Showing posts with label You heard it here first. Show all posts
Showing posts with label You heard it here first. Show all posts

Sunday, February 18, 2024

Legislatures. Back to the future and other diversions?

A scene from the early 1970s Wyoming legislatures at the Hitching Post?  See below.

Former Wyoming Legislator Tom Lubnau, who was truly one of the great ones in the old school Wyoming way, has taken up writing columns for The Cowboy State Daily. That's to the CSD's credit and shows its effort to become a real electronic journal, something that's impressive considering it was set up as a right wing organ.  Lubnau is a conservative Wyoming Republican, but a conservative Wyoming Republican, something that's becoming increasingly rare.  

Or maybe not.

He's not afraid of poking at the wolverine.

He recently wrote this interesting item:

Tom Lubnau: Legislating Private Parts Is Popular This Legislative Session

This op ed is written from the point of view that virtually defined Wyoming Republicans for my whole adult life, up until the Obama/Trump Era, when things began to get really radical in the legislature.

His article is illuminating and I'm linking it in for several reasons.

One of those is that Lubnau give a really nice discussion of the law as it used to be, on some of the same topics that I addressed here:

Until Death Do Us Part. Divorce and Related Domestic Law. Late 19th/Early 20th Century, Mid 20th Century, Late 20th/Early 21st Century. An example of the old law, and the old customs, being infinately superior to the current ones and a call to return to them.


I note this, in particular, from his article:

I guess in thinking about it, I came of age in the Disco Era and that's the law I'm familiar with.  Lubnau is right, the GOP in this state, from the 70s on, really didn't care what you were doing, with whom, behind closed doors, as long as you kept your business to yourself, and it also didn't really care if your marriages broke up, etc., as a result of it, or anything else.  I'd assumed it had long been that way, but as Lubnau's quote from the Wyoming Compiled Statutes, 1910, shows, that's not the case.

I looked it up in the actual 1910 Code, and Lubnau was a little off.  He must have been reading the 1970s vintage codification, or miscited it.  The provison, and those otherwise cited in this thread, were still there in 1957, the last version of the by then much expanded Wyoming statutes I had handy, and they were almost certainly there up until the early 1970s.  In 1910, it was a different statutory section that the cited number (and the number was different in 1957), but here, right from the 1910 book, is what it states.


This is in a section of the statutes on offenses to public morality, and in looking at it, I found that something else I had thought to be illegal, but couldn't later fine, was in fact illegal, that being cohabitation without being married.


So, in my earlier statement that I had thought it was illegal, was in fact correct.  It was illegal.

Seduction of minors, keeping in mind that the age of majority, was a crime, but not quite in the fashion modern statutes provide for it, which would now be a species of rape. At the time, seduction of underage women, at least "older" ones, was a misdemeanor, although this raises interesting questions given that women could clearly marry at 18, or younger, at the time. This relates back to the earlier discussion we had, in the threat noted above, regarding Seduction at law.


At the same time, however, Section 5803 of the 1910 Code provide that rape, conventionally defined, was a felony, as well as having carnal knowledge of a female under age 18.  The dual age of majority, long a feature of Wyoming's law, was apparently already there.  Particularly notable, however, is that the law didn't distinguish between rape and statutory rape, they were the same.

It did distinguish between male and female.  A man could not be a victim of rape under the statute, although that would have constituted assault in any event.

Lubnau goes on in his article to comment:
It seems, now, there is a trend to sponsor legislation to invite the State of Wyoming back into the bedroom.

One has to wonder if regulating bedroom conduct is the pressing issue of the day, or if there is some other motive such as creating a campaign issue for the election season, that is driving the legislation.  In other words, how many people do you meet every day whose biggest concern is lack of regulation of private parts? 
Following that, he takes a look at HB 50 (What is a Woman Act) HB 68 repealing the obscenity exception for school, college, university, museum or public library activities or in the course of employment of such an organization, HB 88 making it illegal to “publicly communicate” obscene material, Democratic HB 76, making it illegal to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion if the fetus is not viable*, or in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother., HB 137 requiring a pregnant mother to receive an ultrasound prior to receiving a chemical abortion “in order to provide the pregnant woman the opportunity to view the active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible.”

And that's probably not all of these.

They all did fail, fwiw, most failing to secure introduction.  The reasons vary, including procedural, but it might actually show that more of the old style, post mid 1970s Republicans remain in the legislature than might be supposed.  For that matter, however, it might also show that a lot of the populist legislators everywhere, at the state and Federal level, aren't hugely familiar with the legislative process.  In Wyoming trying to advance a bunch of these bills in a budget session, after declaring that you had the strength to advance them, was likely a mistake.

The obscenity one is interesting, as the 1910 Code had a section on that, providing:


The failed proposed statues state:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0068

Obscenity-impartial conformance.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Hornok, Angelos, Bear, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Strock, Trujillo and Ward and Senator(s) Ide

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; repealing an exception to the crime of promoting obscenity regarding possessing obscene materials for specified bona fide educational purposes; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6-4-302(c)(ii) is repealed.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2025.

And:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0088

Public display of obscene material.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Ottman, Davis, Hornok, Penn and Strock

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; prohibiting public communication of obscene material; providing a definition; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6‑4‑301(a) by creating a new paragraph (vi) and 6‑4‑302(a)(iii) are amended to read:

6‑4‑301.  Definitions.

(a)  As used in this article:

(vi)  "Publicly communicate" means to display, post, exhibit, give away or vocalize material in such a way that the material may be readily and distinctly perceived by the public at large by normal unaided vision or hearing.

6‑4‑302.  Promoting obscenity; penalties.

(a)  A person commits the crime of promoting obscenity if he:

(iii)  Knowingly disseminates or publicly communicates obscene material.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

The abortion bills, of which we have now had a variety, are interesting too, as I ran across the original 1910 statutes on that, which may well have been modified before 1973 (I don't know). Abortion was still illegal in 1973, I just don't know if the exact same text remained until then. In 1910, the law provided:
§ 5808. Attempted miscarriage. 
Whoever prescribes or administers to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be preg- nant , any drug , medicine , or substance whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage of such woman ; or with like intent uses any instrument or means whatever, unless such miscarriage is necessary to preserve her life, shall if the woman miscarries or dies in consequence thereof , be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than fourteen years .
§ 5809. Woman soliciting miscarriage . Every woman who shall so- licit of any person any medicine , drug or substance or thing whatever , and shall take the same , or shall submit to any operation or other means whatever , with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage (except when necessary for the purpose of saving the life of the mother or child), shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months ; and any person who , in any manner whatever, unlawfully aids or assists any such woman to a violation of this section , shall be liable to the same penalty.
I'm not going to comment on any of these, but I'm only noting that this provides a really interesting example of the evolution of the Legislature, and for that matter a Western legislature that's been Republican controlled the entire time. Republicans of the 70s and 80s would have a hard time recognizing the party today if they hadn't been there for the evolution.  I suppose that's true of the Democrats then and now as well.

I'm also noting it as I earlier quixotically argued that the heart balm statutes and accompanying provisions ought to be restored.  Lubnau has gotten into the weeks and found one of the statutes of that era that I didn't address, §7206 of the 1910 code.

Going back to that code, a fair amount of it would be unconstitutional today, as the United States Supreme Court had found that the sodomy provisions are contrary to some vague unwritten stuff in the penumbra of the Constitution having to do with privacy.  "Privacy" doesn't actually appear in the text of the Constitution.  The last crime noted, and the one about animals, is probably still capable of being illegal, and actually the last one, which would have to do with adults in relation to minors is probably actually still illegal elsewhere.  To some degree, with this statute, you have to read between the lines, but to some extent you do not.  The law basically criminalized anything contrary to nature, and it was pretty clear that there was an accepted concept of what nature, in this context, meant.  Frankly there still really is, although now, save for minors and "beasts" we license it societally.

The provisions on rape and abortion could probably have just been left alone, keeping in mind that abortion was legalized under Roe, and then taken back to the state under Dodd's.  Had that been all left untouched, the law would arguably have been clearer now than it is.  Interestingly, the statute drafters of that era tended to use an economy of words which tended to make their intent quite clear.

What about the statutes pertaining to "heart balm" and, well, sex?

Today's legislature of the Freedom Caucus variety, all over the country, clearly looks backwards to restoring society to what they imagine it was. This actually shows what it was.  And not just that, but the statutes regarding divorce as well.

Let's look once more.


"Shacking up" was illegal.  Given the present state of Constitutional Law, I doubt it could be made illegal (I'm quite certain it couldn't be).  Would the social warriors be game for trying?

This concept, quite frankly, underpins everyone other one regarding marriage.  It was designed to prevent what the 1910 statues called "bastardy" and the burden it created on society, and it grasped what marriage really was.  For that reason, quite frankly, I'd be for its return (although as stated, I don't think it can be under the current interpretation of the Constitution.  Those populist right-wingers who would not go that far, probably ought to reconsider their positions on things

Those who would be horrified by such a proposal, and frankly that's probably most people now, ought to reconsider their support for populism, if they are populists.

And then there is this:


Would the legislature of today go that far?  Again, this is clearly unconstitutional under the current law, and it would in fact outlaw homosexual conduct, as well as a bunch of non-homosexual conduct.  Presumably no modern legislature would be comfortable with what the pre 1970s Wyoming legislature, and pre 1970s Wyoming society, was in this era.  Probably nobody ought to be, as this is really invasive.

What about divorce, the subject that the other thread was sort of on, and this one sort of is on as well, and which again gets to the heart of the topic.

Ealier in the state's history, the legislature barred remarriage within a year, which is signficant if we consider that cohabitation without being married was flat out illegal.  The 1910 statutes provide:
§ 3951. Remarriage prohibited within one year . 
During the period of one year from the granting of a decree of divorce , neither party thereto shall be permitted to remarry to any other person . Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor , and shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty - five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars , or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding three months , in the discretion of the court.
Frankly, I'd think this a worthwhile provision and it likewise, like the staute on cohabitation, ought to be restored.

Going from there, I'd note that in 1910 the statutes on dissolving marriages started off iwth annullement, which is now an afterthough in the statutes.  It wasn't theen, and was relatively extenisvely addressed, indicaditng that hte drafteres thought that a more likely event, potentially, then divorce.

Divorce required cause, those being:
§ 3924. Causes for divorce . 

A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the district court of the county where the parties , or one of them reside , on the application of the aggrieved party by petition , in either of the following.cases : 
First - When adultery has been committed by any husband or wife . 
Second - When one of the parties was physically incompetent at the time of the marriage , and the same has continued to the time of the divorce . 
Third - When one of the parties has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment therefor in any prison , and no pardon granted , after a divorce for that cause, shall restore such party to his or her conjugal rights . 
Fourth - When either party has wilfully deserted the other for the term of one year . 
Fifth - When the husband or wife shall have become an habitual drunkard . 
Sixth - When one of the parties has been guilty of extreme cruelty to the other . 
Seventh - When the husband for the period of one year , has negected to provide the common necessaries of life , when such neglect is not the result of poverty, on the part of the husband, which he could not avoid by ordinary industry . 
Eighth - When either party shall offer such indignities to the other , as shall render his or her condition intolerable . 
Ninth - When the husband shall be guilty of such conduct as to constitute him a vagrant within the meaning of the law respecting vag- rancy . 
Tenth - When prior to the contract of marriage or the solemnization thereof, either party shall have been convicted of a felony or infamous crime in any state , territory or county without knowledge on the part of the other party of such fact at the time of such marriage . Eleventh - When the intended wife at the time of contracting mariage, or at the time of the solemnization thereof shall have been pregnant by any other man than her intended husband and without his knowledge at the time of such solemnization . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1571 ; R. S. 1899 , § 2988. ] 

 Evidence was required:

§ 3947. Corroborating evidence required . 

No decree of divorce, and of the nullity of a marriage, shall be made solely on the declara- tions , confessions or admissions of the parties , but the court shall in all cases require other evidence in its nature corroborative of such declarations , concessions or admissions . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1597 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3011. ] 

§ 3948. Proof of adultery insufficient when . 

In any action brought for divorce on the ground of adultery , although the fact of adultery be established , the court may deny a divorce in the following cases: 

First - When the offense shall appear to have been committed by the procurement , or with the connivance of the plaintiff . 

Second - When the offense charged shall have been forgiven by the injured party and such forgiveness shall be proved by express proof , or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties with the knowledge of the offense . 

Third - When there shall have been no express forgiveness and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties but the action shall not have been brought within three years after discovery by the plaintiff of the of fense charged . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1598 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3012. ] 

Provisions were provided for to restrain and examine the husband during divorce proceedings, but not the wives.

Again, the old law here would work, or at least it would with modification. Would anyone be bold enough to suggest it be restored.

I doubt it, and therein lies an element of built in hypocrisy of the modern populist social warrior.  To really get at the core of this, you have to get to the core of it.  But hardly anyone is willing to even contemplate what that means.

Lubnau has pointed out that, at one time, the laws were much more restrictive in conservative Wyoming.  In the 1970s, the Republican Party, not the Democrats, radically liberalized them.  But not only did the US become much more liberal, all society did as well, for good or ill (probably mostly for ill).  Many of those who carry the banner for a return to what they regard as having been great aren't prepared to go back to what that really meant, but like Dr. Zhivago states in the novel, an operation cutting out corruption, if that's what you are really doing, is a deep operation.  

Put another way, you can't really address these social issues unless you are prepared to go to the very core of them, and that would mean addressing male/female, male/male, female/female "adult" relationships at their core.  The only thing that the populist far right is really willing to do is to address homosexuality in its various expressions. But that's relatively rare, and if you aren't willing to go further, and say that those relationships outside of marriage are wrong, and that you marry once and for life, well then, you really are just pointing fingers.

Our perfunctory favorite couples again.

Footnotes:

* This bill provides an example of  why the Wyoming Democrats go nowhere.  There's no reason for the Democratics here to be the party of death, like they insist on being elsewhere, and bills like this keep moderate Republicans who would cross over from doing so.  This is particularly the case as this bill stands less than 0 chance of being introduced.



Wednesday, January 3, 2024

The 2024 Election, Part X. Your money where your mouth is edition, sort of?


The last edition started wiping out everything on the front page for some glitchy computer reason, and was hard to post in. So, already on to a new one, with which we start with this interesting item:

November 21, 2023 

But there happen to be better numbers than the ones Cohn and his prophesizing colleagues are citing. And they show Biden well ahead. The prediction markets for elections — essentially investors putting money on candidates — has a Biden win trading at 43 cents, which implies a 43% chance of victory, according to the Financial Times. Trump is trailing at 37 cents, while the other candidates are long shots.

What might make these markets a better indication of the candidates’ prospects than those political polls? For one thing, they have a better record of accurately predicting the winner.PredictIt is currently the biggest legal site for political-prediction trading in this country. 

A smaller political predictions market is Iowa Electronic Markets, at the University of Iowa. Like PredictIt, the Iowa market operates under the academic exception made by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). PredictIt works in a nonprofit arrangement with Victoria University in New Zealand.

The Financial Times sets forth the argument made by PredictIt founder John Aristotle Phillips that “prediction markets are a truth generator, powered by the invisible hand. ... If you trade based on fake news or half-baked punditry, you’re going to lose your money.”

From Harrop:  Actually, Biden is ‘polling’ really well in the markets.

Whose running, check the last edition, it hasn't changed.

Breaking tradition and protocol, Speaker of the House Johnson has endorsed Trump.

November 23, 2023




November 28, 2023

Koch-backed super PAC Americans for Prosperity Action endorsed Nikki Haley.

December 4, 2023

Mysterious mailers attack Wyoming lawmakers, prompt investigation

On a different note, one of the panel members on This Week came absolutely unglued at the argument that Trump is a threat to democracy.

Now, frankly, I think Trump is a threat to democracy.

However, the commentator's point was a good one, which was that the Democrats don't believe that.  His argument was that if they did, they wouldn't be fielding Biden.

Now, I think many Democrats are correct that Trump is very much a threat to democracy, but it is hard to ignore the fact that it's hard to believe their sincerity in the argument when they only think they're will got five voters is a warmed over Cup of Joe.  People keep asking to see the menu, but the waitress just asks, "can I reheat that cup for you?"

Not only that, I'd note, but at the same time that Democrats are arguing that Trump is a threat to democracy, they're also arguing that all third party choices must not be considered.

Eh?

Um, in a functioning democracy they would be considered.

Of course, the reason for that is, to extend the analogy above, you might walk across the street and look at somebody else's menu.  "Hmmm. . . I think I've had enough of this coffeee, do you want to walk across the street and get some ice cream?"  What?  What, are you crazy? Ice Cream will make you fat!  Let me reheat that for you.

December 5, 2023

Doug Burgum has dropped out of the Republican contest.

While other candidates do remain, basically this race is down this Haley, DeSantis, Trump and Christie, with it appearing increasingly unlikely that Christie has a chance.

December 6, 2023

Criminal Defendant Donald Trump, in an interview with Sean Hannity, stated:

I love this guy.  He says, 'You’You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said, 'No, no, no. Other than Day One.' We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.

So, contrary to the headlines, Trump in fact confirmed that he'd act like a dictator, but confined it to a single day, which gets back to his delusional comments that anything can be done in a day.

President Biden indicated he likely wouldn't be running again, but for Trump, in which case he should not be running, as most Democrats don't want him to be and it looks like he'll lose to Trump.

Liz Cheney is hinting that she may run for the Presidency as a third party candidate.

December 17, 2023

Jefferson Davis, a man whose times have seemed to return.

Drawing his lines clearer than ever, Donald Trump unleashed a series of far right dog whistles this past week, including those that recall strongly racist and fascists elements.  To start with, regarding immigration:

TRUMP: No, nobody has ever seen anything like this. And I think we could say worldwide. I think you could go to the... you could go to a banana republic and pick the worst one, and you're not going to see what we're witnessing now. No control whatsoever. Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions. . .  insane asylums. We know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It's poisoning the blood of our country. It's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have. And I got to know a lot of the heads of these countries. They're very cunning people. Very street-smart people. If they're not street-smart, they're not going to be there very long. And when they send up those caravans, and I had it ended, we had the safest border in the history of our country, meaning the history, over the last 80 years. Before that, I assume it was probably not so bad. There was nobody around. But, we had the safest in recorded history by far. The least amount of drugs in many, many decades. The least amount of human trafficking, which is a tremendous problem. But, when you look at what's taking place now, nobody's... first of all, it's not sustainable by any country, including ours, even from a (inaudible) standpoint. And, you know, we built over 500 miles of wall. We were going to put up another 200 miles. And, we had it bought. Everything was bought. Everything was purchased. They were going to ready. It could have been done within three weeks. Another 200 miles, all done. And they didn't want to do it. When you look at the numbers of people coming in, and the numbers, Raheem, are much bigger than anyone understands. I really believe it's going to be 15 million people by the end of this year during this administration. That's larger than New York state. Ok, this is what we have.1 2

Trump also stated that immigrants would be subjected to stout entry testing, including determining if they agree with "our religion".  

And now Donald Trump has stated this at a campaign rally:

I’ll implement strong ideological screening of all immigrants…If you don’t like our religion…then we don’t want you in our country.

One Twitter commentator that I follow stated that this was the most anti-American statement he could imagine, but it really isn't.  It's a very Southern populist viewpoint, of the type that we haven't seen openly from the 1960s and which most people believed was behind us.

This is ample evidence of how a genuine problem, the absurdly high level of immigration, legal and illegal, that has existed in the country for decades now, but which has been consistently ignored, has festered in the rust belt and populist populations.  It could have been addressed in an equitable fashion before, but now it's threatening to breakout in a really malevolent fashion.  This issue alone may end up defeating Biden, and we should take Trump fully at his word in what he intends to do.

The citation to religion, we'd note, is ironic, as Trump is not a religious man in any fashion, which again demonstrates the extent to which Southern Cultural Christianity has crept into the GOP, and particularly the New Apostolic Reformation movement.  Apostolic Christianity and Judaism are full of Biblical injunctions that immigrants are to be welcomed, something that has long made conservative American Catholics uncomfortable.  But this approach that Trump has now adopted is radical in pledging a religious test for entry, something that has never existed in the country's history.  This too has been a smoldering cultural problem, although it's camouflaged here.  Prior to Ted Kennedy's redrafting of American immigration, US immigration policy strongly favored immigrant pools that reflected existing American demographics.  His reforms, adopted by Congress, changed that, and many have been uncomfortable with those changes, and this is again erupting in a malevolent fashion.

Trump also quoted Vladimir Putin about Joe Biden being a threat to democracy, which is absurd, but which again demonstrates the very weird Putin/Trump connection which has never been fully explored.

The truly scary thing here is that we seem to have gone over a tipping point where these views aren't shied away from, they're being endorsed by large segments of American society.

Footnotes:

1.  Once again, I'm left amazed by some of the ignorance and weirdness in  Trump's speech. The repetitious childishness of his speech patterns, and in this case prior to "80 years ago" "there was nobody around".

Trump just isn't right.  Why is this being ignored?

2.  Some have noted that the "poisoning the blood" language recalls Mein Kampf.  In fact, it does.  Hitler uses that line repeatedly, for example:

Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily.

The religious test quote Trump made, makes a person wonder if he's genuinely holding views of this type, although his language recalls anti desegregation Southern whites more strongly in my view.

December 20, 2023

The Supreme Court of Colorado, just as we predicted, has disqualified Donald J. Trump from appearing on the Colorado ballot.

Under the doctrine of full faith and credit, every state is now legally obligated to do the same, or at least give serious weight to Colorado’s decision.  At least some other states will follow this route and as some, like Wyoming, will decry it, it will head to the United States Supreme Court.  I’ll predict right now that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado decision, putting an end, although a precariously late one, to Trump as a candidate.

December 28, 2023

The case noted above has been appealed by the Colorado GOP to the United States Supreme Court, while at the same time, a similar effort in Michigan has failed to take Trump off of that state's ballot.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court take this matter up, which the Trump lawyers also say they will seek, it will prove to be an error and likely end up removing Trump from the race entirely.

Regarding Colorado, a surprise move by Lauren Boebert:

In a true Colorado political surprise, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert announced Wednesday night that she will abandon the congressional district she has represented for nearly three years — and seek her party’s nomination in 2024 on the other end of the state.

Boebert said she will run to represent Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, vying to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Ken Buck, a fellow Republican.

“Personally, this announcement is a fresh start following a difficult year for me and my family,” Boebert said in a video announcement on Facebook. “I will not allow dark money that is directed at destroying me to steal this seat. It’s not fair to the 3rd District and the conservatives there who have fought so hard for our victories, of which I’m incredibly grateful.”

Boebert must be in real political trouble in her district to attempt this move, which very well may fail.  She's going to have to relocate to get on the ballot, and presumably she'll have to resign her current seat when she does. 

cont:

Colorado Supreme Court Ruling in Anderson v. Griswold Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

Denver, December 28, 2023 - The Colorado Republican Party has appealed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Griswold to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the appeal filed, Donald Trump will be included as a candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot when certification occurs on January 5, 2024, unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.

Secretary of State Griswold has commented: “Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and was disqualified under the Constitution from the Colorado Ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court got it right. This decision is now being appealed. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to act quickly given the upcoming presidential primary election.”

On December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the Colorado 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot due to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court simultaneously stayed that ruling until January 4, with that stay remaining in place in the event of an appeal.

Key Upcoming Dates:

  • January 5: Deadline for Secretary of State Griswold to certify the names and party affiliations of candidates on the 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot.
  • January 5: U.S. Supreme Court conference day
  • January 20: Deadline for 2024 Presidential Primary Ballots to be sent to military and overseas voters.
  • February 12: First day 2024 Presidential Primary Ballots can be mailed to active registered voters.
  • February 26: First day of in-person voting for the 2024 President Primary.
  • March 5: Colorado 2024 Presidential Primary Day, polls close at 7:00 PM Mountain Time.

cont:

Frankly, the decision above by the Colorado Secretary of State, unless there's more to it that I don't know, is flat out wrong.  Her court has decided that Trump is unqualified. An appeal doesn't matter without an order from the appellate court staying the decision.

She's wrong.


Maine won't be the last state to decide in this fashion, and now there's a split set of decisions. The Supreme Court will have to intervene.

January 3, 2024.

Donald Trump's is appealing the ruling of the Secretary of State that Trump cannot stand for election under the 14th Amendment.

Last Edition:

The 2024 Election, Part IX. The Biggest Danger To The World Edition.


Related Threads:

Thursday, December 28, 2023

The Post Insurrection. Part VII. The Insurrectionist.

August 3, 2023

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.


Called for a Federal takeover?

The defendant will have some sort of initial appearance in court today on the latest charges.

August 15, 2023

Trump Indicted In Georgia

Make no mistake about it, this Georgia indictment is far more serious trouble for Trump than anything that came before it.

He will be convicted.

He cannot pardon himself (he can't anyway, but he'd try) for State crimes.

It's likely that he's going to go to prison.  If convicted, he will be ineligible to serve as President.  It will spark a Constitutional crisis, as he's already shown that he'll try to disregard the Constitution and his followers will as well.

It will go, in that scenario, if he were to be elected, to the Supreme Court.

The Court will rule him ineligible.  It will have to, in part because he will be, and in part because if it does not, it will destroy the Court.

A normal person, including a normal politician, wouldn't put the country through this.

August 16, 2023

But Trump, as we know, is not normal.

One thing I'm glad to see about the Georgia indictment is lawyers included in it. As a lawyer, the entire Trump episode has really drug the profession into the mud, if I'm to put it politely, and that includes the lawyers currently defending him.  

Everyone has a right to a defense, but that doesn't justify a lawyer taking any defense.  Right now, Trump would be best served by lawyers who were telling him to negotiate, not defend, and so would the nation. Instead, he'll fight it out and the lawyers who are providing him with a defense will go home with a tidy sum, probably, fate the nation irrespective.

That this earlier collection may serve time is a good thing.

August 23, 2023

Another weird blathering from the former President.



August 23, 2023

John Eastman, who traded his role as a law professor to being an advisor with a crackpot legal theory in Trump's effort to subvert the vote, surrendered to Fulton County authorities.

It's interesting in that he cited the right of attorneys to advise their clients as a defense.  Attorneys do not have a right to advise their clients, but not with made up crap that justifies anything.

But that's exactly what attorneys in the US have been doing in some instances for years, and with impunity.  If nothing else comes out of this, that this may have reached its limit is at least a good thing.

August 25, 2023

Booked in.

September 1, 2023

John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani are complaining about being indicted for giving legal advice.

Frankly, it's about time that lawyers giving batshit crazy legal advice bore some penalty for it, no matter how polished the crap may be.

Trump's trial in Georgia will be livestreamed, which I feel to be a mistake, quite frankly.

September 6, 2023

Trump has been found liable in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, so when it proceeds to trial on January 15, the only issue will be damages.

September 9, 2023

DA Wills replied to Representative Jim Jordan, giving him a dope slap.

This is thick with irony.  Not only has Willis basically told Jordan he's a butt sitting ignoramus, but Jordan's actions flew in the face of a favored populist idea that states have supremacy over the Federal Government.  Willis actually exercised an example of where the states are in fact supreme, state criminal charges.

It has also been learned that the grand jury wished to bring in broader referrals than actually resulted in charges, including one against Lindsey Graham.  I tend to agree with the prosecutor's choice to limit the number of accused to what was done, but that should be a warning signal to Trump et al. The Grand Jury was obviously irate, and the criminal jury is likely to be as well.

October 5, 2023

Mike Lindell, the "my pillow" guy who became a fanatic Trump backer, is seeing his lawyers attempt to withdraw from representation in defamation suits against him for non-payment.

All lawyers are mercenaries, something clients are oddly inclined to forget.

October 20, 2023

Sidney Powell, lawyer who supported Trump in crackpot election theories, plead guilty to six misdemeanors in Georgia, thereby avoiding trial.

It's likely that part of the deal that lead to this means she'll now turn on her former political champion, who will in turn be dissing her with nicknames soon.

In a court hearing yesterday, one of Trump's lawyers more or less called the court's judicial law clerk stupid, which was a very stupid thing to do. The court ordered an apology.

October 24, 2023

Jenna Ellis has now plead guilty, expressed remorse for having become tied up in the matter, spoke unkindly of Rudy Giuliani.

Where are all those people who were claiming the prosecutor made a strategic error in this matter?

November 14, 2023

While it will make no difference to his followers, former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis' proffer to Georgia prosecutors has been released.  In it, she states that Trump official Dan Scavino told her that Trump would refuse to leave the White House despite losing the election.  There was apparently more damaging information, but it was not released.

This came before the assault on the capitol.

Ellis recounted the exchange coming when she apologized for the lack of success in the absurd post election litigation, something that was never going to work  In reply to this Ellis recounted:
 
"And he said to me, in a kind of excited tone, 'Well, we don't care, and we're not going to leave, And I said, 'What do you mean?' And he said 'Well, the boss', meaning President Trump -- and everyone understood 'the boss,' that's what we all called him -- he said, 'The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power. And I said to him, 'Well, it doesn't quite work that way, you realize?' and he said, 'We don't care.'"

This should really lead to sedition charges against Trump, which have never been filed, in part due to the absurdly slow pace that American justice currently works at.  The fact that hasn't occured is putting Trump in a position to imperil American democracy again.  Should he live through a four-year term, should he be elected to the discredit of the country, it's not impossible to imagine him refusing to leave office.  My guess is that there certainly will be an effort to repeal the Constitutional amendment limiting Presidents to two terms.

November 22, 2023

While I failed to post it at the time, the Court in Colorado found Trump to be an insurrectionist, but then bizarrely found he could remain on the ballot.

Of interest, laymen seem to find this ruling confusing, but it isn't.  His being found to be an insurrectionist was likely a relatively easy call, given the mountains of evidence as to what occured on January 6 and thereafter.  Sooner or later, the glacially slow process will result, I suspect in his being charged with being a seditionist, and he'll be likely to be convicted.  The real question is whether that will occur in 2024, or 2029.

Anyhow, the part that's a big aggravating is the court's leaving him on the ballot, but then Colorado's judges stand for retention and this was somewhat of a safe way out of this for the Judge.  Her ruling was massive, and I've linked it in elsewhere, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find for those wishing to.  I've linked it in the following quote:

A better ruling, however, would have been that he was ineligible to be on the ballot.  Some excellent commentary for that is available here.

Now Trump's legal team is trying to certify the question of his having been an insurrectionist to the U.S. Supreme Court.  My suspicion is the Court won't take it.  If it does, this will prove to be a massive legal mistake, as my guess is that the Supreme Court would uphold the Colorado ruling.  Trump's team, however, must be worried that other courts will give the ruling full faith and credit.

Also, in an effort to have a gag order lifted, Trump found himself faced with a Federal tour de force on what they intend to show at his Federal trial. They intend to maintain that he was an agent in a conspiracy giving rise to the insurrection.

These two things together are really monumental, quite frankly. The Federal Government intends to show that Trump was a seditious insurrectionist. The Colorado trial level judge has already said he was an insurrectionist.  He's now taking this latter matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. . . if they allow the certification, which they likely will not, in an effort to hold that ruling off.

If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Colorado ruling, it may have the effect of amounting to res judicata on that issue, disqualifying him from the Presidency, and basically getting to a conviction, almost, in Federal Court before he's even tried there.

November 23, 2023

The Colorado Supreme Court is taking up the issue of the 14th Amendment in an appeal from the district court.

My prediction here is that it will adopt the district court's finding that Trump is an insurrectionist, but remand for an order depriving him of a position on Colorado's ballot.

This holding, should it come first, will then be used as a persuasive argument, or even on a full faith and credit basis, in other states.

December 1, 2023

The court in New York reimposed a gag order after a series of harassing Trump statements about the Court and its personnel.

December 7, 2023

The Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Colorado 14th Amendment case yesterday.


December 9, 2023

One I managed to miss earlier this week, Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose filed amicus briefs in the Colorado suit.

December 11, 2023

Trump will not be testifying at his civil fraud trial today, no doubt because his lawyer want him to shut up.

December 24 2023

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that Trump is guilty of insurrection, but remanded the court's decision that he wasn't subject to the 14th Amendment.  He is therefore barred from Colorado's ballot.

The Republican Party of Colorado has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review.  Trump indicates he intends to do the same.

That will prove to be a massive, campaign ending, error, should the Supreme Court take the matter up.

The Michigan Supreme Court rejected a 14th Amendment claim against Trump, holding he can remain on the ballot there.

cont:

Colorado Supreme Court Ruling in Anderson v. Griswold Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

Denver, December 28, 2023 - The Colorado Republican Party has appealed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Griswold to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the appeal filed, Donald Trump will be included as a candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot when certification occurs on January 5, 2024, unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.

Secretary of State Griswold has commented: “Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and was disqualified under the Constitution from the Colorado Ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court got it right. This decision is now being appealed. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to act quickly given the upcoming presidential primary election.”

On December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the Colorado 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot due to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court simultaneously stayed that ruling until January 4, with that stay remaining in place in the event of an appeal.

Key Upcoming Dates:

  • January 5: Deadline for Secretary of State Griswold to certify the names and party affiliations of candidates on the 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot.
  • January 5: U.S. Supreme Court conference day
  • January 20: Deadline for 2024 Presidential Primary Ballots to be sent to military and overseas voters.
  • February 12: First day 2024 Presidential Primary Ballots can be mailed to active registered voters.
  • February 26: First day of in-person voting for the 2024 President Primary.
  • March 5: Colorado 2024 Presidential Primary Day, polls close at 7:00 PM Mountain Time.
cont:

Frankly, the decision above by the Colorado Secretary of State, unless there's more to it that I don't know, is flat out wrong.  Her court has decided that Trump is unqualified. An appeal doesn't matter without an order from the appellate court staying the decision.

She's wrong.


Maine won't be the last state to decide in this fashion, and now there's a split set of decisions. The Supreme Court will have to intervene.

Last Prior Edition:

The Post Insurrection. Part V. Wyoming politicians react to the Trump Indictment and pour another heartly glass of Trump flvored Kool Aid for the voters.


Blog Mirror: Adler: A law court will affirm Colorado's ruling on Trump

 

Adler: A law court will affirm Colorado's ruling on Trump

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Lex Anteinternet: Most of the time, the Supreme Court is highly predictable. The Independent State Legislature Theory bites the dust, as everyone knew it would.

Lex Anteinternet: Most of the time, the Supreme Court is highly pred...

And this is also why nobody thinks that the Court is going to adopt the "independent state legislature theory".

That'll probably be a nine to nothing ruling, in spite of people like Robert Reich running around the streets declaring that the sky is falling, and Justice Thomas is a baddy.

Called the result correctly, but it was six to nine. Why?

Well, the dissenters thought the case was moot, due to the underlying state's Supreme Court rolling over and the result accordingly changing.

So the independent legislature theory bit the dust, and the "worry" which pundits declared had existed was mostly in fevered imaginations.  Nobody thought this goofball theory was going anywhere, and it didn't.

Friday, June 23, 2023

Owens signalling intent?

Ninth Judicial District Judge Melissa Owens expanded her series of injunctions to preclude prohibitions on abortion pills, indicating that there's a strong chance that the Plaintiffs may win in this case on the basis, she says, that abortion can be regarded as health care.

While its difficult for me to see how infanticide is health care, this is another reason to point out what we already did in this thread:

Lawsuit filed over Wyoming's abortion restriction law. . . and a cautionary tale.

As we then noted:

Back during the Obama Administration, in a fit of right wing upsettedness and paranoia, Wyoming amended its constitution as follows.

Artice 1, Section 38.

Right of health care access  

(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.  

(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.  

(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.  

(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.

You'll recall, of course, when "Obamacare" was new, and before Americans had acclimated themselves so much to it that it could not be repealed, the Republican Party was full of stories about how government panels were going to make your health care decisions for you, like it or not. This inspired early Tea Party type movements to address this, this being one of them.

Of course, the amendment goes largely unused and in spite of quite a bit of debate on masks and quarantines during the height of the pandemic, the amendment has sat dormant until now, when it was predictably noticed.  

So now this is on a trip to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Some judge is going to be asked to stay the new law until the Supreme Court can rule on it, a nightmare for whomever is tasked with this, and this isn't going to be pleasant for the Wyoming Supreme Court either.  As a hot button issue in really polarized times, no matter what they do will make somebody really angry.

In my view, abortion isn't "health care" per se, and so this amendment ought not to apply.  That will really upset people who place it in the health care category, but it really isn't.  I hold the same view, fwiw, of cosmetic surgery for "beauty" purposes.  Not to compare the two, but by example getting bigger boobs isn't a health care decision.  Abortion for avoidance of a natural biologic process isn't either, at least until you get into the topic of the physical life of the mother.

I can't help but note, however, how this right wing constitutional amendment has now swung around as a leftward one.  So now the article is being used by the left against the right. And there are other ways the same article could be.  If a legislature, for example, determines to address transgender surgery or treatment with pharmaceuticals, which I'd guess some legislators would like to do, can they?

We noted in another thread how the prime mover on this amendment noted that he'd feel awful if his amendment was interpreted in the fashion it now risks being, that person being a strong opponent of abortion.  While I admire his stance in that regard, he should feel awful.  His paranoia on a non problem has helped create a real one.