Man, union rallies by writers have much better speeches than other unions. I do hope they can get what they deserve from the private equity idiots. I'd like to have a reason to get the Trib, but I just can't get myself to do it with that ownership and their well-documented (by you) bait-and-switch subscription charges. I do my best to support local news with both Block Club and Sun Times subscriptions.
Michael Phillips’ comments on the Trib’s labor situation were in one sense cogent and convincing. That is, to all the listeners who don’t matter. To the folks at Alden, none of it is relevant or useful. Labor disputes are expressed in terms of fairness, equity, just deserts, by one side, and competitiveness, productivity, and global returns on capital by the other. But that is all just talk that has nothing to do with the negotiations. The negotiations seek to find the highest price in pay, benefits, rules, etc that the owners will pay and the lowest price the workers will accept. This balancing point is defined by factors beyond either side’s control. Right now, it is obviously heavily in favor of reducing employment and pay for print journalists. The market doesn’t want to support a lot of local professional journalism.
The resounding speech is for non-playing onlookers.
Re: Churches and other institutions, and why homosexual people would be part of them. Being part of one that has even modest scale is almost always going to mean being part of something that holds positions or does things you disagree with. For some, an institution, like the Catholic church, is part of their identity, and they cannot change that. When my kids were young they were in cub scouts and boy scouts. There is negative media attention regarding the BSA's position on having homosexual people in the organization. That kept some people away, but that national issue was barely relevant to our local troop, which did, on occasion, have families with kids from same sex couples. There was never an issue with that in our local troop as far as I could tell.
IMO, society benefits by participation in organized groups. Everyone has to make their own choice about what is too extreme, but it is not bad to have some level of tolerance for disagreement.
I would add that organizations evolve based on the needs of their membership and the desire to maintain or grow membership. A global organization with large memberships from a variety of cultures has a more difficult time and the church is certainly no stranger to schisms.
Skeptic, let me respectfully disagree to a certain extent with your comment. It is one thing to be a part of a group that holds positions that you disagree with. And I think you are correct that we all have to do that in our lives. It is another thing entirely to be a part of a group that officially takes the position that you are a disordered second-class person. Make no mistake. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage between a woman and a man is a holy sacrament, a gift from God, but that same sex marriage is an abomination, and that when same sex couples consummate their love, they are being evil. They call our love evil. You would have to have negative self-esteem, I would think, to be gay and to want to be a part of an institution like that. I do understand that everyone who grew up in America when I did (the sixties and seventies) absorbed the homophobia and transphobia of our culture. How could you not? That’s why so many of us were in the closet for so long. But coming out of the closet is a process that involves, among other things, unlearning your own homophobia and transphobia. It’s a painful process because you realize how badly you hurt yourself for so long by closeting yourself--accepting your culture’s view that you were somehow lesser than everybody else.
I agree the Catholic church has some bad doctrine. I grew up attending a protestant church and raised my kids as atheists. The problem with the doctrine on sexual orientation and gender identity is that it touches day to day life. That is quite different than having to say that you believe a virgin gave birth and you believe that man came back from the dead because a text written by an anonymous source who could not possibly have first hand knowledge wrote a book about it. You can say you believe those things and then continue you life as you would anyway.
I know some gay people who are Catholic and attend mass at least at Christmas and Easter. I assume there are many gay people who are active in congregations. I would not judge them, but I am interested in understanding them. It is possible that they consider church doctrine as not as relevant as they experience they have being a member of a congregation.
If there are any practicing Catholics in this forum, please let me know. Are their same sex couples who attend mass with their kids? How does that work out?
You make very good points as well, Skeptic. I hope some people respond your comment. It’s interesting. I used to have a sort of classic Christian faith. Then I came out to myself and others as the T and L of LGBTQ+, and I had to reconcile my faith with the reality of my identity. I read many books by John Shelby Spong, an Episcopal bishop who was of the view that the gospels were never meant to be understood as historical literal truth. Spong makes a convincing case that the gospels were in the Jewish tradition of midrashic writing, and that the stories of the Gospels are closely based on and appear in similar order to stories in the Torah. Spong felt that his understanding of the non-literal nature of the gospels strengthened his faith and made it more real and mystical, and I, also, feel that way about my faith. But I stopped going to my church even though it was a welcoming congregation because every Sunday we would recite the Nicene Creed, which required me to say things that I no longer believe: that Mary was a virgin, that the corpse of Jesus became alive days after he was put to death, etc. I know some people can get something meaningful and important out of church attendance even if they don’t believe important parts of church doctrine. I just can’t do that myself. I’m still looking for a church where I can be comfortable.
Belief and stating beliefs is a funny thing. In big organization like churches but also companies, school districts, and clubs demonstrating certain points of view is a way signaling your belonging. Even if most people don't believe what they say and know on some level that most other people don't, it is still important to do it.
How many Catholics truly believe the Eucharist? I know some who are very sharp critical thinkers but will go along with that bullshit. The only explanation I can think of is they want to stick with the group identity.
just a comment-I am pleased that the church will allow 'blessing' of gay couples. But for me (and most of my family including our adult kids) it's too little too late. I gave up waiting for women priests, married priests. Other denominations have gay bishops, women bishops, gay women bishops. I'm done. A product of Catholic schools thru graduate school.
I can imagine someone feeling committed to a religion generally, because of upbringing, because they are actually convinced of much of it, because they find comfort in the community, pick your reason, while at the same time believing that it is, quite simply, profoundly wrong on some of what it preaches.
I grant you that if I felt that that community were routinely condemning me for who I am, I would think, huh, maybe this isn't the place for me!
At the same time, I can imagine a situation that might be more realistic: they like their church, they like their priest, they like the ceremony, they like much of the basic message, they may even have an intellectual thing for Catholic theology, they like the community of people, and they are generally liked and accepted in return. Everyone knows the score, of course, but nobody makes a big deal about it, and, doctrine notwithstanding, you find that all that other stuff is, for you, the source of a lot of meaning and love. It's not *actually* a hostile environment, just the opposite. It's not as though your priest's Sunday sermon is ever about the evils of being gay, let's assume.
You might then plausibly want to participate in it while hoping (or praying) that the church will eventually see the light -- it's changed before -- and you will take moves such as Francis's as very encouraging. He's the sort of pope who does not -- to the consternation of conservative Catholics -- exhibit a "black and white" commitment to divisive aspects of doctrine. He said, for example, that priests may offer communion to divorced and remarried Catholics, previously a no-no. He's the one who said, a little mind-blowingly, in reference to someone of "good will" who is "gay" "reaching for the Lord," "Who am I to judge?"
It's very easy for people like us to think, sheesh, all that stuff is a load of bunk, a bunch of ancient fairy tales, why don't you take a hint and become an atheist, or, at least, a more open sort of Christian? But that could mean giving up a lot that you care about, and I neither blame nor patronizingly pity those who choose not to.
It's hard to take an op-ed seriously from Janice Jackson, an astonishingly corrupt and terrible head of schools during her time there.
But, the school board announcing something without any real idea about what they are proposing seems to be right in line with everything that comes from this mayor, which is- my favorite phrase you coined - content-free argle bargle.
The issue with school choice is not necessarily that it exists, just in the way it is implemented. Some of us with kids in the system do call it The Hunger Games of CPS. It is completely frustrating and stressful for both parents and students. The issue is that CPS and the schools get the choice, not the students or families. A choice system could run in a way that CPS has area-focused schools all over the city (STEM school, fine arts school, etc) and the kids would choose where they go. We could focus on areas of learning and be rid of the selective enrollment process where the school gets to just enroll the smartest kids (or the best tutored at least).
The current system leaves too many behind. It has worked for my family, my kid got into an academic center for 7th-8th and into a great high school (chose a music program over a selective offer) that they wanted. But we are white, fairly wealthy, parents with college degrees (one with advanced degrees) and had the advantage of being able to afford a parent leaving his career to be full-time stay at home dad during the formative years. If you're family is not like mine you are already a lap behind in the race the way they currently do things.
We could have a city-wide choice system that runs in a better way and be rid of neighborhood boundaries altogether. I don't think there is enough creative thinking on the school board, in the mayor's office, or in the current union leadership to lead us there.
Deni - I disagree that this is an instance of the "school board announcing something without any real idea about what they are proposing" - but rather it is intentional bafflegab to (poorly) camouflage what their real intent is - which is to do away with selective and magnet schools in the name of "equity". Their intent was immediately (and correctly) grasped by the Board's detractors to see through the sham that it is just a long-range idea session.
I particularly liked the '... doesn't mean the imminent end ...' phrase in the board's response. Don't worry, you will be happy with the future announcements.
you could hardly be as disengaged from reality as your post indicates. your ad hominem argument against janice jackson and her thoughtful essay opposing this foolish and ham-handed [or underhanded] policy change by the board of ed and mayor johnson betrays your unthinking adherence to CTU dogma. janice jackson was corrupt? where's the beef [i.e., the evidence]? how about the CTU prez, who cheats on her property taxes and water bill? and sends her son to a school of choice, which is not even part of the CPS.
please explain how chasing out all the middle and upper middle class families - of any race or ethnicity - which the proposed dimishment/elimination of school choice will certainly do - would improve public education in Chgo.
your complaints about current mgmt of school choice could best be resolved by ... more schools of choice.
yes, too many CPS neighborhood schools are failing, in that they are not adequately educating children - blame for which falls on many stakeholders, not just teachers. what do you propose to do about that, other than the tried-and failed option of 'more $$$'? cutting back on school choice will only make a highly uneven and mediocre-on-avg school system worse.
you might also consider having someone spell-check and grammar-check your posts before you hit Post.
I tend to not respond when people go into attack mode and name calling on here because, well, it's pointless. I will say it's hilarious you criticizing my spelling and grammar, you can't even begin your sentences with upper case letters...
You obviously didn't read any of my post after I criticized Janice Jackson because none of you comments match up with what I wrote. My unthinking adherence to CTU dogma? I criticized CTU leadership in my post. you seem to think what I wrote was agreeing with the Board and the Mayor, and it obviously what critical of them. And I was making a case for a new way to run school choice, not end school choice. You ask in your comment "what do you propose" when I spelled out my point of view, I think fairly clearly.
Brandon Johnson's school board did more than "step on a rake" because that implies that it will only pop up to hurt them. Besides all the harm that it will do to kids and families of all races that strive for academic excellence, the end result will be increased flight to the suburbs for middle class families and further segregation of Chicago neighborhoods. Like the suburbs, housing prices will rise in the attendance boundaries of high performing schools and drop in areas with low performing schools.
Just want to say thanks and happy holidays to the folks who join in this uncommonly reasonable, thoughtful and often uplifting forum, the only online place I trust to kick around matters both trivial and crucial. And of course thanks to our Stackmaster Eric for making it happen and keeping it entertaining every week. Peace.
"Führeresque" - you might want to copyright that. I'd think it would get overturned because it says he 'engaged in insurrection' which hasn't been proven in the courts yet. Regardless - the hordes will rally against this poor tortured man. "Transition away" has been used a lot on different topics and remains the most vague lead in to change without enough support to make actual change happen. "Crime" Crime has gone down, but there is an increase on crimes reported in media - but perception is what voters will make decisions on. "Sanctuary Status" for Council or voters a general misunderstanding of what it means to vote to keep or drop it is very high. Regardless any referendum will be toothless. "Haley's Remarks" decades from now someone will come across those words - and say can you believe a black person would utter such words that were uttered against her own people the decades before. "Worst Candy" Candy Peanuts, ju-ju-bees, sno-cone candy, candy dot paper. bit o honey. "AI" = Skynet.
Au Contraire, the Trial Judge - the trier of fact (no jury here) - heard the evidence and "found" that Trump had engaged in insurrection. (Which he had.)
Unfortunately, as many have pointed out by other pundits, there is no reason for kool-aid drinking triers of fact in other - say red - jurisdictions to hear (and rule in favor of) suits brought by righties who claim that Biden, through his actions or inactions, has also committed "insurrection" (which he has not), disqualifying him. Once again, asymmetrical political warfare works in favor of the right and not its opponents.
Hey, Eric, thanks for the “Haley’s Comment” attribution. However, being only human, I clicked my name and arrived at a page containing many comments from many people and lots of pictures of Marduk. What does this all mean … … … ?
I am a liberal Democrat who thinks Trump is a danger to the world. I would love to see him off the ballot. But as an attorney who spend a good deal of time dealing with the meaning of statures and the Constitution I believe that the better argument is that the 14 th Amendment doesn’t apply to the Presidency. Section 3 of the Amendment specifically references Senators and Representatives and Presidential electors. But not the President. While it also refers to “office” holders the absence of a reference to the President while mentioning the other office would lead under common legal analysis to a finding that the 14 th wasn’t meant to amend Article II of the Constitution which states the minimal requirements to be elected President ( 35+ and natural born citizen). There are certainly good faith arguments to the contrary but you don’t have to be a conservative to rule in Trumps favor on this one.
I understand that the 14th Amendment refers to ANY officer who has taken the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. And the President is certainly a Federal officer. TFG took the oath and failed to uphold it while in office.
Fomenting the insurrection is an identifiable act by TFG. And as we learned today on NPR, the 14th Amendment is a self-executing element of the Constitution much like the requirement that a Presidential candidate must be at least 35 years old. Congress cannot change any part of the self-executing elements of the Constitution.
Yes. But only after specially listing senators and congressmen. Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis a court would often find that the absence of president from the list as significant.
It is of the same kind. Under your argument, if I were to say, "This road is closed to all motor vehicles, including buses, trucks, motorcycles, SUVs, ATVs, and RVs," you would find it significant that the list omitted regular cars. Of course cars are included. Cars are the quintessential motor vehicles. President is the quintessential officer of the United States.
I'm also a liberal Democrat and trained lawyer. I strongly recommend reading Baude and Paulson's article, reviewing the sources in the Colorado Supreme Court opinion, and maybe listening to the great Akhil Amar's wonderful constitutional law podcast, Amarica's Constitution on this point. Having done so, I'm overwhelmingly convinced that the best original, structural, and textual understanding, not even close, is that the section clearly applies to the president, both in terms of offices you're disqualified from and offices/oaths you previously held/took that triggers the potential disqualification. No other way makes any sense.
Section 3 says nobody may "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" who, "having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States .. to support the Constitution of the United States," engaged in insurrection, etc. The argument that the presidency is not an "office" under the United States, that the president is not an "officer of the United States," or that the president does not take an oath to "support the Constitution" is risible on its face. There's no historical evidence to support the claim. It was so obvious, it went without saying. The expansive enumeration of of people and offices to which the disqualification could apply was meant to ensure that non-obvious cases, like *electors* for president, would be included within its ambit. Everyone at the time assumed that Jefferson Davis was disqualified as a presidential candidate, for example. The clause was meant to exclude Confederates from government. And yet it would let a Confederate who swore an oath to the Constitution become *president*?? There's no historical evidence -- not one bit, not one committee report, not one scrap of evidence amid loads of contemporaneous material -- supporting the idea that the drafters meant to exclude the president -- too big and weird a thing to rely on a dog not barking -- while including, bizarrely for no apparent reason, just about everyone inferior to him. Meanwhile, there's a gazillion pieces of evidence that everyone understood the president to be an officer. It's all over the Constitution itself, for starters.
None of the Colorado Supreme Court dissenters took up this argument. Because, I'm afraid, it's lousy. I have some reservations about the opinion, but I think the Supreme Court is going to need to look elsewhere to overrule it.
“There's no historical evidence -- not one bit, not one committee report, not one scrap of evidence amid loads of contemporaneous material -- supporting the idea that the drafters meant to exclude the president “. I think the fact that “President” was in earlier drafts of Section 3 but took it out of later drafts could certainly be considered a “bit” of evidence. Not saying that the only explanation or even the best explanation, but certainly could be construed as such. The lower court did. The Supreme Court rejected it but it’s sure to be tossed out there in discussions by the SCOTUS. Under rules of construction which don’t focus on any extraneous material the exclusion from the list ( not looking at prior drafts)after other specific references would still be considered meaningful.
Nah. The Colorado Supreme Court deals with this solitary point really convincingly in paras. 138-43 in a way that I think completely disposes of it.
The earlier draft was more restrictive than "any office." It only included under its catch-all officers confirmed by the Senate. It therefore had to include "President and Vice President" separately because they are not confirmed by the Senate. The later revision made the provision yet *more* expansive -- which is what everyone was trying to do! -- to include "any office under the United States," appointed and confirmed or not, rendering unnecessary the separate inclusion of President and Vice President. It was, however, necessary to continue to separately list Representative, Senator, and Elector, because it's common in a separation of powers context not to see them as "officers under the United States," just as a corporation's directors aren't its officers. Offices under the United States includes the executive branch, including the top.
The Colorado Supreme Court quotes a report where the question was directly put, and the answer came back that of course the clause as written and ratified includes the president.
I mean, gosh, the evidence here is really overwhelming. You note that the majority didn't buy the lower court's view on this, but, I say again, neither did the dissenters. I frankly think the lower court didn't really buy it either but didn't want to wear the outcome herself, and so she smartly teed it up for her betters to pull the trigger -- by finding in every way against Trump (which was unnecessary to the result) before going his way on the lamest legal argument he had.
Do you have any plausible argument -- putting aside a dubious rule of construction or the like -- for why the drafters might have sought, in an awfully strange and risky way (using the word "any office"), to exclude the president and vice president themselves, while including all inferior executive officers?
EZ - Liked more than half of the Tweets this week. Good job of finding them!
The Colorado Supreme Court's disqualification is a gigantic gift to the Republican Party. (If they would only take it!) It gives the the Republican Party the perfect chance to dump Trump "cleanly", without hurting any of the other Republican candidates with its (idiotic) base, and helps to restore some of SCOTUS's "legitimacy". Here's why:
1. Trump - who is despised by the big business wing of the party, and has proven to be an albatross to the Republican party in national elections since 2020 - gets (effectively) removed from the ticket without any of the other candidates having to throw mud at him. (If SCOTUS upholds the ruling, all of the other states will be inundated with copycat lawsuits which will result in his being removed from enough state ballots to make a Trump win impossible.)
2. The Republicans can finally "get past" Trump while they still pay homage to him as a "martyr" to the Republican cause.
3. His disqualification isn't solely as a Republican candidate - he is Constitutionally prohibited from being elected to office - meaning he can't run as a 3rd party candidate - or even have write-in votes for him counted (which would threaten to sink the Republican party in a 3-way race). This completely throws open the Republican nomination process to anyone other than Trump.
4. The "existential threat" to democracy posed by authoritarian Trump is swept away.
5. With Trump no longer a "threat to Democracy", this relieves the pressure on the Democrats to run a candidate other than Biden. Biden can choose not to run, opening up the Dem side of the race to other, more dynamic candidates who can run on Biden's very positive record, and bask in its glow while taking shots at the Republican toadies who followed idiotic Trump policies because they were afraid of turning off Trump voters.
6. "Trump Republicans" truly were/are cult worshipers - they are unlikely to automatically gravitate to the most "Trump-like" alternative Trump Republican, giving more centrist candidates an opportunity to run - and attract independent voters.
7. Helps (somewhat) restore SCOTUS's legitimacy as a non-partisan, non -"hack" court by allowing it to (on the surface) rule against the Republicans (when, in fact, it is ruling against Trump which will, in the long run, HELP Republicans). If Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett think about what's best for their brand of conservatism (all of the cruelty, none of the crazy), they'll grab on to this opportunity to get rid of Trump and to do what's far better for their party and their causes. (I leave Thomas out of this, because he's just too far gone, and his wacko wife has drunk too much Trump Kool-Aid.) If Republican strategists (and SCOTUS) stop and think for a bit, confirming the Colorado decisions is truly the BEST thing for the Republican Party to survive post Trump. IMHO
First - I strongly believe and would bet heavily that SCOTUS will overrule the Colorado supreme Court decision removing Trump from the ballot in that state. Colorado was a 4-3 decision strictly along partisan lines, and the vast majority of legal commentary I have read on this from across the political spectrum does not believe it passes constitutional muster. And yes, this will just be further used to fan the flames of Trump victimhood and will not have any good benefit.
Secondly - Brandon Johnson's unwillingness to allow Chicago voters to express their approval or disapproval of the city's status as a sanctuary city certainly seems diametrically at odds with his professed core position of letting the people be heard and governing on behalf of the people. Rank hypocrisy. But I guess that's not an uncommon vice in Chicago and Cook county politics as well as across the country across the political spectrum.
Thirdly - The plans to minimize school choice options should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone since Brandon Johnson is a creature of and totally controlled by the CTU. With his election, not only will all decisions regarding Chicago public schools be made to benefit the CTU, now the entire governance of the city will be conducted on a basis of what's good for the CTU.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that Illinois labor law be amended so that private arbitration is not available to police officers. If this is going to be changed, it should be changed for all union members across the state instead of cherry picking out police officers for a different standard.
Politico interviewed J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He gives a strong assessment on why he thinks the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from running for a second term. From the article:
"All we can do is assess ourselves the objective law — in this instance, the meaning and application of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Now, I was a judge for many, many years, and I did exactly that on constitutional questions for 15 years — and as we discussed earlier, I’ve been studying this specific question in great detail for the past three years. So, you know, I consider myself — personally — an expert on the question.
The Colorado Supreme Court decision was over 120 pages, and I read every word of every page, and I understood every single word because I’ve studied the issue. The Colorado Supreme Court addressed every single state law question and every single federal constitutional question as to the meaning and interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I know for a fact that it resolved each and every one of those questions as required not just under state law, but, more importantly, under federal constitutional law. That’s why I said that the opinion is unassailable in every respect. It is a masterful judicial opinion, and based on the objective law of the 14th, I believe that the Supreme Court should — and I believe it will — affirm the Colorado Supreme Court if given the opportunity."
Wendy - thanks for sharing the good commentary by retired Judge Luttig. There certainly is an argument that the Colorado ruling is constitutional, but thus far in reading a great many commentaries from across the political spectrum, the clear consensus of those is that it will be quickly ruled unconstitutional.
Personally, I would be overjoyed if SCOTUS did uphold the Colorado ruling as it would push Trump to the side and the GOP could have another candidate (my clear preference is Nikki Haley) to articulate its positions and engage in civil debate without all the drama. But I fear that is not going to turn out to be the case, and Trump will then throw this onto his never-ending stack of victimhood grievances.
I agree that the smart money is on the Supreme Court overruling the Colorado decision, but I don't see a real consensus on the legal question. I hear a lot along the lines of, it's too drastic, too nuts, it will have bad results, and then a dubious legal fig leaf to avoid it.
When I first heard this argument, I shared that instinct. It sounded like a kooky theory. But then I read Baude and Paulsen's article, heard counter-arguments (generally lame), sat with it for a while, and I became a reluctant believer. It's available for free at SSRN:
(Note, you don't have to sign in or get an account; you can skip that and just download the pdf.)
On the purely legal stuff, I think the article is a slam dunk, and I think they are right to recall our country's shameful history of not taking the reconstruction amendments seriously for some hundred years. Really enforcing equal rights for blacks was just too kooky, involved too much judicial overreach, felt too disruptive, and, golly, it sure would piss off lots of people. We went along that way for a long time after the Civil War before finally summoning the courage to get real. Doing so didn't endanger the republic but rather went a long way toward redeeming it. Maybe, for Section 3, we could skip over the shameful part and get real now.
My initial instinct was that Trump plausibly didn't really engage in an insurrection. I've come to see the undisputed facts, however, as right down the middle of Section 3's strike zone. The article is very strong in summarizing Trump's litany of undisputed conduct aimed at overturning the election, culminating in the Jan. 6 riot, and matching it to the language of Section 3.
Some excerpts, at 118-22:
Leading up to January 6, Trump repeatedly solicited, suborned, and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the counting of the electoral votes in favor of President-elect Biden. Not only that: Trump assembled a large crowd to march on the Capitol and intimidate Congress and the Vice President into complying with his wishes and thereby prevent the official counting of the votes of electors confirming Trump’s defeat. ...
He never directly and literally called for attacking the Capitol or the Vice President. Much of what might be thought incitement to lawlessness was innuendo. Nonetheless, the general and specific message was that the election had been stolen; that a constitutional fraud of colossal proportions and cataclysmic consequence was in the process of being perpetrated on the nation; that the crowd needed to take “strong” and direct action to protect the country; and that immediate
action was necessary to prevent Vice President Pence and Congress from ratifying
the unconstitutional election of an illegitimate president and doing irreparable damage to the nation....
Trump had deliberately assembled the mob of supporters, steeled them to action, knew that they were ready to take immediate action, and directed them to take it. But the most important thing is that the Brandenburg [First Amendment] question is beside the point. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact the legal standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio. It enacts the standards of participation in and support for “insurrection or rebellion,” and it qualifies, modifies, or simply satisfies the First Amendment to the extent of any conflict between these constitutional principles. ...
Section Three reaches a broad range of conduct providing meaningful assistance to or support for acts of insurrection or rebellion performed by others, even quite passively. Sitting by and doing nothing—declining to act to arrest a violent uprising, despite possessing the material capacity and legal responsibility to intervene—might qualify. Additionally and equally important, Trump’s deliberate inaction renders his January 6 speech much more incriminating in hindsight, because it makes it even less plausible (if it was ever plausible) that the crowd’s reaction was all a big mistake or misunderstanding. ...
Moreover, if one accepts the broader argument that the entire campaign to overthrow the results of the 2020 election was a form of constitutional rebellion, then Trump’s complicity is even more obvious—as the leader, motive force, and chief attempted perpetrator of that rebellion. Indeed, it would not be going too far to say that Trump, having previously sworn a constitutionally required oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States knowingly attempted to execute what, had it succeeded, would have amounted to a political coup d’etat against the Constitution and its system of elections and overturn the results of the constitutional process, in order to maintain himself in office as President contrary to law. ...
The bottom line is that Donald Trump “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close.
Me now: I recommend reading the whole thing. What's striking about it is that it is a *conservative* *textualist* *originalist* legal analysis, using just the sort of method that the conservative justices claim as their own and, indeed, as the only legitimate method. Paulsen is a conservative originalist scholar from way back. Baude is a rising (or maybe risen) star conservative originalist academic at the University of Chicago, and co-editor of the latest editions of a prominent constitutional law casebook and Hart and Wechsler's Federal Courts in the Federal System, one of the great grandaddy casebooks, universally respected. It would be an exaggeration to say that the dude literally wrote the book on con law, but he's that good.
I've resisted for a long while some aspects of the case against Trump, especially when it comes to actual criminal indictments. For example, I've long seen the Georgia call as non-criminal. I think it's good to maintain healthy skepticism when we're talking about throwing someone in prison for a very long time! And I've long pushed back on some of the most overheated anti-Trump rhetoric. I have trouble seeing, for example, how he could actually become a dictator without engaging in unlawful conduct that others in our system of dispersed power, like courts, can and would effectively stop. I even saw the coup attempt as chickenshit, in the sense of not likely to work.
But none of that is relevant here. As in cases of impeachment, disqualification under Section 3 is not a criminal guilty verdict, and of course, of course, of course, the Senate should have removed him and disqualified him when they had the chance. And, yes, I now think: of course, of course, of course, his *undisputed* conduct in seeking to overturn the election renders him a disloyal oath-breaker who engaged in an attempted coup, however unlikely, an enemy of the Constitution, who should and must be disqualified under Section 3 by every judge or official with the power to decide and in every process in which the matter arises. I'm convinced that taking Section 3 seriously pretty much requires it.
Except that taxpayers of the cities that employ those officers are on the hook for huge damage payouts when a "bad apple" officer who has been kept on the force in a non-public arbitration hearing later commits a tort/kills someone under color of law.
Regarding private vs public arbitration. Police are different from most other government employees. They have a fair amount of discretion in how to act and the stakes are very high (compared to a clerk at the DMV for example). There is probably no other job where it is possible that shooting a person could be part of that job. Also, there is much more at stake in the level of trust that the public has with the police.
I agree with what you say about Brandon Johnson, but I also think doing a referendum on Chicago being a sanctuary city is a bad idea. The case for a representative democracy over a direct one is that issues are complex enough that they should have full time reps acting on them, not the general public. I think sanctuary city status falls into that category. I think many people would vote against it only because they are anti-immigration, which is an issue that should be dealt with separately. Some people go to the polls to send a message. If the polling choices do not give options that express that message, then they will try to find a way to express that message anyway.
Of course pollsters should ask people about immigration and many other issues. I think a government sponsored non-binding referendum is categorically different from a private poll from say CBS news. The former is the policy-making body asking the electorate what policy they want. It puts more pressure on the government to act than the latter.
In this particular case there is a great deal of emotion on the subject, and misunderstanding about what a sactary city is. When in 2018 there was a non-binding referendum about recreational marijuana there was not so much opportunity for confusion.
I would say that there should only be a referendum if there is a fairly good chance that the government would follow though on it. And good governance would require that the referendum not me misunderstood.
Defund the police is a good example. The hashtag was an expression of frustration but it was never not a terrible policy idea. Sure, some people redefined what it meant, but not everyone. So it was never clear to put on a referendum. Yeah and the dumbest referendum of the century has to be Brexit.
I am grateful for the many ethical judges in this country who follow the law without regard for political consequences. It's frightening to think where we'd be without them.
Eric, watch for the US Supreme Court decision that overturns the Colorado action to be a large majority, not just along the 5-4 ideological lines. Dan, Skokie
Dots are bad, but far from the worst. At first I thought the writer meant the candy-buttons-on-paper dots. Those are way worse than the gummy Dots. The idea of being forced to live on THOSE is horrific. I would save up the paper to choke myself.
When one talks about Alden Capital and the importance of the media, I believe it to be instructive to talk about the motivation of people. There is a class of people that worries about its own status in life They fight like tigers to protect it. They have their own safety and luxury needs to consider. Control of situations is very important to them. They don't especially care whether or not the masses are educated and informed. It's better that they are not, because then the upper part of the upper class can control the conversation. Right beneath them is the conservative side of the middle class. They believe in the trickle down effect, that they cannot get what they need unless the upper class creates wealth. Therefore they want to believe what the uppers tell them. Trump is a prime example of this. He appeals to base biases that his followers will often not admit to in public. It's all about creating wealth for the upper crust and creating hope among the middle class that they will get there. Alden only cares about responsible journalism to the point that they are making money off the deal. Why does the union believe they will ever get a fair deal? if the Trib were to lose more valuable employees and the paper shut down like so many others have done, Alden will write it off as a tax loss and move on. Therefore, they have no motivation to treat the union fairly. I'm sure Alden would claim that I am misjudging them as people. Okay, prove it by properly running the paper. By the way, watch the movie "Rollerball" starring James Caan. It's pure fiction, but instructive.
Your explanation of the Alden Capital people's motives is interesting and also that you cite a movie. That is exactly where my brain goes when reading about Alden's business practices, and because of the season, to "A Christmas Carol" and "It's a Wonderful Life." The men of Alden Capital (yes, that's a sexist assumption but I'd be shocked if they're super egalitarian in their corporate leadership) are humans adults and American so they absolutely know the characters Ebenezer Scrooge and Mr. Potter are the awful, greedy villains in the stories. The psychology fascinates me how they can get through this season with those characters and those stories shared constantly -- heck, they probably watch the films themselves with their families and take their kids to the plays!
What goes on in their brains when they see the villains excoriated for their greed and selfishness? Is their thinking so contorted they think *they're* the hard-working Bob Cratchit or George Bailey? Or do they tell their kids, "Mr. Potter is not really so bad; he's misunderstood and is just trying to ensure a well-deserved third vacation home for his family." Films and stories stand the test of time because people relate to the characters or admire them. I wish someone were able to ask Alden's owners (ideally in front of their families), who they relate to and admire most in those films, and who they think they and their colleagues are most like.
Your explanation is interesting. The thing I can never figure out about "It's a Wonderful Life"- if the hero in such a small town is so popular and Potter is so evil, how did Potter get away with it? Could to be that people were making money from Potter and let him get away with it? Sounds familiar in today's atmosphere.
My takeaway was that Potter had a virtual banking monopoly in town. Poor people don't have the time, resources, energy to combat the most powerful man in town when they're just trying to get on with living life.
The school board did not 'step on a rake', which implies they erred in communication of their real intentions. This seven-member board has six members appointed by Johnson including the board president. They signaled exactly where they are going using the usual tactic of vagueness to evade discussions that would require clear explanations. Since Johnson will also appoint four more members to begin serving alongside the current board in 2025 (11 appointed), along with the 10 elected members, which we can expect to be dominated by CTU candidates. These neighborhood candidates will surely be promoting their intention to bring investment and jobs into their turf.
Man, union rallies by writers have much better speeches than other unions. I do hope they can get what they deserve from the private equity idiots. I'd like to have a reason to get the Trib, but I just can't get myself to do it with that ownership and their well-documented (by you) bait-and-switch subscription charges. I do my best to support local news with both Block Club and Sun Times subscriptions.
Michael Phillips’ comments on the Trib’s labor situation were in one sense cogent and convincing. That is, to all the listeners who don’t matter. To the folks at Alden, none of it is relevant or useful. Labor disputes are expressed in terms of fairness, equity, just deserts, by one side, and competitiveness, productivity, and global returns on capital by the other. But that is all just talk that has nothing to do with the negotiations. The negotiations seek to find the highest price in pay, benefits, rules, etc that the owners will pay and the lowest price the workers will accept. This balancing point is defined by factors beyond either side’s control. Right now, it is obviously heavily in favor of reducing employment and pay for print journalists. The market doesn’t want to support a lot of local professional journalism.
The resounding speech is for non-playing onlookers.
Re: Churches and other institutions, and why homosexual people would be part of them. Being part of one that has even modest scale is almost always going to mean being part of something that holds positions or does things you disagree with. For some, an institution, like the Catholic church, is part of their identity, and they cannot change that. When my kids were young they were in cub scouts and boy scouts. There is negative media attention regarding the BSA's position on having homosexual people in the organization. That kept some people away, but that national issue was barely relevant to our local troop, which did, on occasion, have families with kids from same sex couples. There was never an issue with that in our local troop as far as I could tell.
IMO, society benefits by participation in organized groups. Everyone has to make their own choice about what is too extreme, but it is not bad to have some level of tolerance for disagreement.
I would add that organizations evolve based on the needs of their membership and the desire to maintain or grow membership. A global organization with large memberships from a variety of cultures has a more difficult time and the church is certainly no stranger to schisms.
Skeptic, let me respectfully disagree to a certain extent with your comment. It is one thing to be a part of a group that holds positions that you disagree with. And I think you are correct that we all have to do that in our lives. It is another thing entirely to be a part of a group that officially takes the position that you are a disordered second-class person. Make no mistake. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage between a woman and a man is a holy sacrament, a gift from God, but that same sex marriage is an abomination, and that when same sex couples consummate their love, they are being evil. They call our love evil. You would have to have negative self-esteem, I would think, to be gay and to want to be a part of an institution like that. I do understand that everyone who grew up in America when I did (the sixties and seventies) absorbed the homophobia and transphobia of our culture. How could you not? That’s why so many of us were in the closet for so long. But coming out of the closet is a process that involves, among other things, unlearning your own homophobia and transphobia. It’s a painful process because you realize how badly you hurt yourself for so long by closeting yourself--accepting your culture’s view that you were somehow lesser than everybody else.
Hi Joanie. Very good points.
I agree the Catholic church has some bad doctrine. I grew up attending a protestant church and raised my kids as atheists. The problem with the doctrine on sexual orientation and gender identity is that it touches day to day life. That is quite different than having to say that you believe a virgin gave birth and you believe that man came back from the dead because a text written by an anonymous source who could not possibly have first hand knowledge wrote a book about it. You can say you believe those things and then continue you life as you would anyway.
I know some gay people who are Catholic and attend mass at least at Christmas and Easter. I assume there are many gay people who are active in congregations. I would not judge them, but I am interested in understanding them. It is possible that they consider church doctrine as not as relevant as they experience they have being a member of a congregation.
If there are any practicing Catholics in this forum, please let me know. Are their same sex couples who attend mass with their kids? How does that work out?
You make very good points as well, Skeptic. I hope some people respond your comment. It’s interesting. I used to have a sort of classic Christian faith. Then I came out to myself and others as the T and L of LGBTQ+, and I had to reconcile my faith with the reality of my identity. I read many books by John Shelby Spong, an Episcopal bishop who was of the view that the gospels were never meant to be understood as historical literal truth. Spong makes a convincing case that the gospels were in the Jewish tradition of midrashic writing, and that the stories of the Gospels are closely based on and appear in similar order to stories in the Torah. Spong felt that his understanding of the non-literal nature of the gospels strengthened his faith and made it more real and mystical, and I, also, feel that way about my faith. But I stopped going to my church even though it was a welcoming congregation because every Sunday we would recite the Nicene Creed, which required me to say things that I no longer believe: that Mary was a virgin, that the corpse of Jesus became alive days after he was put to death, etc. I know some people can get something meaningful and important out of church attendance even if they don’t believe important parts of church doctrine. I just can’t do that myself. I’m still looking for a church where I can be comfortable.
Belief and stating beliefs is a funny thing. In big organization like churches but also companies, school districts, and clubs demonstrating certain points of view is a way signaling your belonging. Even if most people don't believe what they say and know on some level that most other people don't, it is still important to do it.
How many Catholics truly believe the Eucharist? I know some who are very sharp critical thinkers but will go along with that bullshit. The only explanation I can think of is they want to stick with the group identity.
I am not one to join groups, but I miss out.
just a comment-I am pleased that the church will allow 'blessing' of gay couples. But for me (and most of my family including our adult kids) it's too little too late. I gave up waiting for women priests, married priests. Other denominations have gay bishops, women bishops, gay women bishops. I'm done. A product of Catholic schools thru graduate school.
I can imagine someone feeling committed to a religion generally, because of upbringing, because they are actually convinced of much of it, because they find comfort in the community, pick your reason, while at the same time believing that it is, quite simply, profoundly wrong on some of what it preaches.
I grant you that if I felt that that community were routinely condemning me for who I am, I would think, huh, maybe this isn't the place for me!
At the same time, I can imagine a situation that might be more realistic: they like their church, they like their priest, they like the ceremony, they like much of the basic message, they may even have an intellectual thing for Catholic theology, they like the community of people, and they are generally liked and accepted in return. Everyone knows the score, of course, but nobody makes a big deal about it, and, doctrine notwithstanding, you find that all that other stuff is, for you, the source of a lot of meaning and love. It's not *actually* a hostile environment, just the opposite. It's not as though your priest's Sunday sermon is ever about the evils of being gay, let's assume.
You might then plausibly want to participate in it while hoping (or praying) that the church will eventually see the light -- it's changed before -- and you will take moves such as Francis's as very encouraging. He's the sort of pope who does not -- to the consternation of conservative Catholics -- exhibit a "black and white" commitment to divisive aspects of doctrine. He said, for example, that priests may offer communion to divorced and remarried Catholics, previously a no-no. He's the one who said, a little mind-blowingly, in reference to someone of "good will" who is "gay" "reaching for the Lord," "Who am I to judge?"
It's very easy for people like us to think, sheesh, all that stuff is a load of bunk, a bunch of ancient fairy tales, why don't you take a hint and become an atheist, or, at least, a more open sort of Christian? But that could mean giving up a lot that you care about, and I neither blame nor patronizingly pity those who choose not to.
It's hard to take an op-ed seriously from Janice Jackson, an astonishingly corrupt and terrible head of schools during her time there.
But, the school board announcing something without any real idea about what they are proposing seems to be right in line with everything that comes from this mayor, which is- my favorite phrase you coined - content-free argle bargle.
The issue with school choice is not necessarily that it exists, just in the way it is implemented. Some of us with kids in the system do call it The Hunger Games of CPS. It is completely frustrating and stressful for both parents and students. The issue is that CPS and the schools get the choice, not the students or families. A choice system could run in a way that CPS has area-focused schools all over the city (STEM school, fine arts school, etc) and the kids would choose where they go. We could focus on areas of learning and be rid of the selective enrollment process where the school gets to just enroll the smartest kids (or the best tutored at least).
The current system leaves too many behind. It has worked for my family, my kid got into an academic center for 7th-8th and into a great high school (chose a music program over a selective offer) that they wanted. But we are white, fairly wealthy, parents with college degrees (one with advanced degrees) and had the advantage of being able to afford a parent leaving his career to be full-time stay at home dad during the formative years. If you're family is not like mine you are already a lap behind in the race the way they currently do things.
We could have a city-wide choice system that runs in a better way and be rid of neighborhood boundaries altogether. I don't think there is enough creative thinking on the school board, in the mayor's office, or in the current union leadership to lead us there.
Deni - I disagree that this is an instance of the "school board announcing something without any real idea about what they are proposing" - but rather it is intentional bafflegab to (poorly) camouflage what their real intent is - which is to do away with selective and magnet schools in the name of "equity". Their intent was immediately (and correctly) grasped by the Board's detractors to see through the sham that it is just a long-range idea session.
I particularly liked the '... doesn't mean the imminent end ...' phrase in the board's response. Don't worry, you will be happy with the future announcements.
you could hardly be as disengaged from reality as your post indicates. your ad hominem argument against janice jackson and her thoughtful essay opposing this foolish and ham-handed [or underhanded] policy change by the board of ed and mayor johnson betrays your unthinking adherence to CTU dogma. janice jackson was corrupt? where's the beef [i.e., the evidence]? how about the CTU prez, who cheats on her property taxes and water bill? and sends her son to a school of choice, which is not even part of the CPS.
please explain how chasing out all the middle and upper middle class families - of any race or ethnicity - which the proposed dimishment/elimination of school choice will certainly do - would improve public education in Chgo.
your complaints about current mgmt of school choice could best be resolved by ... more schools of choice.
yes, too many CPS neighborhood schools are failing, in that they are not adequately educating children - blame for which falls on many stakeholders, not just teachers. what do you propose to do about that, other than the tried-and failed option of 'more $$$'? cutting back on school choice will only make a highly uneven and mediocre-on-avg school system worse.
you might also consider having someone spell-check and grammar-check your posts before you hit Post.
I tend to not respond when people go into attack mode and name calling on here because, well, it's pointless. I will say it's hilarious you criticizing my spelling and grammar, you can't even begin your sentences with upper case letters...
You obviously didn't read any of my post after I criticized Janice Jackson because none of you comments match up with what I wrote. My unthinking adherence to CTU dogma? I criticized CTU leadership in my post. you seem to think what I wrote was agreeing with the Board and the Mayor, and it obviously what critical of them. And I was making a case for a new way to run school choice, not end school choice. You ask in your comment "what do you propose" when I spelled out my point of view, I think fairly clearly.
Read what people write before attacking them.
BobE criticizing Deni’s spelling and grammar is better than Trump calling other people old, crazy, fat, or dishonest.
Brandon Johnson's school board did more than "step on a rake" because that implies that it will only pop up to hurt them. Besides all the harm that it will do to kids and families of all races that strive for academic excellence, the end result will be increased flight to the suburbs for middle class families and further segregation of Chicago neighborhoods. Like the suburbs, housing prices will rise in the attendance boundaries of high performing schools and drop in areas with low performing schools.
Just want to say thanks and happy holidays to the folks who join in this uncommonly reasonable, thoughtful and often uplifting forum, the only online place I trust to kick around matters both trivial and crucial. And of course thanks to our Stackmaster Eric for making it happen and keeping it entertaining every week. Peace.
Yo, Steve T, right back at you!
"Führeresque" - you might want to copyright that. I'd think it would get overturned because it says he 'engaged in insurrection' which hasn't been proven in the courts yet. Regardless - the hordes will rally against this poor tortured man. "Transition away" has been used a lot on different topics and remains the most vague lead in to change without enough support to make actual change happen. "Crime" Crime has gone down, but there is an increase on crimes reported in media - but perception is what voters will make decisions on. "Sanctuary Status" for Council or voters a general misunderstanding of what it means to vote to keep or drop it is very high. Regardless any referendum will be toothless. "Haley's Remarks" decades from now someone will come across those words - and say can you believe a black person would utter such words that were uttered against her own people the decades before. "Worst Candy" Candy Peanuts, ju-ju-bees, sno-cone candy, candy dot paper. bit o honey. "AI" = Skynet.
Au Contraire, the Trial Judge - the trier of fact (no jury here) - heard the evidence and "found" that Trump had engaged in insurrection. (Which he had.)
Unfortunately, as many have pointed out by other pundits, there is no reason for kool-aid drinking triers of fact in other - say red - jurisdictions to hear (and rule in favor of) suits brought by righties who claim that Biden, through his actions or inactions, has also committed "insurrection" (which he has not), disqualifying him. Once again, asymmetrical political warfare works in favor of the right and not its opponents.
We better stop throwing around facts before people get upset and grab their pitchforks
Hey, Eric, thanks for the “Haley’s Comment” attribution. However, being only human, I clicked my name and arrived at a page containing many comments from many people and lots of pictures of Marduk. What does this all mean … … … ?
I thought, alas, that practically all of the Christmas txeets were not only unfunny, but pretty dreadful.
Agreed. None of them made me chuckle.
The Jingle Horse tweet cracked me up, but it’s in second-to-last place!
I am a liberal Democrat who thinks Trump is a danger to the world. I would love to see him off the ballot. But as an attorney who spend a good deal of time dealing with the meaning of statures and the Constitution I believe that the better argument is that the 14 th Amendment doesn’t apply to the Presidency. Section 3 of the Amendment specifically references Senators and Representatives and Presidential electors. But not the President. While it also refers to “office” holders the absence of a reference to the President while mentioning the other office would lead under common legal analysis to a finding that the 14 th wasn’t meant to amend Article II of the Constitution which states the minimal requirements to be elected President ( 35+ and natural born citizen). There are certainly good faith arguments to the contrary but you don’t have to be a conservative to rule in Trumps favor on this one.
I understand that the 14th Amendment refers to ANY officer who has taken the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. And the President is certainly a Federal officer. TFG took the oath and failed to uphold it while in office.
Fomenting the insurrection is an identifiable act by TFG. And as we learned today on NPR, the 14th Amendment is a self-executing element of the Constitution much like the requirement that a Presidential candidate must be at least 35 years old. Congress cannot change any part of the self-executing elements of the Constitution.
Yes. But only after specially listing senators and congressmen. Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis a court would often find that the absence of president from the list as significant.
It is of the same kind. Under your argument, if I were to say, "This road is closed to all motor vehicles, including buses, trucks, motorcycles, SUVs, ATVs, and RVs," you would find it significant that the list omitted regular cars. Of course cars are included. Cars are the quintessential motor vehicles. President is the quintessential officer of the United States.
I'm also a liberal Democrat and trained lawyer. I strongly recommend reading Baude and Paulson's article, reviewing the sources in the Colorado Supreme Court opinion, and maybe listening to the great Akhil Amar's wonderful constitutional law podcast, Amarica's Constitution on this point. Having done so, I'm overwhelmingly convinced that the best original, structural, and textual understanding, not even close, is that the section clearly applies to the president, both in terms of offices you're disqualified from and offices/oaths you previously held/took that triggers the potential disqualification. No other way makes any sense.
Section 3 says nobody may "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" who, "having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States .. to support the Constitution of the United States," engaged in insurrection, etc. The argument that the presidency is not an "office" under the United States, that the president is not an "officer of the United States," or that the president does not take an oath to "support the Constitution" is risible on its face. There's no historical evidence to support the claim. It was so obvious, it went without saying. The expansive enumeration of of people and offices to which the disqualification could apply was meant to ensure that non-obvious cases, like *electors* for president, would be included within its ambit. Everyone at the time assumed that Jefferson Davis was disqualified as a presidential candidate, for example. The clause was meant to exclude Confederates from government. And yet it would let a Confederate who swore an oath to the Constitution become *president*?? There's no historical evidence -- not one bit, not one committee report, not one scrap of evidence amid loads of contemporaneous material -- supporting the idea that the drafters meant to exclude the president -- too big and weird a thing to rely on a dog not barking -- while including, bizarrely for no apparent reason, just about everyone inferior to him. Meanwhile, there's a gazillion pieces of evidence that everyone understood the president to be an officer. It's all over the Constitution itself, for starters.
None of the Colorado Supreme Court dissenters took up this argument. Because, I'm afraid, it's lousy. I have some reservations about the opinion, but I think the Supreme Court is going to need to look elsewhere to overrule it.
“There's no historical evidence -- not one bit, not one committee report, not one scrap of evidence amid loads of contemporaneous material -- supporting the idea that the drafters meant to exclude the president “. I think the fact that “President” was in earlier drafts of Section 3 but took it out of later drafts could certainly be considered a “bit” of evidence. Not saying that the only explanation or even the best explanation, but certainly could be construed as such. The lower court did. The Supreme Court rejected it but it’s sure to be tossed out there in discussions by the SCOTUS. Under rules of construction which don’t focus on any extraneous material the exclusion from the list ( not looking at prior drafts)after other specific references would still be considered meaningful.
Nah. The Colorado Supreme Court deals with this solitary point really convincingly in paras. 138-43 in a way that I think completely disposes of it.
The earlier draft was more restrictive than "any office." It only included under its catch-all officers confirmed by the Senate. It therefore had to include "President and Vice President" separately because they are not confirmed by the Senate. The later revision made the provision yet *more* expansive -- which is what everyone was trying to do! -- to include "any office under the United States," appointed and confirmed or not, rendering unnecessary the separate inclusion of President and Vice President. It was, however, necessary to continue to separately list Representative, Senator, and Elector, because it's common in a separation of powers context not to see them as "officers under the United States," just as a corporation's directors aren't its officers. Offices under the United States includes the executive branch, including the top.
The Colorado Supreme Court quotes a report where the question was directly put, and the answer came back that of course the clause as written and ratified includes the president.
I mean, gosh, the evidence here is really overwhelming. You note that the majority didn't buy the lower court's view on this, but, I say again, neither did the dissenters. I frankly think the lower court didn't really buy it either but didn't want to wear the outcome herself, and so she smartly teed it up for her betters to pull the trigger -- by finding in every way against Trump (which was unnecessary to the result) before going his way on the lamest legal argument he had.
Do you have any plausible argument -- putting aside a dubious rule of construction or the like -- for why the drafters might have sought, in an awfully strange and risky way (using the word "any office"), to exclude the president and vice president themselves, while including all inferior executive officers?
EZ - Liked more than half of the Tweets this week. Good job of finding them!
The Colorado Supreme Court's disqualification is a gigantic gift to the Republican Party. (If they would only take it!) It gives the the Republican Party the perfect chance to dump Trump "cleanly", without hurting any of the other Republican candidates with its (idiotic) base, and helps to restore some of SCOTUS's "legitimacy". Here's why:
1. Trump - who is despised by the big business wing of the party, and has proven to be an albatross to the Republican party in national elections since 2020 - gets (effectively) removed from the ticket without any of the other candidates having to throw mud at him. (If SCOTUS upholds the ruling, all of the other states will be inundated with copycat lawsuits which will result in his being removed from enough state ballots to make a Trump win impossible.)
2. The Republicans can finally "get past" Trump while they still pay homage to him as a "martyr" to the Republican cause.
3. His disqualification isn't solely as a Republican candidate - he is Constitutionally prohibited from being elected to office - meaning he can't run as a 3rd party candidate - or even have write-in votes for him counted (which would threaten to sink the Republican party in a 3-way race). This completely throws open the Republican nomination process to anyone other than Trump.
4. The "existential threat" to democracy posed by authoritarian Trump is swept away.
5. With Trump no longer a "threat to Democracy", this relieves the pressure on the Democrats to run a candidate other than Biden. Biden can choose not to run, opening up the Dem side of the race to other, more dynamic candidates who can run on Biden's very positive record, and bask in its glow while taking shots at the Republican toadies who followed idiotic Trump policies because they were afraid of turning off Trump voters.
6. "Trump Republicans" truly were/are cult worshipers - they are unlikely to automatically gravitate to the most "Trump-like" alternative Trump Republican, giving more centrist candidates an opportunity to run - and attract independent voters.
7. Helps (somewhat) restore SCOTUS's legitimacy as a non-partisan, non -"hack" court by allowing it to (on the surface) rule against the Republicans (when, in fact, it is ruling against Trump which will, in the long run, HELP Republicans). If Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett think about what's best for their brand of conservatism (all of the cruelty, none of the crazy), they'll grab on to this opportunity to get rid of Trump and to do what's far better for their party and their causes. (I leave Thomas out of this, because he's just too far gone, and his wacko wife has drunk too much Trump Kool-Aid.) If Republican strategists (and SCOTUS) stop and think for a bit, confirming the Colorado decisions is truly the BEST thing for the Republican Party to survive post Trump. IMHO
Yes, I voted for a record number of tweets this week.
First - I strongly believe and would bet heavily that SCOTUS will overrule the Colorado supreme Court decision removing Trump from the ballot in that state. Colorado was a 4-3 decision strictly along partisan lines, and the vast majority of legal commentary I have read on this from across the political spectrum does not believe it passes constitutional muster. And yes, this will just be further used to fan the flames of Trump victimhood and will not have any good benefit.
Secondly - Brandon Johnson's unwillingness to allow Chicago voters to express their approval or disapproval of the city's status as a sanctuary city certainly seems diametrically at odds with his professed core position of letting the people be heard and governing on behalf of the people. Rank hypocrisy. But I guess that's not an uncommon vice in Chicago and Cook county politics as well as across the country across the political spectrum.
Thirdly - The plans to minimize school choice options should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone since Brandon Johnson is a creature of and totally controlled by the CTU. With his election, not only will all decisions regarding Chicago public schools be made to benefit the CTU, now the entire governance of the city will be conducted on a basis of what's good for the CTU.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that Illinois labor law be amended so that private arbitration is not available to police officers. If this is going to be changed, it should be changed for all union members across the state instead of cherry picking out police officers for a different standard.
Christmas greetings to everyone!
Politico interviewed J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He gives a strong assessment on why he thinks the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from running for a second term. From the article:
"All we can do is assess ourselves the objective law — in this instance, the meaning and application of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Now, I was a judge for many, many years, and I did exactly that on constitutional questions for 15 years — and as we discussed earlier, I’ve been studying this specific question in great detail for the past three years. So, you know, I consider myself — personally — an expert on the question.
The Colorado Supreme Court decision was over 120 pages, and I read every word of every page, and I understood every single word because I’ve studied the issue. The Colorado Supreme Court addressed every single state law question and every single federal constitutional question as to the meaning and interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I know for a fact that it resolved each and every one of those questions as required not just under state law, but, more importantly, under federal constitutional law. That’s why I said that the opinion is unassailable in every respect. It is a masterful judicial opinion, and based on the objective law of the 14th, I believe that the Supreme Court should — and I believe it will — affirm the Colorado Supreme Court if given the opportunity."
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792
Wendy - thanks for sharing the good commentary by retired Judge Luttig. There certainly is an argument that the Colorado ruling is constitutional, but thus far in reading a great many commentaries from across the political spectrum, the clear consensus of those is that it will be quickly ruled unconstitutional.
Personally, I would be overjoyed if SCOTUS did uphold the Colorado ruling as it would push Trump to the side and the GOP could have another candidate (my clear preference is Nikki Haley) to articulate its positions and engage in civil debate without all the drama. But I fear that is not going to turn out to be the case, and Trump will then throw this onto his never-ending stack of victimhood grievances.
I'm not a lawyer but I have also read various legal analyses and don't see this "clear consensus" you claim.
I agree that the smart money is on the Supreme Court overruling the Colorado decision, but I don't see a real consensus on the legal question. I hear a lot along the lines of, it's too drastic, too nuts, it will have bad results, and then a dubious legal fig leaf to avoid it.
When I first heard this argument, I shared that instinct. It sounded like a kooky theory. But then I read Baude and Paulsen's article, heard counter-arguments (generally lame), sat with it for a while, and I became a reluctant believer. It's available for free at SSRN:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751&download=yes
(Note, you don't have to sign in or get an account; you can skip that and just download the pdf.)
On the purely legal stuff, I think the article is a slam dunk, and I think they are right to recall our country's shameful history of not taking the reconstruction amendments seriously for some hundred years. Really enforcing equal rights for blacks was just too kooky, involved too much judicial overreach, felt too disruptive, and, golly, it sure would piss off lots of people. We went along that way for a long time after the Civil War before finally summoning the courage to get real. Doing so didn't endanger the republic but rather went a long way toward redeeming it. Maybe, for Section 3, we could skip over the shameful part and get real now.
My initial instinct was that Trump plausibly didn't really engage in an insurrection. I've come to see the undisputed facts, however, as right down the middle of Section 3's strike zone. The article is very strong in summarizing Trump's litany of undisputed conduct aimed at overturning the election, culminating in the Jan. 6 riot, and matching it to the language of Section 3.
Some excerpts, at 118-22:
Leading up to January 6, Trump repeatedly solicited, suborned, and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the counting of the electoral votes in favor of President-elect Biden. Not only that: Trump assembled a large crowd to march on the Capitol and intimidate Congress and the Vice President into complying with his wishes and thereby prevent the official counting of the votes of electors confirming Trump’s defeat. ...
He never directly and literally called for attacking the Capitol or the Vice President. Much of what might be thought incitement to lawlessness was innuendo. Nonetheless, the general and specific message was that the election had been stolen; that a constitutional fraud of colossal proportions and cataclysmic consequence was in the process of being perpetrated on the nation; that the crowd needed to take “strong” and direct action to protect the country; and that immediate
action was necessary to prevent Vice President Pence and Congress from ratifying
the unconstitutional election of an illegitimate president and doing irreparable damage to the nation....
Trump had deliberately assembled the mob of supporters, steeled them to action, knew that they were ready to take immediate action, and directed them to take it. But the most important thing is that the Brandenburg [First Amendment] question is beside the point. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact the legal standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio. It enacts the standards of participation in and support for “insurrection or rebellion,” and it qualifies, modifies, or simply satisfies the First Amendment to the extent of any conflict between these constitutional principles. ...
Section Three reaches a broad range of conduct providing meaningful assistance to or support for acts of insurrection or rebellion performed by others, even quite passively. Sitting by and doing nothing—declining to act to arrest a violent uprising, despite possessing the material capacity and legal responsibility to intervene—might qualify. Additionally and equally important, Trump’s deliberate inaction renders his January 6 speech much more incriminating in hindsight, because it makes it even less plausible (if it was ever plausible) that the crowd’s reaction was all a big mistake or misunderstanding. ...
Moreover, if one accepts the broader argument that the entire campaign to overthrow the results of the 2020 election was a form of constitutional rebellion, then Trump’s complicity is even more obvious—as the leader, motive force, and chief attempted perpetrator of that rebellion. Indeed, it would not be going too far to say that Trump, having previously sworn a constitutionally required oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States knowingly attempted to execute what, had it succeeded, would have amounted to a political coup d’etat against the Constitution and its system of elections and overturn the results of the constitutional process, in order to maintain himself in office as President contrary to law. ...
The bottom line is that Donald Trump “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close.
Me now: I recommend reading the whole thing. What's striking about it is that it is a *conservative* *textualist* *originalist* legal analysis, using just the sort of method that the conservative justices claim as their own and, indeed, as the only legitimate method. Paulsen is a conservative originalist scholar from way back. Baude is a rising (or maybe risen) star conservative originalist academic at the University of Chicago, and co-editor of the latest editions of a prominent constitutional law casebook and Hart and Wechsler's Federal Courts in the Federal System, one of the great grandaddy casebooks, universally respected. It would be an exaggeration to say that the dude literally wrote the book on con law, but he's that good.
I've resisted for a long while some aspects of the case against Trump, especially when it comes to actual criminal indictments. For example, I've long seen the Georgia call as non-criminal. I think it's good to maintain healthy skepticism when we're talking about throwing someone in prison for a very long time! And I've long pushed back on some of the most overheated anti-Trump rhetoric. I have trouble seeing, for example, how he could actually become a dictator without engaging in unlawful conduct that others in our system of dispersed power, like courts, can and would effectively stop. I even saw the coup attempt as chickenshit, in the sense of not likely to work.
But none of that is relevant here. As in cases of impeachment, disqualification under Section 3 is not a criminal guilty verdict, and of course, of course, of course, the Senate should have removed him and disqualified him when they had the chance. And, yes, I now think: of course, of course, of course, his *undisputed* conduct in seeking to overturn the election renders him a disloyal oath-breaker who engaged in an attempted coup, however unlikely, an enemy of the Constitution, who should and must be disqualified under Section 3 by every judge or official with the power to decide and in every process in which the matter arises. I'm convinced that taking Section 3 seriously pretty much requires it.
Except that taxpayers of the cities that employ those officers are on the hook for huge damage payouts when a "bad apple" officer who has been kept on the force in a non-public arbitration hearing later commits a tort/kills someone under color of law.
Regarding private vs public arbitration. Police are different from most other government employees. They have a fair amount of discretion in how to act and the stakes are very high (compared to a clerk at the DMV for example). There is probably no other job where it is possible that shooting a person could be part of that job. Also, there is much more at stake in the level of trust that the public has with the police.
I agree with what you say about Brandon Johnson, but I also think doing a referendum on Chicago being a sanctuary city is a bad idea. The case for a representative democracy over a direct one is that issues are complex enough that they should have full time reps acting on them, not the general public. I think sanctuary city status falls into that category. I think many people would vote against it only because they are anti-immigration, which is an issue that should be dealt with separately. Some people go to the polls to send a message. If the polling choices do not give options that express that message, then they will try to find a way to express that message anyway.
It's an advisory referendum that was proposed; a glorified poll. Should pollsters not ask the public about the immigration situation?
Of course pollsters should ask people about immigration and many other issues. I think a government sponsored non-binding referendum is categorically different from a private poll from say CBS news. The former is the policy-making body asking the electorate what policy they want. It puts more pressure on the government to act than the latter.
In this particular case there is a great deal of emotion on the subject, and misunderstanding about what a sactary city is. When in 2018 there was a non-binding referendum about recreational marijuana there was not so much opportunity for confusion.
I would say that there should only be a referendum if there is a fairly good chance that the government would follow though on it. And good governance would require that the referendum not me misunderstood.
Defund the police is a good example. The hashtag was an expression of frustration but it was never not a terrible policy idea. Sure, some people redefined what it meant, but not everyone. So it was never clear to put on a referendum. Yeah and the dumbest referendum of the century has to be Brexit.
I am grateful for the many ethical judges in this country who follow the law without regard for political consequences. It's frightening to think where we'd be without them.
But there are many - in the 5th Circuit especially (and Judge Aileen Cannon in FL) - who do not, unfortunately.
They scare me
Eric, watch for the US Supreme Court decision that overturns the Colorado action to be a large majority, not just along the 5-4 ideological lines. Dan, Skokie
Dots are bad, but far from the worst. At first I thought the writer meant the candy-buttons-on-paper dots. Those are way worse than the gummy Dots. The idea of being forced to live on THOSE is horrific. I would save up the paper to choke myself.
When one talks about Alden Capital and the importance of the media, I believe it to be instructive to talk about the motivation of people. There is a class of people that worries about its own status in life They fight like tigers to protect it. They have their own safety and luxury needs to consider. Control of situations is very important to them. They don't especially care whether or not the masses are educated and informed. It's better that they are not, because then the upper part of the upper class can control the conversation. Right beneath them is the conservative side of the middle class. They believe in the trickle down effect, that they cannot get what they need unless the upper class creates wealth. Therefore they want to believe what the uppers tell them. Trump is a prime example of this. He appeals to base biases that his followers will often not admit to in public. It's all about creating wealth for the upper crust and creating hope among the middle class that they will get there. Alden only cares about responsible journalism to the point that they are making money off the deal. Why does the union believe they will ever get a fair deal? if the Trib were to lose more valuable employees and the paper shut down like so many others have done, Alden will write it off as a tax loss and move on. Therefore, they have no motivation to treat the union fairly. I'm sure Alden would claim that I am misjudging them as people. Okay, prove it by properly running the paper. By the way, watch the movie "Rollerball" starring James Caan. It's pure fiction, but instructive.
Your explanation of the Alden Capital people's motives is interesting and also that you cite a movie. That is exactly where my brain goes when reading about Alden's business practices, and because of the season, to "A Christmas Carol" and "It's a Wonderful Life." The men of Alden Capital (yes, that's a sexist assumption but I'd be shocked if they're super egalitarian in their corporate leadership) are humans adults and American so they absolutely know the characters Ebenezer Scrooge and Mr. Potter are the awful, greedy villains in the stories. The psychology fascinates me how they can get through this season with those characters and those stories shared constantly -- heck, they probably watch the films themselves with their families and take their kids to the plays!
What goes on in their brains when they see the villains excoriated for their greed and selfishness? Is their thinking so contorted they think *they're* the hard-working Bob Cratchit or George Bailey? Or do they tell their kids, "Mr. Potter is not really so bad; he's misunderstood and is just trying to ensure a well-deserved third vacation home for his family." Films and stories stand the test of time because people relate to the characters or admire them. I wish someone were able to ask Alden's owners (ideally in front of their families), who they relate to and admire most in those films, and who they think they and their colleagues are most like.
Your explanation is interesting. The thing I can never figure out about "It's a Wonderful Life"- if the hero in such a small town is so popular and Potter is so evil, how did Potter get away with it? Could to be that people were making money from Potter and let him get away with it? Sounds familiar in today's atmosphere.
My takeaway was that Potter had a virtual banking monopoly in town. Poor people don't have the time, resources, energy to combat the most powerful man in town when they're just trying to get on with living life.
The school board did not 'step on a rake', which implies they erred in communication of their real intentions. This seven-member board has six members appointed by Johnson including the board president. They signaled exactly where they are going using the usual tactic of vagueness to evade discussions that would require clear explanations. Since Johnson will also appoint four more members to begin serving alongside the current board in 2025 (11 appointed), along with the 10 elected members, which we can expect to be dominated by CTU candidates. These neighborhood candidates will surely be promoting their intention to bring investment and jobs into their turf.