“What they’re really upset about is suffering the consequences of their abhorrent views…”
‘Freedom of Expression does not mean freedom from consequences.’
An apt observation, too often ignored these days.
First In, First Out? Looks more like FAFO.
Yes, FAFO would be correct.
Too bad he was DOA before he STFU.
I’m assured by the members of a news site I frequent that the patriot front are “feds” or conversely “antifa/blm.” These opinion were posted simultaneously by two different posters. No argument between the two so I assume pf are both “feds” and “antifa/blm.” The site will not let me post the sort of reply I’d like to.
FAFO? I’ve been pondering it for 15 min and haven’t come up with anything .
Fuck Around and Find Out
It’s usually said when someone does something particularly stupid and pays for it.
Say, one person asks, “What would happen if I tried to microwave a closed can of beer while my face was pressed up against the window?” Second guy says, “Well, let’s find out!”
Another variation that I’ve heard is “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”
QFT
(ECFD)
What does the El Cajon Fire Department have to do with it?
Nothing. And I was never near El Cajon.
- Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven’t got a brain?
- The Scarecrow: I don’t know! But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don’t they?
It’s the circle of life. Someone joins Antifa/BLM as a young idealist, then gets recruited by the Feds to monitor/covertly support Antifa/BLM. After a few years, they’re formally brought into the Feds, and are assigned to infiltrate the patriot front. Once in the patriot front, they get recruited by Antifa/BLM as inside men, and eventually become publicly Antifa/BLM. And the cycle continues!
Here’s a gift link to a NY Times article headlined: “Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6”
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.
The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
Uh-oh, Donnie, aren’t all the judges you appointed to the Supreme Court members of the Federalist Society, too?
[Prof. Baude] summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president.
“Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said.
Professor Calabresi said those administrators must act. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so.
Of course, a law review article will accomplish nothing in the real world, i.e. no Secretary of State is actually going to remove Trump from their ballot based on this legal analysis. But it is schadenfreude-y anyway that this is coming from the Federalist Society.
Yes, which is why SCOTUS has ruled against Trump so many times. They don’t owe their allegiance to him.
Now… That being said, I would not count on them ruling against him if they were asked if he should be disqualified from running, or if they are asked whether the POTUS can pardon himself. Not because of a desire to help him personally, or really anything to do with the conservative members of the court. The SCOTUS traditionally does not like to step on the toes of the president if they can help it. I would wager that they’d rather let things play out as far as the election goes, and wouldn’t want to flex their muscles too much to stop Trump from getting himself out of prison. As much as that depresses me. I wouldn’t even count on the left-leaning justices ruling against Trump in either case, regardless of their personal feelings.
I expect there’ll be several lawsuits against those SoS’s to make them leave Trump off the ballot. The article will be amunition for them, so perhaps it’s not futile.
Yes. I wonder what the law says in this uncharted territory regarding when a lawsuit can be filed and who has standing? Only when Trump is officially on the ballot (whatever that means) for the former? By anyone at all for the former?
I’d think that whoever came in second in the primaries would automatically have standing. It’s likely they would have been the candidate, had a disqualified person not run in contravention of this law.
The lawsuits could be filed for the primary elections. Certainly any of the other candidates would have standing, but it seems to me that any voter, or at least any Republican voter, in the respective state would have standing.
But the law wouldn’t prevent trump from running in the primary, since it’s not for any actual office. It’s no different than running for president of your HOA.
ETA: I guess they could sue the GOP for fucking up by letting a disqualified candidate run for the nomination?