I recently witnessed a significant "family meeting" type discussion in /r/law after the Fanni Willis debacle. Experienced trial attorneys making politically agnostic observations about potential impacts to the case were being down voted into oblivion for the mere act of being politically agnostic and acknowledging even the possibility that Willis could have acted in a way that could negatively impact the case. The adults in the room circled the wagons. The consensus was that any thread that achieves a minimum critical mass of participants will attract partisan non-experts whose interest in facts and reality is secondary to their interest in every situation conforming to their preconceived notions.
This post is one of the bad legal takes on this sub that it purports to call out.
“You can think that the stakes are so high here that the justices should depart from textualism and original public meaning to read the phrase more broadly. You can upmarsey all the people who say Trump should lose”
Just read Baude's extensive paper. Disqualifying trump likely follows the text original intent and original meaning of the 14th amendment. Pretending disqualifying Trump is “progressive” constitutional interpretation is disingenuous and misleading
This article combined with the Federalist society argument is not a novel “progressive” constitutional theory.
There is ample historical evidence that the president was considered an officer at the time of drafting and ratification.
Yeah, it's hard to take posts like this seriously.
We are posting in a midwit thread on God
!Neolibs, do you think you know more than the supreme court?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Where my !r-slurs at?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If redditors don't get their way they'll just say the conservative majority is corrupt. We've seen it over and over.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
every single subreddit adjacent to social sciences has been infested with ideologues
r/economics for example
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Economics was always a bullshitters science next to sociology.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!neolibs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've met them. No amout of
can fool me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
L(Y,r) = L0 + L1Y – L2r
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
every legal subreddit was buck broken by
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's quite possible that president, the only nationally elected office, was meant to be excluded from the rule because an elected president represents the will of the entire country, instead of an individual state that was still seething about the Civil War. The national electorate letting in an insurrectionist would be the equivalent of Congress waiving the requirement by 2/3 majority. Both represent forms of national consensus, and in the wake of the Civil War would have required Northern or Republican approval.
However, by practical standards the officer thing is r-slurred and if they rule on that it'll be a massive copout. Ruling solely on Colorado's rights is also a copout because it could leave Congress responsible for determining whether Trump legally can be president, resulting in a bothsides January 6 where Dems would have valid legal reasoning to refuse his electors.
What the country needs is an answer on whether le drumpf committed "insurrection." He obviously did not, he gave a speech to some angry protestors. He was never charged with any such crime despite 91 other felony charges, and neither were any of the rioters. And even the lib justices should be comfortable saying that because their tradition does not support expansive, punitive definitions of crimes. However, if they want to rebuke him, they may split the difference and declare that the events at the Capitol were insurrection but that Daddy didn't participate.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Depends on what we mean by "insurrection."
Did donald trump try to steal an election he lost? Yes.
Did donald trump continue to repeat blatant lies about election fraud knowing it would incite his fanatical base? Yes.
Did donald trump abuse his position to pressure state officials into aiding his election theft attempts? Yes.
Trying to confine the question just to jan 6th is dubious.
Nothing Trump did in 2020 was even slightly acceptable. If there are no consequences we're completely fricked moving forward.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Did donald trump lead an insurrection? No
Was the protest on jan 6th an insurrection? No
Was trump charged with insurrection? No
There is no legal ground for any of this
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I couldn't find poll results for "was it an insurrection" but I'm guessing it'd be less than 55%
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was fake and straight for sure
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
What would you say the goal was of the people that stormed congress, and why were they so motivated?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Police waved them in, they wanted to see congress and address their greivenaces in a perfectly legitimate matter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Impressive. Normally people with such severe developmental disabilities struggle to write much more than a sentence or two. He really has exceded our expectations for the writing portion. Sadly the coherency of his writing, along with his abilities in the social skills and reading portions, are far behind his peers with similar disabilities.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
So Jackson is agreeing with the officer thing too? Gorsuch was getting raked over the coals about that comment the first day.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD ONE!!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Another buck broken
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
/r/neolib figures out that they too are redditors. I guess self-awareness is the first step
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I will unironically argue that most redditors could probably be smarter than KBJ. But it's more that I absolutely hate her, her shit jurisprudence, and her
courtroom demeanour.
That being said, I agree with her comments in OA. Guess a blind
can still be correct.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
What did Kenji do?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
for expressing the view of not wanting to disqualify Trump from appearing in the Colorado ballot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Shes always been this boring political chimera
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snapshots:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
/r/law:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
r/law used to have high quality legal discussions like three years ago. Now it's r/politics with a thin veneer of “objectivity”:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Baude's:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
This article:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
WORDSWORDSWORDS MY SO WORDSWORDSWORDS:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context