This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1432397
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1432397
If “No One is Above the Law,” then why do we have such grotesque inconsistencies in its application?? Pamela Moses is in prison (story on link) and Donald Trump, having committed numerous crimes is free and continuing to incite others to violate the law and/or incite disturbances and/or violence?? There are laws but NO JUSTICE!!
6 Likes
I’m not a lawyer, and I’ve only glanced at Chase’s ruling so far, but his reasoning seems tortured and pragmatic. From my reading of Civil War and Reconstruction history, of which I’ve done quite a bit, the clear intent and the practical functioning of section 3 assumed that all Confederates were subject to it and that only by purposeful readmission could the penalty be removed, which is why you have the gross stories of Southerners flattering and fawning over Johnson so that he would restore their rights. Chase argues, I believe, against this interpretation by noting that clearly not every Southerner was barred from office and that doing so now (1869) would’ve been incredibly disruptive because it would seemingly have nulled every decision these politicians had made. But that seems to me like concession to reality and to the mood of the country (or at least the perceived mood among the elites–Grant’s “Let us have peace,” etc.) rather than a fair reading of Congress’s intent in framing the amendment and the fact that Johnson first starting “forgiving” individuals and then, as that became inefficient, whole swaths of former rebels. Why do that if they were presumptively “innocent until proven guilty”?
1 Like
Couy Griffin has not been charged or convicted of insurrection, yet has had a penalty for the crime of insurrection imposed on him. This appears to be a violation of right to due process of law. I expect Mathew’s ruling to be overturned on this basis, if Griffin can find an attorney to take up his case with an appellate court (might be difficult, he’s not a very attractive defendant).
This has nothing to do with anything except to show that Abbott is a cruel son of a bitch treating migrants like so much human cargo. He and DeSatan are two heartless SOBs who are in a competition as to who can out-cruel the other. Around 200 people are involved in the D.C. trip.
10 Likes
Hmmm wonder who’s next to get the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment treatment?
5 Likes
Quibbling, I know, but the linked article doesn’t include any dehumanizing terms. Fascists suck, but they suck in a very human way.
Nope.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/pamela-moses-voter-fraud-charges-dropped.html
Civil sanctions do not generally depend upon criminal conviction. I agree with the authors of the piece that courts disqualifying people from office on the basis of the insurrection clause is deeply problematic and gameable. But on the other hand, Cuoy Griffin is an idiot who represented himself in the case, so he was basically begging for it.
5 Likes
You are right, my bad, but she at least went through the justice system.
2 Likes
it rubs up against the basic idea of democracy as a system in which anyone can run, and voters can decide.
Even the idea of voters deciding who will win an election and represent them is under attack by the insurrectionist cult using the Independent State Legislature theory. IMO, given the opportunity they would install themselves as a permanent ruling cult.
3 Likes
And now he’s a very bad precedent. The only good thing about this ruling is that he was disqualified by a state judge only from a county office, not federal office, so this will not have any bearing on future federal tests of the 14th amendment section 3.
At some future date we could see a democratic critter being disqualified from office on the basis of her having gotten herself arrested at a protest (rite of passage), and Judge Yeehaw saying “looks like insurrection to me!”. But so far all the federal cases have gone the other way or been dodged on other grounds.
4 Likes
OT:
TFG trying to settle means he knows he’s screwed. Letitia James threatening to additionally sue him and some of his spawn means she knows he’s screwed too.
6 Likes
Let’s stop pretending, the GOP doesn’t care about anyone but themselves. Even the vast majority of people that vote for them.
It is all about power, wealth, and influence to protect their own self interest.
2 Likes
Speaking of law…
federal protections for same-sex marriage threaten the freedom of white conservative Christians (like business owners or pastors) who would like to discriminate against LGBTQ people
Shame on conservatives.
Don’t give me “Love the sinner but hate the sin.” These conservatives love nothing but money.
And underage girls.
Yeah, §3 is, even though it is enshrined in the constitution, is far from black letter law. And Justice Chase’s contributions to our enlightenment have not helped. The issue before Chase (acting as a district Judge) was to decide if three black plaintiffs could have criminal convictions vacated because the Judge(s) in their criminal trial were ineligible to serve under §3. Chase held that the amendment could not be used that way because it was not self executing. However, in a case from the same state (VA) in the same year (1868) Chase ruled that Jefferson Davis could avoid a Treason trial by invoking §3 thereby admitting that for a different plaintiff the amendment was in fact self executing. Good discussion of the intricacies here.
He would have fit right in on today’s supreme court.
I think most of us figured that out long ago and so we expect nothing but contempt, loathing and hatred which is partly why Democrats are doing so much better in polling and expectations of winning in the midterms.
1 Like