R.I.P. Rosalynn Carter and Open Thread

Rosalynn Carter has died at age 96, two days after she entered home hospice.

She and former President Jimmy Carter were married for 77 years. Here is the statement he issued today.

Our condolences to former President Carter and the entire Carter family.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Donald Trump Testifies, Ivanka's Next | Israeli Hostage Release Set for 9:00 am ET >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's a strange thing (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2023 at 04:53:33 PM EST
    that the country that elected Jimmy Carter elected Donald Trump a generation later.

    The tribute to Former First Lady, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 04:20:57 PM EST
    Rosalyn Smith Carter, at Glen Chapel of Emory University, was heartfelt. .  First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden and former First Ladies, Secretary Clinton, Mrs Bush, Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Trump were present as were Vice President Harris and the First Gentleman

     As Mrs. Carter's grandson, Jason Carter,  noted in his eulogy, the Carter family also welcomed Dr Jill Biden's and Secretary Clinton's lovely husbands. Former President Carter, who has been in hospice care since early this year,  was present  attended by several care givers.

    The Carter's son, Chip, presented a moving tribute of admiration, accomplishment and respect --"a beautiful women, and pretty to look at, too."

    Moms for 3-ways (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 12:15:18 PM EST

    Husband of `Moms for Liberty' Founder Accused of Rape
    November 30, 2023 at 12:59 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 29 Comments

    Christian Ziegler, the husband of Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, is under criminal investigation after a woman filed a complaint with police alleging the longtime Republican official had raped her, the Florida Trident reports.

    The woman also alleged that she and both Zieglers had been involved in a longstanding consensual three-way sexual relationship prior to the incident.

    Bye bye George. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Dec 01, 2023 at 10:14:39 AM EST
    If that's your real name. Santos expelled from the House. 311-114.

    Quote (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2023 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    We can't have liars and cheaters in our party




    A terrible thing for this country when (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by vml68 on Fri Dec 01, 2023 at 09:23:10 PM EST
    one of it's most accomplished citizens is treated this way ;-)!

    If you think there was crocodile tears for Henry (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2023 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    Wait till they state rolling in for Sandra Day O'Conner.

    Who gave us both Bush instead of Gore and Sam Alito to boot.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 01, 2023 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    Alito really is more the right wing having a fit over Harriet Myers.

    She said if she had to do Bush/Gore all over again she would send it back to the state. Her vote was based on feelings not the law. They basically made it up for Bush. We all paid the very expensive price. The damage has been done and yes, she's definitely responsible no matter how much she regrets what she did.

    The only silver lining about the entire mess is George W. Bush is now persona non grata no matter who you speak to these days, left or right.


    This is very funny (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2023 at 07:37:11 PM EST

    DeSantis Had to Order Bible on Amazon for Swearing-In
    December 1, 2023 at 6:25 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 323 Comments

    Ron DeSantis' staff had to quickly purchase a Bible for $21.47 on Amazon just days before the governor's inauguration in January 2019, NBC News reports.

    DeSantis, who has made big push to appeal to evangelical voters, told staffers that his family did not own a Bible.

    Said a former aide: "People are typically sworn in on something that is historic -- a family Bible or something with historic value. It was profoundly strange that he did not care at all and treated it like it was nothing."

    Hey Chuck (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 10:12:03 AM EST

    court filing gives a rare look inside the FBI seizure of a lawmaker's phone in 2020 election probe

    Just how hard did some Republican members of Congress work to keep President Donald Trump in office after his 2020 election loss? A court case is providing a few tantalizing clues," the AP reports.

    "Snippets and short summaries of texts and emails sent by Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a top Trump ally, have emerged publicly for the first time as part of a court filing that was unsealed -- perhaps inadvertently -- by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., as part of a legal battle with federal prosecutors."

    "The messages reveal more about what investigators want to know, what actions Perry took in the weeks after the election and where Perry may fit in the web of Trump loyalists who were central to his bid to remain in power."

    Garlic (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 08, 2023 at 05:04:47 PM EST

    A US senator has called for a government investigation into the impact on national security of garlic imports from China.

    Republican Senator Rick Scott has written to the commerce secretary, claiming Chinese garlic is unsafe, citing unsanitary production methods.

    Bat (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 08, 2023 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    Boy worried about the "safety" of Garlic? I will let you draw your own conclusions.

    and then god said to me, Mike.... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 04:31:06 PM EST

    Mike Johnson Compares Himself to Moses at Christian Nationalist Gala
    The House Speaker alleges God directed his path to power through the "roiling sea"

    This makes me sick to my stomach.  
    But I think my favorite part of this story is the fact a bunch of elected officials were at a "Christian Nationalist Gala" is just mentioned
    mostly in passing.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 02:36:03 AM EST
    let's ask Jesus what he thinks about this
    Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
    clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    I would surely choose a less noble animal to compare them to, but even calling them pond scum would be insulting to algae everywhere.

    Johnson is a (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    Christo-fascist nut job.

    I subscribe to the Gospel of Jane Wagner: (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 03:46:15 PM EST
    "When we talk to God, we're praying. but when God talks to us, we're schizophrenic."

    Audio-hallucinations (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 05:35:18 PM EST
    are not a sign of.normal mental health. This guy is crazier than a sh** house rat.

    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 06:16:27 PM EST
    auditory (verbal) hallucinations

    As a nonreligious person (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 06:20:18 PM EST
    hearing messages from God always makes me think of that classic Cosby skit about Noah.

    I should have included (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 06:22:21 PM EST
    Someday, I may be free (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    to tell my Cosby story.

    This doesn't sound good... (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 08, 2023 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    Oh, it's a good story, but it's from the (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 09, 2023 at 11:23:55 AM EST
    brief, four-month period when I was co-counsel on his case.  Attorney-client confidentiality and all.

    Johnson had (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    a "Red Sea Moment", he says according to the Rolling Stone link. Meaning, apparently, escape from evil to salvation.  Perhaps, his salvation and escape--was-the conversion therapy by his wife's counseling service.

    An explanation for his life-long fixation on the"evils" of the gay.  


    Norman Lear (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    Did many great things.  But..

    Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman

    and it's summer replacement

    Fernwood Tonight

    Left deep and lasting impressions on an young me.
    Its was decades ahead of it's time.  
    RIP Norman.  Thanks.

    Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    was a great TV show rich in acting, including her friends (e.g., Martin Mull and Mary Kay Place). Mary was the naive and beleaguered Fenwood, Ohio housewife. She suffered many travails which she barely navigated.  A mix of comedy and touching characters and circumstances. A miss Mary.

    Travails like (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    this made me happy to listen to (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by leap2 on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 01:13:17 PM EST
    52 missions, I can't even imagine... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    "Norman Lear became part of the 772nd Bombardment Squadron that was deployed to the Mediterranean Theater of Operations during the Second World War and served as a radio operator/gunner on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers. He received the Air Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters for flying 52 combat missions."

    I wonder if he (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Dec 08, 2023 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    knew Yossarian.

    Mr. Zorba and I (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 08, 2023 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    Wondered if anyone else would make the connection between Norman Lears military service and Catch 22. 😄

    "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    ... was as quietly subversive and underground as non-cable TV could ever get. I still think one of its funniest moments was the time when Coach Leroy Fedders drowned in a bowl of chicken soup while Mary and her friend Loretta were standing nearby, too engrossed in conversation to notice his distress.

    I never missed an episode, loved it (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 13, 2023 at 06:14:35 PM EST
    It came on late here (for Denver) -- at 11. Always watched it in bed. Louise Lasser was so great. I loved that she used to be married to Woody Allen, both such great comedians. She is 84 now, born in 1939.

    Mary Hartman and (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2023 at 08:36:29 AM EST
    Fernwood Tonight and later America Tonight warped my young mind.  In the best possible way.
    I was 15 and they changed completely what tv meant to me and what it could be.
    Star trek was the same time period.
    That too.

    I don't think it's an exaggeration (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 14, 2023 at 08:37:31 AM EST
    to say it had a lot to do with the path I took in life and career

    Happy (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 06:32:34 PM EST
    Saint Nicholas Day!

    Sad Day (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    of remembrance:  Pearl Harbor Attack, December 7, 1941.

    ... the last Japanese bombs had fallen less than three hours earlier, and the people of Honolulu and Oahu were only just then beginning to process the full scale and enormity of the military disaster that had befallen U.S. forces there.

    Historians today note that Pearl Harbor is one of a very few true watershed events in modern American lore, like the JFK assassination or the 9/11 terror attacks. For decades afterward, most of our parents and grandparents could always recall when they first learned of the Japanese assault and further, exactly what they were doing at the time. It was a moment forever preserved in the amber of their memories.

    Personally, I've found that for many visitors to Hawaii, Pearl Harbor is far less a visitor attraction than it is a personal pilgrimage, one which re-connects them to those same memories first relayed to them by their elders.

    For decades after the event, survivors of the Pearl Harbor attack would volunteer their time at the USS Arizona Memorial Center in Pearl Harbor National Historic Park, recounting for those visitors their personal recollections of that "Day of Infamy." They're almost all gone now, but those recollections have since been preserved in the video and film archives at the University of Hawaii and the National Park Service



    On the positive side of Dec 7th (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    the Medicare commercials will ease a bit.

    But only for a moment, ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 05:09:27 PM EST
    ... while they catch their breath. ;-D

    Tree (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 11, 2023 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    Cute little (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 11, 2023 at 05:06:38 PM EST
    in what we call in my husband's family a "Charlie Brown" tree. Are you down to one dog now and is that dog behaving better?

    He has been renamed (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 11, 2023 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    Little Man.  He grew out of Little Sh!t by around his third birthday.  Which just happened.  
    They grow up so fast.

    Our dog hangs out with our cats. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 13, 2023 at 09:22:25 AM EST
    When he's by his lonesome self and around us, he's very canine-like, loves attention and loves to play. But when he's with the Three Stooges (as Younger Daughter has dubbed our felines), he becomes as non-chalant about our presence as they are. His personality is such that he wants to look cool and fit in with whatever crowd he's with at the time.

    Nice (none / 0) (#119)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 12, 2023 at 05:39:34 PM EST
    The news (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 16, 2023 at 08:02:28 AM EST
    reported yesterday that national security information regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election has gone missing. Cassidy Hutchinson seems to think Mark Meadows stole the documents. I guess the GOP doesn't want us to find out the truth but we already knew Bill Barr was covering this up.

    Merry Christmas (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    all you talk left people.

     I have an 8 pound Petit Jean ham in the oven.  It smells great.

    as well! (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by leap2 on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    I'm about to pop three loaves of no-knead bread into a very hot oven. To take to a friend's gathering this evening. Along with homemade hummus and frozen raspberries from this summer's crop. All gifts that are consumable! I think she's baking a leg o'lamb.

    No knead (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 07:05:53 PM EST
    bread is life altering. LOL. I first started baking it when I found it on YouTube during the pandemic on the Jenny Can Cook channel run by former talk show host Jenny Jones. Now I can have bread in a few hours using the faster no knead bread recipe. Do you do the overnight rise? I have not tried that version.

    Yeah, I do (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by leap2 on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 10:57:08 PM EST
    the overnight rise. It gives the bread a quasi-sour quality, which is really, really tasty. I pretty much follow that New York Times recipe, which where I first learned of it. Now that I have a dedicated flour milling machine (oooooo! I so love this thing! What a taste difference with freshly milled flour.) I'm going to try using 1/3 rye with 2/3 whole wheat next, with caraway, cocoa powder, and coffee. Wonder how this will come out? Probably pretty heavy. But it can't be bad. Especially toasted.

    Merry Christmas (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    to you too! I have never heard of that brand of ham but it looks local and good.

    Ham (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    Ham in oven for Christmas Eve (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    here also.  With chard, green beans, home-made (gluten-free) corn bread. Tomorrow morning, bagels and lox for breakfast after opening presents. Oldest daughter, son-in-law, and one grandchild (5 y/o) with us this time. They will leave after lunch tomorrow for Christmas dinner with the kid's other grandparents, about 125 miles away into north central PA. All offspring will gather by video-call later for the traditional out-loud read-around of "The Night Before Christmas." Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

    Merry Christmas (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    to you too! I have never heard of that brand of ham but it looks local and good.

    Happy Holidays (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    to Jeralyn and her family. And, to all TL colleagues, and theirs.

    Same to you (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    Dan. I hope the holidays are wonderful for you. I am trying to ignore politics and practice gratefulness for the holidays.

    Fa la la la la... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 24, 2023 at 09:34:28 PM EST
    It has finally gotten to the point where I look older than Santa Clause.

    Happy Holidays!!

    And speaking of the entire Carter family (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 20, 2023 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    The circle will be unbroken.

    A U of R (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 21, 2023 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    history prof friend of mine met both Roselyn and Jimmy years ago, and said he was much more impressed by Roselyn.

    I bet Jimmy wouldn't mind at all someone saying that.


    Happy (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 22, 2023 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    Hoppy T-day (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 23, 2023 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    Happy Thanksgiving (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 23, 2023 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    I had a neighbor over and we had quite a spread.  We both decided to avoid family gatherings this time.

    We had -- and still have -- a full house (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    Three grown daughters and their spouses (all folks we like), and three grandchildren (ages 5, 4 and 1). And an extra dog. Big traditional Thanksgiving Day dinner that everyone pitches in to make together in our kitchen.

    How (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    wonderful that you have your entire family together!

    Family gatherings (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 05:53:49 PM EST
    are getting more difficult for some.  Half the country still says they want Trump to be president.

    I guess I am the skunk at the picnic.  I'm find it really hard to talk about the weather or whatever else with people who want Trump to be president.
    It's not like people who wanted Bush, or Dole, or Romney to be president.  It's not politics.

    But I know I'm not alone.

    I'm glad you are home and healing.  


    I'm with you. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 06:32:31 PM EST
    At this juncture, it's my opinion that anyone who STILL supports that guy is mentally unhinged. I refuse to fraternize, socialize or harmonize with anyone who still thinks he should be POTUS. I don't trust their judgement, I have no respect for their opinions, no matter the subject.

    It's worse (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    for me, because I get along very well with my two living siblings.  Even politically, one to one, we speak the same language.

    But their families, their entire families, are card carrying cult members.
    They both personally understand this.  They know why I don't cone.


    I watch (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 08:48:29 AM EST
    the Bulwark podcast on YouTube and they were talking about this very thing. I have experienced this being my mother and brother were Trumpers. However since the insurrection and the indictments they don't mention him anymore. Since my mother moved into a retirement village she can't host Thanksgiving anymore. As for me when they would start political conversations I would just get up and leave the room. There is no reasoning with them. I will never understand the appeal.

    We have no political disagreements (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 26, 2023 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    in the family, luckily. (Except one son-in-law's parents, whom we only see once a year or less. And they are really nice people, other than being politically and religiously quite conservative.) Even so, I can't recall a single political conversation during the entire five or six days we were together this week. Not even middle east stuff, where we might have some disagreements (left-liberal vs radical, basically).

    I hope (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    everybody had a great Thanksgiving.

    For those that don't know I fell down the stairs at my house because I was carrying my blind and deaf dog. So I was in the hospital early November and I am still recovering. So I only fixed a few sides and had to do that over the span of several days. Even with all that it was a nice thanksgiving because I had my both sons, my daugther in law and my grandson here.

    Glad you're recovering OK.. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    stairs can be a real hazard.

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    It has been no fun.

    ohmygosh (none / 0) (#12)
    by leap2 on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    Stairs, ladders, and bathrooms. Those keep ERs hopping. I've been so wary of stairs, ever since a college friend fell down stairs at her home a few years ago. She was suddenly paralyzed from the neck down to her feet. And died about 10 months later, after a slow/fast decline. Just horrible, and freaked out all of us. Now when I go down stairs, I hang on to at least one rail. Sometimes that's all there is. And if I am carrying something, I go down one step at a time, sideways. I toss/roll my laundry bag down the stairs to the basement where the washing machine is. To hell with carrying that!

    I'm so glad you are doing OK. That is not fun or funny.


    Yes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 08:51:03 AM EST
    at the hospital the nurses and techs told me I was extremely lucky though it seems the way I went down which was flat on my back would be less chance of something worse happening.

    So glad you are recovering (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 07:26:44 PM EST
    and that you had your family this holiday. I am just learning of this and I hope you will keep us updated. Did you break anything? I hope not.

    I fell out of bed and broke a rib just before Thanksgiving three years ago. Not realizing it was broken, I went back to bed. The next day I  had an x-ray or cat scan-- and learned it was broken. Since I had broken a different rib a few years before, I knew there is no treatment for broken ribs (except for pain pills, which thankfully, they liberally prescribed and renewed until the pain was gone. Today, thanks to the Global Holy Warriors (DEA), they try to send you home with aspirin or ibuprofen).

    Do you have Medicare? (Please don't be insulted if you are too young for Medicare, I don't know anyone's age here!) Medicare sent two home nurses every week for 4 weeks to give me physical and occupational therapy. It helped and it's completely free with Medicare.

    Happy Thanksgiving and I'll put up an open thread soon.


    I have/had (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 08:58:01 AM EST
    a compression fracture on T-12 and L-1. I had kypoplasty where they inject bone cement into the vertebrae. So I am up and walking around. I still have pain and can't stand for a long time or even sit for more than a few hours but I am slowly getting less pain and more mobility every day. I had to stay in the hospital until they could get me into surgery because the first night they said they would not send me home with pain meds. Then the next night they said they would send me home with 7 days of pain meds but couldn't guarantee I would get into surgery within 7 days. I'm 63 so I don't qualify for Medicare yet and am dealing with private insurance. I am guessing I will be spending the next 6 months dealing with the bills and trying to get them paid.

    My stepfather broke his ribs a couple of times. It was nothing but pain like you said and he just had to wait for them to heal. He has some sort of brittle bone disease which makes it worse for him.

    The hospital said I should get physical therapy but I haven't gotten into a follow up with the family practice doctor yet because unbeknownst to me my family practice closed and am now having to go to another doctor.

    It's been like a comedy of errors.


    On the subject of pain (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    I watched both series about the Oxy disaster.  Dopestick on HULU and Painkiller on Netflix.

    Both are good and will probably shock you.  It shocked me and I live pretty much ground zero. And have addicted relatives.

    According to the NYTimes data my drugstore (at the time) was a major offender.  More than 3 million pills in the few years they counted.  Thats insane the population of the county is about 15000.


    After (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    having so much back pain I can definitely see how someone can get addicted. Just this week a lady on our community board said that her husband was in a car wreck and got addicted to pain pills and lost his career of 17 years and she was having to start all over with 2 young children. For me they only took the edge off the pain and maybe that is by design. My brother runs a pain clinic in SC and he said the best that I would get is taking the edge off. The side effects also weren't worth it. Motrin works better for me.

    I wonder if there some sort of knowlege about who prescribes these and people come from other areas to get the pills hence so many being prescribed in your town.


    A few years back (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    The Times put together an opioid database that I'm sure is still online if you look for it.

    It turns out every pill is tracked.  They know, to the pill, where they were sold.  I'm sure someone knows who bought them but that part was not in the published data.  Just the drugstore.

    In my county, at the time, there was 2 drugstores that accounted for almost all of it.  Both owned by the same guy.
    Still runs them both as far as I know.

    In most counties, they literally list every drugstore and the numbers for each, Walmart was the tops.  In that country no Walmart.


    I think this is it (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    I never really thought about stairs. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 02:10:59 AM EST
    At least, not until I came to southern France a week ago and have been staying in my sister's 1,000-year-old hometown in Provence. (I leave tomorrow afternoon.)

    Now, I'm acutely conscious of them because the terrain around here outside Nice and Antibes is mostly these incredible (and sometimes quite steep) hills with narrow streets that wind around, and sidewalk shortcuts up- and downhill that are often cement staircases with steps of varying widths which, more often than not, have no handrails. One really must pay attention and watch one's own steps around here.

    I'm so sorry to hear of your recent fall and hospitalization, and I am glad that you are on the mend and have your family around you. We're now of that certain age where we must confront the fact that we're no longer spring chickens. I fell a few months ago in Honolulu near City Hall and it happened so fast that I was already face-first on the ground before I even realized that I had fallen. Fortunately, the only thing hurt was my pride. I have to learn to pick my feet up a little higher when I walk.

    Take care and get well soon. Aloha.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 08:58:33 AM EST

    Sorry to hear about the fall. (none / 0) (#37)
    by coast on Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    I hope you have a speedy recovery.  I'm sure having your kids, your daughter in law, and your grandson helped pick up your spirits.  Get well!

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    Yes, having family around really helped though none of them are far away. My oldest son lives about 15 minutes down the road and my other son is in Atlanta.

    Republican grooming. (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    The Indianola (Iowa) Middle School District's Respect Quote of the Day,  "My honor is my loyalty"  by Heinrich H.

    Apparently, the District used the initial H. So that the Iowa's Connor and Maddie  would not get their Heinrich's mixed-up.  But this nice quote is from Heinrich Himmler. Reichsfuhrer of the Schutzstaffel (SS), and among architects of the Holocaust.

    But, we can't vote for President Biden because of the 2022 cost of     eggs.   Can it be any clearer that the 2024 election is between democracy and fascism?

    I hope (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    voters get it together before 2024 or we are gonna be in a heck of mess as a country.I am so sick of hearing Biden is old. NSS. It was one of the reasons he was at the bottom of my list in 2020 but here we are and IMO he needs to turn that into a postive talking about how he has experience and life events that make him uniquely qualified for these crazy times. There are times however I think he doesn't really get it and is stuck in this 1970's mindset where the GOP is the "honorable opposition"

    From actuary tables: (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 03:09:26 PM EST
    An 81-year old (Biden)life expectancy is  7.82 years. A 77 and a half-year old (Trump) life expectancy is 9.7 years.  Also, Biden is the incumbent and would be expected to run for a second term, given his excellent presidential record and barring serious health conditions.   Age is not a serious health issue.

    Moreover, it as not as if the Constitution does not provide for succession--but, of course, this is a major part of the "age issue", the first in line of succession is a woman, and not just a woman, but a Black woman.  

    I believe President Biden is a savvy politician and knows exactly what the Republican Party of today (and even the Party of the past) is all about. But, he is president of the United States and sees his responsibility to unite and, for the good of the country, to be able to govern  with these miscreants as best he can.

    However, the re-election campaign, as in the mid-terms, needs to take the governing gloves off and call a fascist a fascist. That, too, is for the good of the country.

    (Sorry to learn of your fall, glad to know that the injuries and you are on the mend..  Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Dan).


    THanks (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    for the well wishes.

    Yes, Kamala is one of the issues and no one is worse than the one dubbed Nimrata Randhawa by the Trumpers. Conservative women appear to have some serious internalized misogyny and Nikki pushing misgynoir is only really hurting herself. But maybe she realizes she is never going to win the primary and is playing for the base. She also appears to have no self respect.


    The media (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    is trying to make Nikki a thing.  They tried with DuhSantis , but they must never have noticed his charmlessness. In any event. It is too late, the ship has sailed.  Maybe, just hoping for an iceberg.

    Ironically (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 25, 2023 at 04:35:51 PM EST
    DeSantis is supposed to be getting endorsements from more Republicans like Brian Kemp. Kemp being plantation himself is kind of not surprising. DeSantis is a fellow traveler with Kemp in signing all the think tank trash leglislation.

    However so far all this has done is make 40% or so of the GOP base mad. Frankly I would much rather face DeSantis than Trump. DeSantis signed a lot of very bad legislation and has one of the worst economies if not the worst in the US.


    I love this (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 26, 2023 at 02:17:39 PM EST

    Biden Says Concerns About His Age Are `Stupid'
    November 26, 2023 at 1:46 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 149 Comments

    President Biden dismissed concerns about his age as "stupid" while shopping in Nantucket, Massachusetts over the weekend, The Messenger reports.

    More malicious and bad-faith (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 26, 2023 at 07:56:19 PM EST
    than stupid, I would say.

    That was a totally bizarre scene (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 02:17:40 AM EST
    The only one asking Biden about his age was that Fox News reporter, who then went on the air live and said that questions continue to linger about the president's age, completely heedless of the fact that he was the only member of the accompanying press corps who had asked such a question. What an idiot!

    This (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 07:34:10 AM EST

    The reporter did get some blowback from critics over crediting the age question to "a reporter" rather than to himself.

    I wonder if this means (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 29, 2023 at 07:21:53 PM EST
    some kind of good news is coming?  His rants often do.

    Trump Unleashes Grievances, Warnings in 24-Hour Rant
    November 29, 2023 at 4:18 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 128 Comments

    Donald Trump "has spent the last 24 hours on Truth Social unleashing a torrent of grievances, vengeful promises and links to online conspiracy theories about his political rivals," Axios reports.

    And speaking of good news (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 29, 2023 at 09:15:15 PM EST
    Notorious war criminal Henry Kissinger is finally dead. One of many to be wrongly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Look for reckless descriptions of him as "respected" and "statesman."

    Well, that's because Kissinger WAS respected. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 29, 2023 at 10:11:55 PM EST
    He just wasn't respected by people like you and me.

    Henry Kissinger was the Prince Klemens von Metternich of our time, a brilliant Cold War-era foreign policy analyst who was perhaps far too keen to maintain the balance of power between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. for anyone's good, regardless of the costs, particularly in his reflexive resistance to Soviet expansionist tendencies in Central Europe and elsewhere.

    In my estimation, Kissinger's biggest and most considerable failing was his tone-deaf and amoral indifference to the immediate and long-term consequences of his diplomatic machinations upon the hoi polloi of the world, who I imagined he saw as inconsequential to his mission.

    As a result, the people of Chile and Argentina paid an enormous price for Kissinger's advice to presidents Nixon and Ford to support the military coups in those countries, with the result being tens of thousands of their citizens either killed or simply "disappeared."

    Kissinger was the ultimate pointy-headed intellectual in the ivory tower, an academic at heart whose diplomatic legacy is a decidedly mixed bag of actual accomplishments that advanced the cause of peace, and some incredibly dubious decision making which ultimately led to tragic outcomes for millions of people on the ground.



    you are sure (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by leap2 on Wed Nov 29, 2023 at 10:47:01 PM EST
    more polite than I am!

    I come here not to praise Henry Kissinger ... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    ... but rather, to bury him. While some may quite understandably take issue with me on this, there's really no denying Kissinger's considerable intellect and superior knowledge of the intricacies of world affairs. Therefore, I tend to not get too emotional about these matters because more often than not, emotion will cloud one's judgment.

    Personally, I think Dr. Kissinger's Achilles' heel was his subscription to the "Great Man Theory" of leadership as described by historian Thomas Carlyle, who argued that history is but a compilation of successive biographies of unique, influential and accomplished men (and the occasional woman).

    I've little doubt that Kissinger defined himself in rather Machiavellian terms as someone who operated freely in the exclusive world of the wealthy and powerful individuals of our era. Perhaps he even saw himself as one of Carlyle's great men of history. Unfortunately, although he very well could have been a great, he most decidedly was not.

    Rather, what Kissinger was during the years he served as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State was an accomplished manipulator of events in service of the status quo.

    In fact, it was his absolute devotion to that status quo, his myopic view of the "New World Order" through the warped prism of Cold War-era politics and international rivalries, and his personal belief that he operated in a higher realm which ultimately detached him from the often-tragic long-term consequences of his decision making and advice to our country's leaders.

    And that amoral detachment of his would prove so terribly costly for the untold millions of people who reside in the post-colonial disorder of the Third World, and who remained acutely vulnerable to the Big Power machinations of the Cold War. The humanitarian disasters which took place in southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America during that era haunt us to this day, and I fear they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

    Yes, Henry Kissinger was highly instrumental in the ongoing effort to prevent a repeat of the two previous 20th century bloodbaths which occurred in Europe and the Mediterranean. But in so doing, he and others instead ensured that those bloodbaths happened by proxy elsewhere in the mostly non-white locales of the Third World.

    And that perpetual post-colonial era chaos, I would argue, is the tragic legacy which Henry Kissinger has bequeathed to us. Because history is much more the recurring story of reality and consequence, than it is of those people who saw themselves as its so-called players in their own respective moments in time.

    Anyway, that's simply my own opinion on Kissinger as an academic. Others surely have theirs, which are equally valid for further public and often lively discussions.



    One less open spot in heaven (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    (Rosalyn Carter).

    And one less open spot in hell. May Kissinger feel the burn he inflicted on thousands of Cambodians for many centuries.


    Kind of a tie, I would say, between (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    his cruelty to Cambodia and to Chile.

    People are kidding themselves (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 07:00:05 PM EST
    if they entertain the notion that neocons are any sort of improvement over Kissinger.

    It's the same underlying ethos: assert U.S 'hegemony' and interests world-wide regardless of the cost in lives and resources.


    Every place but (none / 0) (#57)
    by leap2 on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 11:56:43 PM EST
    Cut down in the shank of life. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 05:56:13 PM EST
    Purported accomplishment are subordinate to his wretched morality.

    next up: (none / 0) (#44)
    by leap2 on Wed Nov 29, 2023 at 10:48:28 PM EST
    Dick "Dead-eye" Cheney

    "Notorious war criminal Henry Kissinger ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 01:22:12 AM EST
    is finally dead."

    For now.


    I like this (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 10:21:18 AM EST

    Henry Kissinger, war criminal beloved by America's ruling class, finally dies.

    Victoria Nuland (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    probably has a seventies-groupie 'plaster cast' of Kissinger on her mantelpiece.

    Re-gagged (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    God does what he does (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 03:43:17 PM EST

    Perry texted Clark, "POTUS seems very happy with your response. I read it just as you dictated," according to court records.

    Then, Clark responded: "I'm praying. This makes me quite nervous. And wonder if I'm worthy or ready."

    "You are the man. I have confirmed it," Perry wrote back, late at night on December 30, 2020. "God does what he does for a reason."

    Scott Perry's texts reveal details about efforts to overturn Trump's loss in 2020

    Another one (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    To rot in hell.

    A local group around here has been formed, Republicans Against Perry.

    The Democratic slate is large. I think there are 5 announced candidates. I can remember when they had to scrape to get one Dem to run for this seat.

    I think our best bets are either former USMC pilot Mike O'Brien or former WGAL anchor Janelle Stelson. I sent O'Brien a check the same day he declared. I was unaware of Stelson's intentions at that time. I'll be happy with either as the Dem candidate. Stelson has great name recognition around these parts. She was on WGAL for many years.


    This is a big deal (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2023 at 07:35:24 PM EST
    There were two important decisions (none / 0) (#65)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 02, 2023 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    yesterday:  Judge Chutkan's rejection of Tr*mp's motion to dismiss the D.C. election-interference criminal case, linked by Howdy. The judge ruled that a President does not enjoy lifelong immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office. (Duh.)  But equally important, at least, the federal appeals court in D.C. ruled that Tr*mp is not immune from civil suit for any and all acts committed while serving as president, only - at most - for those within the outer bounds of the official duties of the presidency. And that when an incumbent first-termer runs for re-election, the speeches and rallies, etc., they engage in are the acts of a candidate, not official acts of the President. The court left for factual determination whether Tr*mp's January 6 rally speech was the one or the other.

    I read judge Chutkan (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 02, 2023 at 12:06:32 PM EST
    waited for the decision from the appeals court.  After the appeals court I heard a newsperspn say Judge Chutkan will decide very soon.
    I think the decision came sooner than was even expected.

    AAC championship game. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Dec 02, 2023 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    Go Tulane Green Wave. Roll Wave roll.

    This is a helluva thing (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2023 at 04:50:09 PM EST

    GOP Decision to Blur Jan. 6 Faces Has Democrats `Deeply Troubled'
    'They don't get a chance to alter that footage for the American people to be the best judge,' Rep. Annie Kuster told The Messenger

    I don't see how this is legal.  Clearly it's, at least partially, to frustrate the web sleuths who have tracked down many of these people.

    Mike Johnson, Republican (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 05, 2023 at 07:40:25 PM EST
    Speaker of the House, seems to be obstructing justice.  Running cover for those who unlawfully stormed the Capitol  as well as for his sponsor, the architect of the violent attempt to over-throw the government.

    Of course, this  coup  was euphemistically defined   as" the events of the day"., and justice for the criminal's conduct is "retaliation".  And,blurring the face of Ginni will not work, but nice try, MAGAt Mike.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    the DOJ came out with a statement that they are blurring the faces to protect the innocent. So this is not Johnson's idea but the crackpot appears to be taking credit for it until he backtracked after being accused of obstruction of justice.

    So now it has done nothing but make everybody mad as the nuts think it is to cover for the feds.


    Git a link? (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 10:09:37 AM EST
    A quick Google found no DOJ statement

    Yeah, that doesn't make a lot of sense (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    I don't think DOJ would take the position that anyone who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 after the police shut the building, but the doors and windows were then broken open, was "innocent." They might not all be suitable for prosecution, but they are not "innocent" or otherwise entitled to privacy for that action taken in a public place.

    I got mixed up (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    "Faces are to be blurred from public viewing room footage to prevent all forms of retaliation against private citizens from any non-governmental actors. The Department of Justice already has access to raw footage from January 6, 2021."

    I got it mixed up as being the DOJ that said it.



    I have (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 06, 2023 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    not found the DOJ reference either.

    They already have enough trouble (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 05, 2023 at 06:17:03 PM EST
    christian zionist/registered sex offender/militia members being associated with the GOP.

    War is brewing is South America... (none / 0) (#97)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 07, 2023 at 09:12:23 PM EST
    Maduro seems poised to annex a part of Guyana. Why? Oil, oil, oil.

    Tension is growing between Venezuela and Guyana, as Caracas said it is preparing legislation to claim Guyana's Essequibo region as its own.

    Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro on Tuesday called for a bill to create a "Guyana Esequiba" province and ordered Venezuelan companies to prepare to enter the territory to explore for fossil fuels and minerals "immediately". The move escalated tensions over the disputed oil-rich territory.

    The world (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 08, 2023 at 06:09:01 PM EST
    seems to have a fever

    Disappointing not surprising (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 10, 2023 at 04:44:37 PM EST

    Trump Won't Testify Tomorrow
    December 10, 2023 at 3:32 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 208 Comments

    In a rambling, all-caps statement posted on Truth Social, Donald Trump says he has changed his mind about testifying tomorrow at his civil fraud trial

    I guess we still get Rudy in court tomorrow

    he probably finally (none / 0) (#107)
    by leap2 on Sun Dec 10, 2023 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    listened to his attorneys, for a change. But yeah, it is disappointing.

    Wowee (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 11, 2023 at 05:26:40 PM EST

    Supreme Court Orders Trump to Respond to Jack Smith
    December 11, 2023 at 5:48 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 158 Comments

    "The U.S. Supreme Court moved at lightning speed on Monday in response to Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for the justices to get involved in its federal criminal case against Donald Trump," The Messenger reports.

    "By Dec. 20, lawyers for the former president must respond in writing to the motion from Smith seeking to get the Supreme Court engaged on the question of whether Trump can even be charged for actions he took within the `outer perimeter' of his official duties as president."

    "outer perimiter" (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 11, 2023 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    of his duties. Sheesh. How about can he be charged for plotting a coup while still in office?

    I would like to hear Peter (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 11, 2023 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    but this sounds like really good news to me.  They obviously want to get involved.  I don't think that's good for Trump.

    Apart from everything moral and legal they have a reputation to repair.  I think they might start with Trump.

    Even if they lose Thomas, Alito and Kavabro.  (Who all just desented on killing conversion therapy)


    Yes, definitely good news (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 11, 2023 at 07:46:15 PM EST
    First, that Michael Dreeben -- the best (or perhaps one of the two best) criminal appeals lawyers in the country on either side, retired just a couple of years ago as head of criminal for the Solicitor General, has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, worked a while for the Mueller investigation -- has resigned from his cushy job with a big law firm to represent the Special Counsel before the Supreme Court. Second, that the Court today ordered Tr*mp's lawyers to respond by next Wednesday whether they agree that the case should skip the intermediate appellate stage and be considered ASAP by the Supremes. Normally the deadline to respond to a S.Ct. petition is around 35 days, plus a couple of extensions often being allowed, not 9 days. On the merits, Tr*mp's argument is super-weak. An ex-President has much more protection from civil suits (which is still limited; see Clinton v Jones) than from criminal indictment.

    It is going (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 12, 2023 at 08:10:12 AM EST
    to take decades to repair the damage the conservatives have done to the supreme court. But yeah, they can at least start now but honestly as long as these federalist society clowns are on the majority on the court, the reputation is going to be very hard to repair.

    Alito is embittered (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 12, 2023 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    and retributive.  He is a danger to justice. Clarence is your basic corrupt jurist, beholden to Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow..

    The only 2 that have shown (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 13, 2023 at 11:15:33 AM EST
    the slightest deviation and I mean very slight from Federalist Society orthodoxy is Roberts and Gorsuch. The other ones are completely beholden to Leonard Leo pulling their strings. One of the reasons Project 2025 is so dangerous.

    As I have commented on (none / 0) (#122)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 13, 2023 at 02:24:45 PM EST
    several times, Congress should change the procedure by which cases are selected for consideration by the Supreme Court.  Now, of course, the cases to be heard by the Supreme Court are selected by the Supreme Court. A vote of at least four justices is required (writ of certiorari). This allows the SC to select cases in accord with an "agenda" rather than cases and disputes. And, to solicit futures cases, as Clarence has done in Dobbs.

    Such a jurisdictional/procedural change may be an effective curb on this runaway reactionary Court, in addition to Court expansion. The procedural change may be a more realistic possibility than unpacking the present Court.

     One possible alternative procedure, is for a panel of senior appellate judges to select cases for the SC to hear, based on established guidelines, such as the need to resolve conflicting findings among Circuits. And, to address other disputes.

    This reporting brings this to mind: The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a defendant arrested in connection with the Jan 6 attack can be charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

     The Court took the appeal after an appellate court allowed charges against a rioter under a law that makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding (the individual assaulted police as Congress met)

    At least 315 people have been charged by DOJ under this law and many have been convicted. And, of course, Trump is being prosecuted under this law as well.  


    Most of those convicted (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 13, 2023 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    pleaded guilty. Normally those pleas and sentences would not be affected by a later precedent narrowing the scope of the statute. That waiver is part of the plea bargaining process. As for the Tr*mp indictment, Jack Smith could voluntarily withdraw the now-dubious count and still be left with plenty to nail the Orange Menace on. In fact, that might be the prudent course.

    The NYTimes invetigative (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 17, 2023 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    reporting by Adam Liptak describes the behind the scenes conniving by Alito and other reactionary members of the Supreme Court to dismantle Roe in its ruling on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health.

    The writ of certiorari was among manipulations deployed.  The Court decided to hear the Mississippi case, with the assent of Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch--giving at least the four votes needed. Justice Barrett waffled on joining in the cert, claiming the timing was not right (she just joined the Court), but ultimately voted in favor of hearing the case, to make it five justices.

    According to the reporting, the decision to hear the case was not announced publicly at the time, but was continuously postponed, so as to create the appearance of distance from Justice Ginsburg's passing.

    The report also reports that in the dismantling procedure Mississippi was allowed to bait and switch--altering its ask--a limiting of Roe or the bold ask of overturning Roe (overturning is was).

     And, of course, the infamous leak of Alito's draft (which was, essentially, the final ruling).  Whatever the motive the effect was to cement the votes in place and to sabotage a compromise in the works by Roberts and Breyer.  


    Alito is embittered (none / 0) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 12, 2023 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    and retributive.  He is a danger to justice. Clarence is your basic corrupt jurist, beholden to Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow..

    Orange Marmalade constantly claims (none / 0) (#118)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 12, 2023 at 05:36:21 PM EST
    he did nothing wrong. So why does he need immunity?

    Big F'ing deal here (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 19, 2023 at 06:38:31 PM EST

    Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 primary ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution

    Here's my prediction.  The supremes are going to take this and kick him off the ballot.  Ending our long national nightmare and making some forget about the rampant judicial corruption.

    Saving the country from a would be Hitler would look pretty good in history books

    I would (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 19, 2023 at 07:23:05 PM EST
    like to hear what Peter has to say to this since voting is supposedly a state issue.

    And if the supremes uphold the CO ruling, does that make it so in the rest of the states?

    It would seem to me that the supremes agreeing with CO would just open it up for other states to make the claim to take Trump off the ballot. However does anyone think that red states will file?

    Trump wasn't going to win CO anyway but downticket GOP could literally be destroyed.


    Ok, so here goes: (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 19, 2023 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that "No person shall ... 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, shall have engaged in insurrection ... against the same." (Note that it did not bar all former Confederates from running for office, only those who had previously been public officials and who, by joining the rebellion, had violated their oaths of office.)
       Taking a textualist approach, the questions to be resolved are (1) whether the Presidency is an "office, civil or military, under the United States"; if so (2) whether Tr*mp, as "an officer of the United States," that is, as President, took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States"; and if so, whether his actions in connection with January 6, 2021, constituted "engag[ing] in insurrection" against the Constitution.
       I note first that this provision does not bar anyone from running for office, only from holding office. The Constitution assigns to the states the authority to manage elections, including elections for federal office. But if Colorado election law says no one can be on a primary ballot who is ineligible to assume the office for which they want to run, then the Colorado court has to determine whether Tr*mp, or any other would-be candidate, would be eligible to assume the office, just as it could bar him from running if he were not a "natural-born citizen" who had been a resident for at least 14 years, or who was not going to be at least 35 years old on January 20, 2025, as required by Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5. So, it is likewise appropriate for the Colorado state courts, enforcing its own law on qualifications to run in the primary, to decide whether Tr*mp is qualified to become President.
       Interestingly, the three dissenters from the Colorado Supreme Court decision (it was 4-3) focused only on whether the Colorado election law contemplated this sort of challenge to a candidate, whether Section 3 is "self-executing" or requires legislative implementation, and whether the procedures followed in the trial court were sufficiently fair. (I think the implementation argument is particularly weak. Section 5 of the 14th Amend, authorizes Congress to enforce the rest of the amendment by "appropriate legislation" but does not require it.) None of the three dissenters said they disagreed with a single word of the majority opinion, insofar as the majority interpreted and applied Section 3.
       The majority carefully considered all the hypertechnical arguments (which are the only available arguments) why the Presidency is not, in Constitutional terms, an office "under the United States," and thus whether the President is an "officer of the United States," and whether the oath that the President must take to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" (as set forth in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 6) is one to "support the Constitution," etc., and blew them all away. The majority likewise upheld the factual conclusion of the trial court that the events of January 6 constituted an "insurrection" (as that term if used in Section 3) "against the [Constitution]" (specifically, the parts of the Constitution that articulate how the electoral votes are to be counted and the winner of the presidential election declared). And finally, the majority that Tr*mp's own actions that day amounted to "engag[ing] in" that "insurrection."
       Because a successful challenge requires the plaintiffs to establish all of these points, the federal constitutional question is essential. That means the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, and almost certainly will have to. I know how they should rule, but I am not sure that a majority will do it.

    Just my opinion, obviously, but ... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 04:38:41 AM EST
    ... as an historian, I'll take immediate issue with anyone in a court of law who suggests that back in 1868, in the immediate wake of the Civil War and the Confederate surrender, the authors of the 14th Amendment, Section 3 intended to bar the insurrectionary likes of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis from holding public office as state treasurer, county assessor or school board chair, while still granting those traitors eligibility for the presidency.

    That defies both logic and common sense.


    For those interested in constitutional law (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    Despite my analysis above, the currently favored conservative approach to constitutional interpretation -- and thus the dominant approach these days -- is not "textualist" (which is more a technique for interpreting statutes) but rather "originalist." The intentions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment (who were the "radical Republicans," i.e., the "progressives" of their day) would be the touchstone for resolving any issues of interpretation. As Donald suggests.

    Thank you for (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    your thoughtful and sapient legal analysis.

    The Colorado Supreme Court and District Court rulings should inform the political analysis, starting with the Court's preface that they "apply law without fear or favor".

     Political pundits who clutch their pearls and head to the fainting couch screaming that this will only help Trump and there will be great umbrage, or violence, coming from the Deplorables should be put into perspective--The Trumpist cult is based on victimhood and being put upon by liberals.

    This is a place where the Constitution is there to protect us against Trump who has publicly announced his plan to do it all again and to install an anti-Constitutional government. The country needs to listen.

    To criticize the courageous Colorado rulings out of fear of retribution is just caving to the bullying and threats of violence foundational to fascism.

    The Colorado rulings established in trial court and affirmed in appeal that (l) Jan 6 was an insurrection,  (2)'Trump "engaged in" insurrection by personal actions, and (3) Trump's speech inciting the crowd that breached the Capitol was not free speech.

    Polling has indicated that about 1/3 of Republicans will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a crime.  While not conviction of a crime, being found ineligible for the Colorado ballot is a court decision that adds to the layering of wrong doing and needs to be yelled from Pike's Peak and afar, not whispered in private rooms.

    The US Supreme Court may well overturn the Colorado Supreme Court ruling on a procedural matter, such as due process and avoid digging into the merits. Chief Justice Roberts is very good at that and I expect him to come through in such a manner. Thomas and Alito know where their RV's come from and so they will readily join in as will Gorsuch, despite his one-time ruling seemingly to the contrary. Kavanaugh and Barrett will go with the Chief.

    But, the damage is done, politically, if the Democrats don't join in the chorus of "let the people decide not the courts". This despite the fact that it is the Constitution that has decided.


    Maybe Popular on this site but... (1.75 / 4) (#136)
    by SomewhatChunky on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 03:04:05 AM EST
    If allowed to stand, this is a disaster for the country.

    Peter G's detailed legal analysis would be incomprehensible to or never read by most Americans.

    Let me paraphrase it in layman's terms:  A bunch of liberal democratic appointed judges and lawyers are conspiring to get the candidate who is leading in the polls off the ballot because they hate him.

    No need for a trial or anything messy like that.   Just a decision by those with an agenda.

    It's Banana Republic stuff.  Once started, it won't stop here.


    Read the 217-page opinion first, ... (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 05:20:30 AM EST
    ... before you spew like that. The Colorado Supreme Courts decision didn't materialize out of thin air.

    The 14th Amendment, Section 3, aka the Insurrection Clause, is self-executing. It's not dependent upon legislative authorization or court finding in order to be enforced.

    Therefore, as is the case in over 20 other states, some voters in Colorado - in this instance, Republican Never-Trumpers - filed an action with the Colorado Secretary of State's office, as is their right, citing Trump's actions on Jan. 6 as a violation of the Insurrection Clause and asking that he be barred from the ballot. When she declined, they filed suit.

    The ensuing five-day trial took place earlier this fall and both sides presented their case. At its conclusion, the presiding judge found that while Trump's actions were indeed a violation of the Insurrection Clause, the presidency was not an elective office as defined under the 14th Amendment and his name could remain on the ballot.

    The plaintiffs then appealed the trial judge's nonsensical ruling that the presidency was exempt from the 14th Amendment's provisions to the Colorado Supreme Court. which heard oral arguments 17 days ago before issuing yesterday's historic reversal.

    We are a nation of law, and the law is not subject to the whims of the mob. As I noted, the Insurrection Clause is self-executing and Colorado citizens themselves filed an action to enforce it, again as is their right.

    Then-President Trump should've thought about that, before pulling the trigger three years ago by attempting an unconstitutional coup d'etat against his own government.



    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 05:59:18 AM EST
    for that. Bush v. Gore was what set us on the road to autocracy. Bush even pushed a mini insurrrection in Florida. Of course it will now haunt him forever along with the lies about Iraq.

    Sounds a little (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:06:14 AM EST
    like a threat.  Not a smart move.

    And also (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:19:06 AM EST
    ignorant that Judge Luttig, the conservative's conservative is 1/2 of the team leading the charge to have Trump removed from the ballot.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:29:16 AM EST
    logically Democrats, like Biden, are not beneficiaries of this decision.  Trump is a gift for democrats especially Biden.

    If this had happened after the primary you MIGHT make that argument.  Right now the direct beneficiaries are the other Republican candidates.

    Who by the way are all, except Asa, defending Trump.
    While they secretly pray to the court to save them.


    I know. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:53:41 AM EST
    It's so ridiculous. They all seem to have the "last man standing" strategy hoping that Democrats will solve their Trump problem for them.

    Christie hasn't weighed in that I know of but he'll probably agree with Asa.


    Christie (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    is defending Trump and trashing the decision.

    To give you a more serious answer, (none / 0) (#158)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 21, 2023 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    Chunk, than you gave me, in addition to Donald's comment:  (1) the rule of law does not depend on what "most Americans" are willing or able to read and understand; (2) there was a trial in the Colorado case, lasting five days, at which evidence of Tr*mp's role in the events of January 6 was received under oath, along with evidence showing that those events constituted an "insurrection"; whether that trial was "messy" or not, I have no idea; (3) all seven justices of the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors, although what their own party affiliations, if any, may be or have been, I don't know; but these seven Democrats all wrote thoughtful opinions and divided 4-3 in their judgments, with the 3 dissenters taking 3 different positions. The Democrat-appointed trial judge ruled in Tr*mp's favor. So the facile assumption that the judges voted according to politics is contradicted by the basic facts of the situation.

    Sarcasm doesn't mean not serious (1.50 / 2) (#160)
    by SomewhatChunky on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 01:53:09 AM EST
    Peter - one of the reasons I lurk on this site is to read what you write.  I always learn something.

    My comment, while perhaps phrased in a sarcastic tone, was serious.    Since then, there has been an outpouring of articles in the press saying the same thing as what I said.

    Like him or not, Trump is leading in the polls.  Already, other states are threatening to do whatever they can to take him off the Ballot (ME, CA, etc..), and some in Texas now want to take Biden off their ballot.

    If this becomes accepted behavior, I stand by what I said - it's a disaster for the country long-term.  It will keep happening on both sides.  Lawyers will be in charge.  There aren't many of us who want lawyers to be in charge. We elect those.

    Most people, and I'm in that group, are not willing to accept a small group of judges telling them who they can and cannot vote for based on some obscure and debatable interpretation of something they've never heard of.  "Show me the Man and I'll show you the crime" is what they do in Russia.  Not here.

    Most of us get the concept of a trial to find guilt.  There was no trial convicting Trump of Insurrection.    While lawyers can argue it both ways, most people are not lawyers. While I think, based on what I've read, it is likely the Supreme Court will overturn this, who knows?  Many right-to-life folks celebrated the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.  That has haunted the Republicans at the polls ever since.  

    I think this "lawfare" approach to getting a candidate they don't like off the ballot has the potential to do the same to the Dems.  It's not a reputation you want to have....

    It's not like Trump was offside by 20 yards.  It was 4-3 decision, with even the four admitting it was novel and expecting it to be appealed.  I treasure my right to vote - there is no way I want somebody coming up with a "novel approach" to try to take it away.  Some of the dissents were pretty strong.  Tons of ink have been used with coverage of this, with all sorts of opinions out there from many well-known legal beagles.  

    The opinions on this post defending the court are just that - opinions.  My admittedly unscientific count is there are more knowledgeable legal people speaking out against this decision than for it.  You can win an election 51-49.  If 51-49 becomes the standard for disqualifying candidates you don't like, we're no longer a democracy.


    There Was a Trial in Colorado (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 09:46:13 AM EST
    Evidence was presented over 5 days in front of District Court Judge Sarah Wallace.  Trump lawyers were present to argue against it.  Judge Wallace analyzed the evidence and wrote a report about it saying the Trump was guilty of instituting an insurrection.  What petit jury in the US writes a report to explain their reasoning?  If you think all important fact finding legal decisions are made by a jury in the US, you are quite mistaken.

    Nobody on the Colorado Supreme Court disputed the facts.  The objections to kicking Trump off the ballot had to do with procedural matters.


    It was not the sarcasm that lacked (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 01:40:33 PM EST
    seriousness. I enjoy sarcasm as much as anyone. It was the idea that we don't have to follow the Constitution (all of it, including its lesser-known provisions) in running the essential functions of our government, such as choosing our leaders. There is nothing "undemocratic" about excluding someone from running who is disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment's oath-violator insurrection clause any more than it is undemocratic to prevent someone from running who was not born in the United States, or who has already been President for two terms, no matter how popular. By your logic, it would be improper to bar Barack Obama from running again (who, by the way, might win again if he could run). And even more to the point, the entire method of choosing the President under the Constitution is undemocratic; it's called the Electoral College. As we know from a number of relatively recent elections, the candidate who receives more votes nationwide is in no way guaranteed to be declared the winner. What could be less democratic than that?

    Different opinions are OK with me (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by SomewhatChunky on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 10:38:44 PM EST
    I won't repeat the many points on this argument anyone can read in the press.  

    It seems to me the two main points of view on this topic are a version of what I've said and the other agreeing with what Peter says.

    We'll see what the Supreme Court does.  If they take the case.  

    The buck stops there.


    BS (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 23, 2023 at 05:57:55 AM EST
    You take the most extreme position  
    A bunch of liberal democratic appointed judges and lawyers are conspiring to get the candidate who is leading in the polls off the ballot because they hate him.
    Which is pretty much straight out of Trump's mouth.
    Then you come back and insist that you want a reasonable nuanced discussion. You pull this agressive/passive sht every time you show up.

    I don't recall ever voting (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 04:48:49 PM EST
    to allow weapons of war onto my streets, yet the numbers killed by high powered assault weapons in this country is staggering, JUST THIS YEAR. No, that was decided by a "small group" of judges.

    The 14th Amendment was passed for good reason. Good reason that stands today. You want to change that, that you can vote on. But until that day, it stands as part of the law of the land. And it should be applied where appropriate. Even to Orange Marmalade.

    My druthers for that POS as somewhat more harsh. Voicing my option for him would probably get me banned from TalkLeft.


    What? (3.67 / 3) (#164)
    by BGinCA on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    "Most people, and I'm in that group, are not willing to accept a small group of judges telling them who they can and cannot vote for based on some obscure and debatable interpretation of something they've never heard of."

    The 14th Amendment to the constitution???


    Chris Christie said likewise. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 26, 2023 at 01:18:33 AM EST
    As a former U.S. attorney who hardly ever passes up an opportunity to tell people that he's a former U.S. attorney, Gov. Christie ought to be ashamed of himself.

    There's no place in government for a "Cafeteria Constitutionalist" like that, who picks and chooses what provisions of our U.S. Constitution to either invoke when desired or ignore when inconvenient.

    You either support the Constitution unequivocally, or you don't.


    Sarcasm doesn't mean not serious (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by SomewhatChunky on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 01:53:46 AM EST
    Peter - one of the reasons I lurk on this site is to read what you write.  I always learn something.

    My comment, while perhaps phrased in a sarcastic tone, was serious.    Since then, there has been an outpouring of articles in the press saying the same thing as what I said.

    Like him or not, Trump is leading in the polls.  Already, other states are threatening to do whatever they can to take him off the Ballot (ME, CA, etc..), and some in Texas now want to take Biden off their ballot.

    If this becomes accepted behavior, I stand by what I said - it's a disaster for the country long-term.  It will keep happening on both sides.  Lawyers will be in charge.  There aren't many of us who want lawyers to be in charge. We elect those.

    Most people, and I'm in that group, are not willing to accept a small group of judges telling them who they can and cannot vote for based on some obscure and debatable interpretation of something they've never heard of.  "Show me the Man and I'll show you the crime" is what they do in Russia.  Not here.

    Most of us get the concept of a trial to find guilt.  There was no trial convicting Trump of Insurrection.    While lawyers can argue it both ways, most people are not lawyers. While I think, based on what I've read, it is likely the Supreme Court will overturn this, who knows?  Many right-to-life folks celebrated the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.  That has haunted the Republicans at the polls ever since.  

    I think this "lawfare" approach to getting a candidate they don't like off the ballot has the potential to do the same to the Dems.  It's not a reputation you want to have....

    It's not like Trump was offside by 20 yards.  It was 4-3 decision, with even the four admitting it was novel and expecting it to be appealed.  I treasure my right to vote - there is no way I want somebody coming up with a "novel approach" to try to take it away.  Some of the dissents were pretty strong.  Tons of ink have been used with coverage of this, with all sorts of opinions out there from many well-known legal beagles.  

    The opinions on this post defending the court are just that - opinions.  My admittedly unscientific count is there are more knowledgeable legal people speaking out against this decision than for it.  You can win an election 51-49.  If 51-49 becomes the standard for disqualifying candidates you don't like, we're no longer a democracy.


    Opps (3.00 / 1) (#162)
    by SomewhatChunky on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 01:56:22 AM EST
    I don't know that or how to delete the duplicate.  My apologies.

    I can see them (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 19, 2023 at 08:20:25 PM EST
    disagreeing with CO and using that to show fairness and balance while they deny all those presidential immunity cases coming their way.

    Or, (none / 0) (#134)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 19, 2023 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    the inverse.  

    ... in the news for something other than a hand job in a crowded Denver theatre with young children present nearby.

    How Is Amendment 14, Sec 3 to be Enforced? (none / 0) (#131)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 19, 2023 at 08:02:44 PM EST
    From this article

    An 1869 case involving Caesar Griffin, a Black criminal defendant, is considered the first major judicial opinion on Section 3, according to a 2021 law review article from Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University who has extensively studied the provision. In that case, Chief Justice Salmon Chase, serving as the circuit judge who heard cases in Virginia, held that the text of Section 3 was not self-executing and therefore could only be enforced through an act of Congress.
    I have not been able to fathom why nobody in Congress has taken Justice Chase seriously and introduced such an act.

    Other constitutional scholars beg to differ. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 07:19:57 AM EST
    "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." In November 1868, the Supreme Court held in Paul v. Virginia that the Privileges and Immunities Clause - Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution - is self-executing. This is, to my recollection, the first instance in which SCOTUS specifically addressed the issue.

    The Griffin case cited by that Washington Post article was a ruling by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase that was issued in his concurrent capacity as a federal circuit judge, which was then a common practice for SCOTUS justices of his era. Because it was NOT a decision of the entire Supreme Court, Griffin therefore lacks the full force and effect of stare decisis that would nominally accompany a SCOTUS ruling.

    Further, I'd note that Chase had only months earlier issued an entirely contradictory ruling in his capacity as Chief Justice in U.S. v. Jefferson Davis, in which he held that the former Confederate political leader - who had several months prior been released from federal custody after being incarcerated without trial for over two years and was, by most all contemporary accounts, a broken man - could not be tried for treason because he was immunized by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as a self-executing form of punishment.

    Thus, Chase affirmed that Section 3 then operated as exclusive punishment for those ex-Confederate leaders who, by virtue of their former capacities as U.S. federal officials and military officers, had fundamentally violated their respective oaths of office and allegiance by engaging in insurrection against the United States.

    Therefore, I would contend that Chief Justice Chase's ruling in Davis effectively precludes his subsequent conclusion in Griffin. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is likewise self-executing in the same way that other self-executing provisions of law are, because the right to run for elective office is not considered a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and is subject to state law, since the states and not the federal government administer elections.

    (In case law, the term "fundamental right under the Constitution" often tends to focus on an individual's economic right to pursue a livelihood, e.g., protection by the government of the enjoyment of life, and liberty, the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.)

    Summarizing an earlier conclusion by law professors William Baude and Michael Paulsen, Federal Judge Michael Luttig and Yale law professor Lawrence Tribe, both constitutional scholars, contend that "Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] requires no legislation, criminal conviction, or other judicial action in order to effectuate its command." In other words, it is self-executing.

    I will qualify with a caveat what I've said here by noting that I am not an attorney but rather, a current Ph.D. candidate in history who is quite familiar with Civil War-era cases such as U.S. v. Jefferson Davis, a good account of which can be found in Jill Lepore's recent article in The New Yorker.

    If Peter G or Jeralyn have an issue with my interpretation, I'm sure they will provide further clarity.



    Speaking as a non lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:32:01 AM EST
    the whole self executing thing always sounded like bullsh!t to me.

    "Self-executing" means ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    ... that one doesn't (necessarily) need a prior congressional authorization or court order to enforce that particular law. Further, ordinary citizens can petition relevant officials and agencies to enforce it.

    What's heretofore been missing until now is the actual will to do so on the part of those officials, hence the CREW lawsuit in Colorado. When something is so painfully self-evident as a Section 3 violation of the 14th Amendment, one should not have to go to court to compel the Colorado Secretary of State to do her job. I fully understand everyone's reluctance to be the first one over the wall but honestly, if she's not going to show leadership when it's required and demanded, then she really has no business holding that office.

    And in that regard, you're absolutely right that "self-executing" is bullsh!+ because unless the law is actually enforced, it's friggin' meaningless.



    I've Googled "Self-Executing" (3.00 / 1) (#145)
    by RickyJim on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:50:23 AM EST
    My conclusion is that I don't really understand what it means, especially in this case.  I guess I am in the same boat as the guy who asked Louie Armstrong what jazz is and was told, "If you have to ask, you will never know."  If in this case it means, "It is so obvious that Trump violated article 3 of amendment 14, that nobody thinks he should be on the ballot.", it obviously doesn't apply.

    "Self-executing" in this context (none / 0) (#149)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 09:14:02 AM EST
    means that no additional, specific procedural law is required to be adopted before a given substantive legal rule can be implemented and applied, wherever and whenever it may be pertinent.

    In Other Words (none / 0) (#151)
    by RickyJim on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 12:22:26 PM EST
    Congress doesn't need to do anything to further explain how Section 3 is to be applied.  The courts will apply it as necessary, as is happening now.  Then I have a hard time understanding:
    Section 5.
    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    As far as what the Supreme Court will do, I don't buy the "Whatever is good for Trump" common wisdom heard online and TV.  They may believe that, in the long run, it is better for the Republican party that Trump be disqualified.

    The same sort of "enforcement clause" (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    appears in many constitutional amendments. Take the 13th, which abolished slavery. Slavery was entirely illegal upon ratification of the amendment, but Congress was authorized to pass the Peonage Act afterwards, and did so, to prohibit certain slavery-like conditions of "employment." And to add a criminal penalty, which cannot exist without a statutory basis. Likewise, when the 15th Amendment was enacted, all race discrimination in voting became illegal on the spot. But Congress was authorized to enact the Voting Rights Act a century later to provide various mechanisms for enforcing that right. In fact, because the powers of Congress are limited to subjects specifically identified in the Constitution, the enforcement clauses make congressional authority to reinforce various amendments clear and unambiguous. For instance, since regulation of elections is primarily a state function (as you mentioned the other day), it could have been argued, absent section 5, that Congress had no power to enforce section 3 except for the power to relieve the disability, as mentioned in section 3 itself.

    Discussion of "Self Executing" (none / 0) (#157)
    by RickyJim on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 08:22:26 PM EST
    The 4 in majority say Section 3 is and that Colorado courts can enforce it. However Justice Samour in his dissent disagrees.  See page 3 of his dissent where he quotes the movie Princess Bride in a footnote.
    Much like Inigo Montoya advised Vizzini, I do not think[self-executing] means what [my colleagues in the majority] think it means. The Princess Bride (20th Century Fox 1987) (You keep using that word [inconceivable]. I do not think it means what you think it means.)
    So I feel much better now in my confession that I don't understand the concept :-)

    I take issue only with (none / 0) (#148)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    misidentifying emeritus Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe as a professor at Yale. Among Yale Law profs, I'd be most interested in the views of history-and-theory-minded con law experts Akhil Amar and Jack Balkin.

    I just read the New Yorker article (none / 0) (#152)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 01:25:00 PM EST
    I think you may have misinterpreted the story, Donald. I understood the article to say (I have not checked any other sources, and was not familiar with the story) that Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason, held in military custody but to be tried in a federal civilian court in Virginia. Chief Justice Chase either assigned himself to preside or it was just part of his job as Circuit Justice for Virginia). Davis's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Section 3 was self-executing and a "punishment," which would make the indictment a violation of double jeopardy. As I read the article, Chase never ruled on that argument (and in any event, not in his capacity as Chief Justice or on behalf of the Supreme Court; only as Circuit Justice, as he had in the Griffin case). Davis went free, prior to trial, when President Andrew Johnson issued a blanket pardon (amnesty) to former Confederates, both high and low, and not pursuant to any ruling by Chase.

    Looking into it further, it appears (none / 0) (#154)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    that Chase did dismiss the treason indictment against Jeff Davis on the basis of double jeopardy, applying the cockamamie theory that Section 3 is a self-executing punishment for crime (it obviously is not; it articulates a freestanding disqualifying condition for holding office, and does not require a prior criminal accusation or conviction). Apparently the administration, then led by Confederate sympathizer Andrew Johnson, did not appeal to the Supreme Court, and Davis was thus freed from prosecution. And subsequently benefited from Johnson's general amnesty, as I mentioned.

    The US exports only the best stuff. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 21, 2023 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    15 dead in mass school shooting in Prague. At a university.

    Immigrants, schmimigrants... (none / 0) (#166)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    "We're going to have mass deportation. We don't have rooms in our hospitals or our schools. They go into classes. They don't speak English. Nobody knows what to do. They have languages that nobody even knows. You have a lot of languages in this world. They have languages. Well, we don't have any people who understand or know those languages."  -  DJT

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 22, 2023 at 06:30:09 PM EST
    he tried the whole "mass deportation" thing when he was in office and that didn't work out too well.

    He's talking about (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 23, 2023 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    Spanish, right?

    Probably (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 23, 2023 at 02:19:59 PM EST
    Slovenian.   Those immigrants don't care, do you?