has erred because they infer on Trump something not proven by established procedures.
Inflaming is the Colorado Supreme Court and all who aim to follow them. Writing false opinions is dangerous.
Quoted from the Ironclad Oath Law of 1862 ....
"any office ..... excepting the President of the United States."
NvEric, Donald Trump has had a boatload of due process in this case.
Donald Trump had notice of the charges against him, the relief sought by the petitioners, and detailed specification of the underlying factual and legal basis for the petition. His lawyers litigated multiple pretrial motions in the trial court and in the Supreme Court of Colorado. AFAIK, Trump did not seek to conduct any pretrial discovery, and he made no offer of proof to the trial court as to how discovery would have assisted his defense on the merits. (The petitioners sought to take a pretrial evidentiary deposition of Trump, but the trial court denied their application to do so.) The trial court scheduled five full days for taking proof, with the time for presentation equally divided between the petitioners and the respondent/intervenors (and Trump did not take all of the time he was allotted). The Rules of Civil Procedure applied at trial. Trump had the subpoena power of the trial court to compel the attendance of witnesses on his behalf. Trump’s lawyers cross-examined witnesses called on behalf of the petitioners. Trump had the opportunity to testify at trial; he elected not to do so. While the applicable statutes specified that the petitioners had the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence, the trial court determined that the proof met the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence, had that standard been applicable. All parties had the opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court issued a comprehensive and detailed final order.
The Supreme Court of Colorado exercised discretionary review. The parties submitted comprehensive briefing. The per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court is comprehensive and is tied closely to the evidentiary record developed before the trial court. Trump has the opportunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to petition the United States Supreme Court for review by certiorari.
What additional process due you claim was due Donald Trump? Please be specific.
If reading this piece wasn't enough for you, remember that blackman keeps some sort of spreadsheet containing all of his media appearances. He's posted the whole thing here before. This batch of media appearances made it just under the wire for this year's spreadsheet, which should be forthcoming soon. Something to look forward to.
And?!?
Last I checked, this was still a sorta-free country.
You could post a log of your bowel movements on your web blog if you wish -- don't expect me to read it, but you have a right to do it.
This is basic free speech, and I find it disturbing that I have to defend it.
Defend it from what? No explicit or implicit suggestion was made that blackman not post this stuff. It was merely a reminder that more is to come, so that his superfans could get excited about it and be sure not to miss it. Anticipation is dopamine stimulator. His fans should have every opportunity for such an experience. He might even get to the substance about what happened in Colorado, in due time.
Are you a child, Ed? Free country does not mean free from judgement.
A true (small "l") liberal attacks the argument and not the man.
Gaslight0's only pretense is to being a serious person, not a decent one.
He regularly fails at both.
I did make an argument. It’s the second sentence in my post.
A President isn't an officer of the United States in the same sense that a man is a woman.
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."
Sounds to me like all of us are male and female. Also, does that last bit sound like Yoda?
For those of a certain temperament, counting chickens before they hatch can brighten a day. Most folks who cherish that habit have learned it is unwise to do it publicly.
In a world where Donald Trump can become President, Josh Blackman can become an influential legal mind.
The world where Donald Trump can become President existed in 2016 and the country was doing pretty well for four years.
It's true, it took a while for Trump's wreckage to fully manifest in the real world.
His tax cut bill is coming due. He encouraged Putin to act on his Ukraine plan by undercutting NATO. He set the stage for a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He single-handedly torpedoed progress on global warming and likely is to blame for Iran giving up on diplomacy with the US and doubling down on its insurgency strategy in the Middle East.
Never mind COVID. Imagine what we might have achieved if he had embraced a sound middle-road strategy - no lockdowns, but also none of this conspiratorial nonsense. What if he had worked with blue and red state governors to take reasonable precautions to protect the elderly while getting kids back into schools and people back to work. Fast-track vaccine development (which he did), but make it about getting people vaccinated (which he didn't) rather than his own re-election prospects (which is the path he chose, and is why the Biden administration had to build the roll-out from the ground up when they came in).
Now we're dealing with vaccine hesitancy even when it comes to vaccines that clearly, demonstrably help young kids grow up healthy. That's his doing, and the right-wing outrage media.
This segment of "Life in an Alternate Universe" has been brought to you by Simon P.
I don't deny that things were okay during the actual Trump presidency, in terms of the economy, at least until COVID (i.e., a fourth of his presidency). Every day was some new stupid shit, but most of it was directed at out-groups and ineffectual performative nonsense. He did a lot of damage, but most of it wasn't immediately impactful.
That might change if he gets re-elected and starts doing things like direct Fed policy or using the DOJ and US military as an attack dog. We'll see those ramifications more immediately.
+1
Dude, you ARE aware, aren't you, that the lock downs were decided at the state level, right?
Basically all Trump did was bock incoming carriers to the extent the courts would allow, and clear away bureaucratic obstacles to getting a vaccine asap.
No, I'm being unduly generous to Trump: He WAS guilty of that eviction moratorium, and that was pretty awful.
I am aware.
Governors like Cuomo and Newsom didn't choose their policies in a vacuum. If Trump were credible as a leader who listened to expertise and made good policy judgments, he could have coordinated a uniform policy that made sense. And if he provided political cover, blue state governors would have been comfortable being less extreme. But because he leaned hard into conspiracies and nonsense, blue-state governors found political advantage in taking an extremely opposed approach.
I lived through it, in NYC. The stuff they were doing here was stupid. In another reality, a Republican president with a coherent strategy on COVID could have won a lot of respect from me.
"I am aware. "
Chat Gpt is more "aware" than you.
Chat GPT might be able to formulate better responses to my comments than you can.
So, he's guilty of actually acting like federalism was a real thing. Gotcha.
Oh fuck off with this bullshit. You know as well as I do that Trump didn't care for the limits federalism imposed on his power.
I know nothing of the sort. He did some shit I didn't approve of, but in terms of respecting federalism, he was actually unusually good.
Not on any absolute scale, of course. But compared to other modern Presidents? Yeah, pretty good.
This is completely insane. Trump, the guy you often said doesn't care about norms (and that's good), and talked about Article II all the time like it was some talismanic grant of immunity, is now into state's rights?
This is what happens when you attach yourself to a person, not principles. You come out with ridiculous revisions of reality like this.
There's plenty of room to be absolutely dreadful on states rights, and still be better than the average President of the last century. And that's where Trump stands: Awful at it, and yet better than the still more awful competition.
Maybe not out of principle, if you must insist on claiming he had none, but objectively in terms of his actions? Yeah, he left states more freedom to make their own policies than Presidents before or after.
No, dude, Trump doesn’t recognize the concept. Quite clearly he doesn’t think there are any limits to executive power, including federalism.
Just because you deny a lot of the post Civil War realignment of federal power doesn’t mean you lose all perspective.
He might have been aware that he wasn't up to the job he was responsible for performing. Or bored by the prospect of actually working.
Adam Unikowsky, from his newsletter, on the "president is not an officer" B/S:
Section 3 applies only to insurrectionists who previously took an “oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States.” Trump argues that the President isn’t an “officer of the United States.” Again, this argument pits the Lawyers against the People. “Officer” is a cognate of “office.” Anyone unburdened by law school would think that the person holding the office of the Presidency is an officer.
Also, Section 3 says: “No person shall … hold any office … under the United States,” if “as an officer of the United States,” the person engaged in insurrection. As the Colorado Supreme Court explains, one would naturally read these provisions to be coextensive: officers are people who hold office.
The contrary argument rests on the fact that, in other provisions of the Constitution enacted many decades earlier, “officer,” in context, excludes the President. For example, the Constitution says that the President will appoint and commission all officers, which implies that the President isn’t himself an officer because the President doesn’t appoint or commission himself.
Eh. I accept that in those contexts, the word “officer” isn’t referring to the President. This doesn’t mean that the word “officer,” when not used in conjunction with “President,” excludes the presidency. If you say “the Chief Judge hires all people who work at the courthouse,” this doesn’t mean that the Chief Judge doesn’t work at the courthouse.
More fundamentally, I object to a theory of constitutional interpretation that treats the Constitution as a riddle to be solved by skilled enigmatologists. An officer is a person who holds office, regardless of whether, 100 years earlier, the Constitution’s drafters directed the President to commission officers. I’ll repeat, the Constitution was meant to be understood by the voters.
Trump also makes the related argument that the President doesn’t take an “oath … to support the Constitution of the United States” within the meaning of Section 3 because the presidential oath required him to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” rather than “support” it. This has the feel of a tax-protestor argument. Someone who promises to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution also promises to support it.
"An officer is a person who holds office . . . . "
Um....ok....
Const. Art 2, Cl 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years . . . .
Unikowsky admits that in other parts of the Constitution, the President isn't an "officer". So he comes across very Humpty-Dumptyish here, and ironic in his complaints about lawyerly parsing.
Er, no. He points out an instance elsewhere in the Constitution where in context one can distinguish, but he is very clear overall. Try again, this time with understanding.
This paper offers up a great rebuttal to Adam Unikowsky.
All of the Justices who adhere to
* textual originalism
and
* historical and traditional
…. must agree that in 1862,
the President held and ‘office’
and was an ‘officer’ of the United States.
Quoted from the Ironclad Oath Law of 1862 ….
“any office
….. excepting the President of the United States.”
How do you think that's a "rebuttal," exactly?
Lots or words to say "I don't understand the issue".
Trump held an office so was an officer in the generic sense but the issue is if he was an "officer of the United States”, a term of art.
Yes, but Blackman-Tillman blathering notwithstanding, there's no evidence it is a term of art. (And even if it were in 1789, there's no evidence that it was a term of art in 1868, which is the actual time period we care about since we're discussing the 14th amendment. Mark Graber has shown otherwise.)
I object to a theory of constitutional interpretation that treats the Constitution as a riddle to be solved by skilled enigmatologists.
Agree 100%. If we, as citizens, are bound by the Constitution then we shouldn't have to rely on "enigmatologists" to explain to us that it written in a language - a sort of quasi-English - that we need them to translate for us.
Its a legal document, lawyers help interpret legal documents.
Its not different here just because Trump is involved.
Why has the wording in the Constitution become so ambiguous lately?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
A lot of Swamp Creatures see a second Trump term as a threat to their department's funding.
As Stephen K. Bannon repeats, Fox News is TV for stupid people. The Murdoch's agenda is by no means aligned with constitutional conservatism, but it often conveys the worst aspects of the national Republican Party, an organization that no longer represents the base of voters it once did.
The meaningful part of any discussion of the behavior of a sitting president of the United States is that the sole remedy prescribed by the Constitution is impeachment and removal by Congress. To assert any claim against a former president after the end of his term is extra-constitutional - banana republic stuff.
"The President is above the law" is a strange position to take, when inveighing against "banana republics." Do you know what you're talking about?
Why ask? Of course you don't.
Lots of healthy democracies put former heads of state on trial, after they're out of office, for corruption and other crimes committed while in office. It happens in less-healthy democracies, as well, to be sure. But it's hardly "banana republic" stuff. If this were a "banana republic," Trump would be sitting in a jail cell at the order of the president, Hunter would be fully pardoned (and probably not investigated in the first place), and none of us would feel particularly safe complaining about it here.
Yogis_Dad suggests:
Let’s explore that.
At 11:50am on Jan 20, 10 minutes before his replacement is sworn in, the current president literally shoots someone on 5th Avenue for purely personal reasons.
No remedy other than impeachment? No claims against him? He’s immune from criminal prosecution?
That sort of impunity, lack of accountability, and failure of the rule of law is the real banana republic stuff.
.
Other than that, great comment!
I thought the legal blogosphere had this discussion and the consensus was that the opposite of "off the wall" is "on the table," not "on the wall."
Careful, you might inspire Josh to write another post about how he's just the very best writer.
I might suggest we take Josh's "off the wall"/"on the wall" preferred idiom as in-line with Trump's own proclivity for tossing food at walls. "On the wall," for Josh, is just a smear of self-promotion and absurd argument that he hopes the Supreme Court will frame and preserve for posterity.
.
I think you mean "another ten posts on how he coined the phrase 'on the wall.'"
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/experts-dissect-key-arguments-colorado-supreme-court-ruling/story?id=105809634
Hey Josh, not to cause you any consternation here, but ABC didn't think you were worth mentioning at all.
Thankfully.
'I'm not crazy, I got interviewed on the news! Would they do that to a crazy person?'
FWIW:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-washington-post-urges-supreme-court-to-strike-down-colorado-trump-ruling
From the editorial:
'The Post’s editorial board says the legal issues involved in the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling are “murky,” and in writing its opinion, the judges “had to answer ‘yes’ to a vexing series of questions.” For example, the court found that Section 3 applied to the presidency despite doubts raised in a lower court ruling.
The board also points to whether Section 3 needs an act of Congress to take effect, especially given that “Chief Justice of the United States Salmon P. Chase ruled that such a move was necessary just a year after the 14th Amendment’s 1868 ratification.”.....
The comments to these posts are so funny.
JB likes to brag, no reason to rage about it.
Maybe its the initials, Joe Biden likes to brag too.
Nah. DT likes to brag as well, so it's not the initials.
Maybe JB will be president too one day!
He can't even do better than South Texas College of Law Houston, one of America's handful of shittiest law schools. How long has he been mired at that hayseed factory -- 10 years?
See! Now imagine what we'll see here if SCOTUS actually makes this interpretation the basis for overturning the Colorado decision. It's going to be brutal.
Yes, I imagine the unhinged butthurt would reach epic levels.
I expect there'll be howls and wails of 'Meh, of course they did.'
Mad scientist the all laughed at me.
And then the real hubris would begin.
I actually see it as a sliver lining should that come to pass.
.
Ouch!