As well-established opponents of Donald Trump eye using the Disqualification Clause to keep him off the 2024 ballot, a separate motley crew of opportunists, individual do-gooders, and at least one long-shot presidential candidate are seizing on the opportunity to be relevant.
Johnny Castro is a lousy Chess player. No descent Chess player thinks “10 to 15 moves in advance”. You only look at the opponents last move, determine why it was a mistake, then respond accordingly. (and hope it wasn’t a mistake).
I can’t give them grief for trying, but everything I’m seeing is pointing to a failed effort, using this approach alone.
Let 'em try, but I’m sure it will bitter out the minions and just allow them to dig their heels in all that much more.
A Bunch Of Fringe Figures Have Also Seized On The Disqualification Clause
“… a separate motley crew of opportunists, individual do-gooders, and at least one long-shot presidential candidate are seizing on the opportunity to be relevant.”
Well this pretty describes today’s Republicans.
You also don’t tell everyone the ‘10 to 15 moves’ you plan on taking. As a non-lawyer, I think this is a bad move in practice because he’s telling everyone that he’s judge shopping and as a citizen I think would unleash utter chaos and chaos benefits those of an authoritarian bent.
Every GOP presidential candidate other than TMF is a long shot. They’re all (maybe with the exception of Christie, but who knows?) auditioning for the Veep spot on the ticket.
Also interesting is that Christie and Hutchinson, even Pence, have not gone this route. Yes, I’m aware of the political suicide anxieties they may have, but, really, what have they got to lose? And if they did it, it would gain credibility, not be seen so much as just another partisan attack in the eternal witch-hunt, which means it could work. Courts and Secretaries of State would pay closer attention, give it more serious consideration. Then Trump would be out of the way, wouldn’t he? Except, I suppose, these candidates would end up kicked out of the Republican Party… And that’s still a bridge too far, it seems.
Oh, well.
Totally OT but every picture I see of trumpet lately shows he has less and less hair. The pic accompanying this story is from August 12, sometime next year he’ll be completely bald on top and no intricate combing and arranging is gonna hide that. And I won’t even mention how ugly his skin is even beneath layers of orange goo.
My own view is that Trump represents a kind of not-so-hostile takeover of a long-building attack on the legitimacy of electoral democracy itself. It’s a standard ploy for establishing authoritarian strongman rule to undermine belief in all the institutions of representative democracy. “Everyone’s corrupt! Let’s give hero the power to wipe it all out and start over! What could possibly go wrong!” Of the three scenarios here–1) a Trump win; 2) A Trump loss; 3) Trump excluded from running—only #2 actually strikes a blow against that larger project. #1 is obviously a victory for it, but #3, the 14th Amendment thing, is a close second in furthering the project. He’s not going to go away, and movements love a martyr. The only victory for the teetering democracy we’re trying to hold onto is the democratic one. Oh they’ll still fight to cast anything but a Trump victory as cheating, thus playing into the “democracy is a sham” narrative. But the majority—and it is still a majority—of sane citizens will take it as what it simply is: a rejection of MAGA and the authoritarian project it represents.
And that is the statement we need this election to make.
I just think keeping him off the ballot does more to bring about the larger disintegration of democracy we’re trying to avoid than doing the hard work of defeating him, well, democratically. We did do that once. Shouldn’t be impossible to do it again.
Oh, please stop with the flattery!!
Man o man, what an ugly photo of Trump. More please.
Relatedly, I really enjoyed the discussion (and writing style) of Josh’s anonymous interlocutor in his latest Not Even Close ed blog. I’ve had to resist the urge to simply paste that person’s writing here, too, because I find it so compelling.
Instead, I want to highlight a secondary thread in that letter:
… it actually does help when there’s no truth to it. You can get so cynical that you don’t see the difference, but there is one.
(emphasis mine)
I think Organized Money hires loud clowns like Gaetz, MTG, and Tucker because they want to turn politics into such an unpleasant business that it drives out all but the most-determined (i.e. paid) participants. Cynicism is one path that takes.
I welcome the reminder that we must all be vigilant against the coarsening of our selves that would otherwise follow from the coarsening of our dialogue.
Yes, like I said above but bears repeating: discrediting the very idea of democracy and democratic institutions is step one in transitioning a democracy to an authoritarian dictatorship. We need to resist whatever trends in that direction because there is plenty of force—Organized Money as you say—already pushing behind it. Unfortunately I think the 14th A solution trends in that direction rather than against it. It would be used as powerful evidence that The Deep State couldn’t stand up to Trump democratically and had to resort to legalistic means of silencing him. Insofar as possible we need MAGA to be crippled, not just Trump, and that means disempowering its mythos. The 14th dodge strengthens same. Decisively defeating him at the ballot box is the only way to pull its plug.
OTOH, the world will never truly be rid of The Rump unless Republicans reject and Republicans defeat him. More Republicans need to be less chickenshit about trying.
Anything that requires TFG and the GOP to spend money on litigation is a plus these days.
Granted 10-15 is just self-important mental masturbation. But just one move ahead? You don’t anticipate your opponents’ potential responses to your move and plan for THAT as well? So, at least 2 moves…
The 14th A isn’t a ‘dodge’. Whether it’s ‘legalistic’ or not, I’m not sure how you mean to use that word. The 14th A. is the source of much of what we consider modern constitutional law. The phrase applying to prohibitions from holding office in particular is fairly straightforward and, to my read, self-executing.
That said, I don’t think it’s a silver bullet, but I also think it’s worth a try. Let SCOTUS tie themselves into knots and tell us why in this particular case the constitution doesn’t mean what we all understand the common language to mean.
Some do, but it can be breadth, not just depth. IOW, combinations of possible moves based on what the opponent is likely to do. The masters don’t have to figure out every combination individually, either, because they know a ton of entire board positions, how to get to those positions and to where they can lead.
That’s probably Castro’s biggest tell that he’s full of crap. The legal system is not chess. Chess has a very clear and finite set of rules. Our legal system has rules, but novel arguments can change the entire game. He may be able to predict a couple of motions and responses, but an argument that works in front of one judge won’t work in front of another so foresight is inherently pretty limited.
