I'll get to three stooges in a moment, but some level setting.
You're
not arguing at the jr high level? You
sure?
Motivated reasoning is a helluva drug. We can agree that Trump tried to subvert the democratic process -- more than once. His first impeachment involved bribing a foreign power with taxpayer money to launch a phony investigation into a leading domestic rival (as it happens the one who would defeat him). Then there was the election denial and a refusal to certify the results. Can we use the 14th Amendment to bar him from running for these anti-democratic actions? No. But that's where we want to go so we have to invent a way to get there. Never mind that Trump has not even been charged with insurrection. Never mind that none of the 1,000+ people prosecuted for storming the Capitol have been charged either. What argument can we make?
Four people have been
convicted of seditious conspiracy, the exact executable charge for those who attempt insurrection.
This is the level of argument we get when we allow those who are too enamored with their ability to philosophize to spin too deeply into stipulated lecturing. Your inability to deal with the realities of the situation are not mitigated by your confidence that you have special insight over the 'provincial Americans' that you then ironically cite as opinions being of primary importance. Your inability to pick proper insults doesn't either.
The talking point often goes that of course we can have judges and secretaries of state remove candidates without the hoopla of a trial or some high burden of proof. After all, people are not entitled to appear on the ballot, and, anyway, eligibility is assessed all the time. Judges can disqualify someone because they fail to meet residency requirements for a local election, or the age requirement for federal office, or because they committed an insurrection. One of these is not quite like the other two, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. The precedent is so thin and the stakes are so high that it's going to require a lot more process -- and not simply being reviewed by the Supreme Court (which is something, it seems, the Court appreciates).
Polling indicates about 60% of the population agree Trump tried to steal the election. About 40% say he should not be allowed to run again. All other things being equal, I'd expect that second number to go down after the Court makes its ruling.
Hey, remember your, quite correct, argument that the legitimacy of the government derives from the consent of the governed? Why do only part of the governed consent matter, or said another way, why do you only imagine that the 'cost' of removing Trump from the ballot is a hit to consent? The lack of accountability for Trump and his cohort have already lead to a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of many. It
does matter that another mechanism would fail to hold him to account.
The reason you're motivated to ignore that is because you know the side that would do that are the 'reasonable' ones. As always you're not arguing to the unreasonable side because you know they wouldn't listen to you.
[SNIP] The is the usual straw man that requires fingers in the ears, eyes tight shut, "lalala"ing. I have argued for a criminal trial because of identified problems, legal and moral, with the scheme to have judges disqualify Trump.
That's...not in conflict with what I wrote. Well, what I wrote there anyway. People think Trump should be held accountable for his crimes, and when you argue for the specific mechanism...what did you think I was saying you were arguing? Something other than legal and moral grounds? What?
I will cop to navel-gazing there (and elsewhere). I'm also going to skip past most of your blather.
I'm not going to skip most of yours. I'm replying after all.
This is almost interesting. In my view, the 14th Amendment would not necessarily require a conviction in criminal court to have a greater claim to legitimacy. If, in some alternative universe, the 14th had somehow been regularly used to disqualify people from office, then it would be more acceptable, and not just in my eyes but the public's (though not a dead letter, this bizarro 14th would seem to be relatively ineffectual). Might this special boy personally object to a 14th Amendment requiring conviction as anti-democratic? Maybe! But like a dumb age requirement, it would probably enjoy the benefit of a clear public understanding.
Well get back to me when you have the intellectual integrity to actually embrace your arguments.
The Congress was supposed to clarify the mechanisms of the 14th. That's the proper place for debate of it. The Court again taking up power when Congress has just abandoned it is a band-aid at best. With this Court? A dangerous opportunity to repeat
Bush v Gore, that can lead to another hit to their legitimacy. (Which is approved of at about 18% right now since you seem to care about polls and legitimacy, but a fact you'll discount now that a 'stooge' brought it to your attention.)
EDIT: And apparently because it needs to be said, I'm not even arguing that Trump being removed from the ballot by the 14th provision as ruled by judges is the best way. But if we were going by what is written and how it has worked before, it's clearly correct to bar him using it. But I am
not arguing that the Constitution is always correct or holy or whatever strawman Cain is assigning to everyone else. As far as I can tell, no one in this thread holds such worship of the Constitution.
