-
Recent Posts
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Delegate Selection Plans 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Delegate Selection Donald Trump Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden John Kasich Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- DocJess on GOP convention plans remain in flux
- tmess2 on Dems prepare for virtual voting by delegates
- DocJess on GOP Jacksonville money woes continue
- DocJess on Dems prepare for virtual voting by delegates
- tmess2 on GOP now looking at outdoor Jacksonville convention
Archives
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Category Archives: Donald Trump
Trump vs. United States — The Immunity Argument
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in the case of Trump v. United States, regarding Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for his role in the January 6 insurrection because his actions that day were official actions. They also announced that arguments will be held this term — on April 22. There is a lot to unpack in this order.
Let’s start with the procedural posture of this case. Late last year, the trial judge (sitting in the federal district court for D.C.) denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based, in part, on his claim of absolute immunity for actions taken while President. He then filed an “interlocutory” appeal of that ruling. (In most cases, parties can only appeal when a case is over. There are a limited number of circumstances in which a party can immediately appeal from a pre-trial ruling,) The appellate court (the D.C. Circuit) expedited the appeal (even more so than is normal for interlocutory appeals). Despite the D.C. Circuit expediting the case, the special prosecutor, In December, asked that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case without waiting for a ruling from the appellate court (something that is rarely done). But, on December 22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied that request.
On February 6, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion affirming the trial court. Normally, there would be a brief period of time before the “mandate” (the formal order implementing the opinion and restoring the authority to the trial court to proceed). But the panel that issued the opinion set a quick deadline of February 12 for Trump to get a stay of the mandate from either the full D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, on February 12, Trump filed for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, in most cases, once the stay were granted, the case would proceed on a normal schedule. On a normal schedule, Trump would then ask for rehearing from the full D.C. Circuit. If and when the D.C. Circuit declined to rehear the case (the ruling in almost all cases), Trump would then have ninety days (plus any extensions) to ask for certioarari (the formal order taking the appeal) from the Supreme Court. In some cases, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay, it will also treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari. The special prosecutor, in his response to the stay application, while arguing for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the stay, made the alternative argument that, if the U.S. Supreme Court did grant the stay, it should exercise that power to treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari and expedite the case.
2024 Presidential Primaries — South Carolina Republicans and Michigan
As we head into the last week of February, we are also reaching the end of the authorized early primaries. Under the respective rules of the two parties, there is a preliminary window in which only some states were authorized to hold early primaries/caucuses. For the Republicans, the “regular” primary window opens on March 1. For Democrats, the “regular” primary window opens on the first Tuesday in March (March 5).
For this last week, we have three primaries on the book. First up, today, is the South Carolina Republican primary. South Carolina law allows the parties to choose the date of their own primary, and the two parties have tended to choose different dates (but usually a Saturday). And so we had the Democratic primary several weeks back which was won by President Joe Biden. Now, it’s the Republican primary. While there are seven candidates on the ballot, two of them are not known nationally, and three of the nationally-known candidates have dropped out. In other words, while five of the candidates may get some votes, there are only two with any chance of winning delegates — former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and a candidate who ineligible to be president, Donald Trump. South Carolina Republicans use a “winner-take-most” system for allocating delegates. In other words, each congressional district has three delegates and whomever wins that district gets all three delegates. Likewise, there are twenty-nine at-large delegates, and whomever wins the state gets all twenty-nine delegates. Especially with only two serious candidates in the races, whomever wins statewide will have won at least one congressional district (and probably will have won more than one). Thus, the winner of the primary is guaranteed to take at least 32 of the 50 delegates (which is why this type of system is referred to as winner-take-most). Despite the fact that Nikki Haley used to be the governor of South Carolina, the traditional Republican Party in South Carolina is dead and has been replaced by the Trump Party. While anybody who did not vote in the Democratic Primary could theoretically vote in the Republican Primary, there probably will not be enough independents and Democrats voting to save the Republican Party from itself. Polls show Donald Trump leading by a wide enough margin that he should win all fifty delegates, and the only question is whether Nikki Haley can make it close enough to steal a district or two.
On Tuesday, we will primaries for both parties in Michigan. President Joe Biden should win the state easily. Neither Representative Dean Phillips nor Marianne Williamson is a serious contender to reach the fifteen percent to win delegates. The real contender to take delegates away from President Biden is “uncommitted.” Representative Rashida Tlaib has been encouraging voters to vote for uncommitted in protest of President Biden’s middle of the road stance on Israel’s response to Hamas’s invasion of Israel. While the pro-Palestinian progressive wing of the Democratic Party has a problem with Israel trying to remove Hamas from the Gaza Strip, if President Biden were to do what they want him to do, it would guarantee Donald Trump’s victory in November. If uncommitted stays below 15% (state-wide or in any individual district), President Biden will win all of the delegates (state-wide or in that district). The largest districts have seven delegates; so it is unlikely that uncommitted will get more than one delegate in any individual district. The one exception to that might be Representative Tlaib’s district. And the issue in that district will be whether uncommitted can get to the 21% necessary to win a second delegate. If uncommitted does not win any delegates in that district, we could see a primary challenge to Representative Tlaib emerge. State-wide, there are twenty-five at-large delegates and fifteen party-leader delegates. As such, if uncommitted were to get to fifteen percent state-wide, uncommitted would get, at least, four at-large and two party-leader delegates. But the expectation is that President Biden will win almost all of the 117 delegates at stake on Tuesday.
Also posted in Elections, Primary Elections
Tagged Dean Phillips, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson, Michigan, Nikki Haley, Rashida Tlaib, South Carolina
Leave a comment
Trump Litigation News — Immunity and Ballot Access
Following what is happening to Donald Trump in court is a little like a soap opera — a lot of little things happening all of the time that makes you wonder when it is time to write about the latest maneuvering. This week, however, seems to be shoehorned around two very consequential events.
First, on Tuesday, we got the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the appeal of the ruling denying Trump’s motion to dismiss the January 6 case. The opinion was a per curiam opinion. For those who are not lawyers, most opinions identify the author. A per curiam opinion is on behalf of all of the judges who heard the case and does not identify a specific judge as the author. There are a variety of reasons why courts opt to issue such opinions. The reasons that most likely apples here is to emphasize that this opinion is the unanimous opinion of all of the judges.
The opinion is rather long (fifty-seven pages). After initially determining that the trial court’s decision on Trump’s motion to dismiss charges could be appealed now (most decisions can’t be challenged until after the case goes to trial), the judges systematically demolish all of Trump’s claims on why a former president can’t be charged for criminal conduct committed while in office. They also reject Trump’s attempt to change his position from 2021 and argue that the decision of 43 Senators to not remove Trump from office after his term ended barred criminal charges on double jeopardy grounds. The most important part of the ruling was not on the merits. Rather it was a procedural decision.
The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)
Today, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hold oral arguments on Donald Trump’s appeal of the decision that he is not immune from criminal prosecution for the events of January 6. Apparently, the accused intends to personally attend this argument. (For the reasons discussed below, his attorneys are likely unhappy with the decision and Trump may throw a temper tantrum either during or after the argument.) For the millions who are unable to make it to the federal courthouse, the D.C. Circuit will be livestreaming the audio of the argument. And the recording will posted on the court’s website by the close of business today.
I am not going to spend time on the merits of the case because the merits are really one-sided. The trial judge in this case is respected by her peers and her order thoroughly demonstrates why Trump’s claim of immunity has no factual or legal merit. It will be affirmed. Instead, this post is intended to help readers understand what will be happening.
The first thing to understand is that oral argument is the last part of the case. Even at the state level, it is expected that the judges will have read the written arguments (formally known as briefs of the party). If the judges have the time, they may also have looked at the relevant portions of the trial court records to answer any factual questions that they may have about the proceeding. They may also have looked at the key cases cited by the parties to understand what those cases actually say (instead of how the attorneys have tried to spin them). In short, the judges have almost certainly formed an opinion about the issues in the case, and oral argument is a last chance for the parties to correct any misimpressions that they judges may have.
Also posted in Judicial
Tagged D.C. Circuit, Donald Trump, Oral Argument
Comments Off on The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)
The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown
On Friday, the United Staes Supreme Court decided to grant President Trump’s Petition for Certiorari in Trump vs. Anderson. However, it took no action on the companion Petition for Certiorari filed by the Colorado Republican Party in Colorado State Republican Central Committee v. Anderson. Before turning to the issues raised in this case, there are two things to note about the Supreme Court order granting review and the petitions filed.
First, in granting Trump’s petition, the Supreme Court implicitly recognized the necessity to resolve this issue quickly. The briefs of Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party (and related organizations) are due on January 18, less than two weeks after the order granting review (as opposed to the usual 45 days). The briefs of Trump’s challengers and the Colorado election official who are in the middle of this case are due thirteen days later on January 31 (along with any outside brief from individuals who want to support Democracy) with any reply briefs due five days later on February 5. This contrast to the normal deadlines of 45 days for petitioner’s brief with respondent’s brief due 30 days later and the reply brief an additional 35 days later. Additionally, the case will be argued on February 8 which is a special setting in the middle of what would otherwise have been the Supreme Court’s winter break.
Second, the Supreme Court did not rewrite Trump’s question presented. Typically, the question prsented in a petition for certiorari is narrowly focused on one legal issue. For example, did the lower court err in finding that the potential for the metabolizing of blood alcohol content is an automatic exigent circumstance permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless blood draw? If there are multiple issues in a case, the petition will present multiple questions on which the Supreme Court can pick and choose which issues will be considered at the time that the petition is granted. For example, the Colorado Republican Party presented three issues: 1) does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the President; 2) is Section 3 self-executing; and 3) does disqualifying a candidate violate the First Amendment rights of political parties. By contrast, the Trump Petition, after noting the ruling (that his actions and the office of President fell within the restrictions of Section) simply asks whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by excluding him from the ballot. In other words, unlike the usual question which identifies a specific legal error in the ruling, the Supreme Court appears to be allowing the consideration of any potential theory on why the Colorado Supreme Court erred.
Also posted in 2024 Convention, Elections, GOP, Judicial, Republicans, RNC
Tagged Colorado, Donald Trump, Insurrection, John Brown, Nate Turner, rebellion, Section 3, Section 5., Supreme Court, Whiskey Rebellion
Comments Off on The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown
Supreme Court Update
Before departing for the holidays, the Supreme Court had a couple of “gifts” of merits review in a couple of high profile cases with the possibility of a third before New Year’s.
Starting at the top of the list is the dubious case brought by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley. (Normally, the fact that a relative of a politician is involved in a case would not be noteworthy but whne you put yourself out as a power couple and you file the case in a location which assures that it will be heard by a judge who donated to the relative’s campaign and the relative played a large role in getting that judge appointed to the bench, this clearly qualifies as a team effort for which both share the blame.) In this case, plaintiffs are a group of doctors who claim that they have standing to challenge the FDA’s decisions on approving Mifepristone because at some point they may be forced to provide treatment for a patient who took Mifepristone and had complications. These political doctors sought to both invalidate recent changes to the guidance that the FDA gives on Mifepristone and its original approval. Having filed the case in a location that assured them that the case would be heard by a judge who would twist the law and the facts to rule in their favor, they succeeded at the trial court on both parts of their case. The FDA and the drug manufacture appealed this rubber stamp decision to the Fifth Circuit. Even the Fifth Circuit could not twist the law in a manner that would allow them to affirm the decision as it relates to the original approval of Mifepristone, but they did find flaws in the administrative process which allowed them to affirm the decision with regards to the more recent changes approving a broader use for Mifepristone. Everybody then sought U.S. Supreme Court review. Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. This past week, the Supreme Court granted the review sought by the FDA and the drug manufacturer, but denied the review sought by the medical hacks.
While this Supreme Court having any case related to abortion is always a matter of concern, the decision to take the FDA’s appeal and reject the appeal by the medical hacks is the best result possible for the pro-choice community. And, the main issue in the case is the FDA procedures for approving medications and expanding “on label” uses after initial approval. As such, the impact of a ruling against the FDA in this case would have a major negative impact on pharmaceutical companies. As such, it is possible that six of the justices might put the abortion aspects of this case to the side and simply focus on it as an administrative procedure case. If not, there is always the November elections.
Also posted in Judicial
Tagged Abortion, Donald Trump, January 6, Josh Hawley, mifepristone, special prosecutor
Comments Off on Supreme Court Update
Candidate Trump — Felon Ballot Access Restrictions and the Fourteenth Amendment
We are heading into uncharted waters. A major political party has become a cult in thrall to a person who may not be eligible to run for president (or at least barred from the ballot in several states) who insists that he should be the nominee in 2024. Add to that a martyr complex by the true believers who have taken over many state parties, and we are heading into potential chaos for the Fall of 2024.
Of course, one of the complexities is that the national election for president is when the electoral college meets and votes and sends those votes to Congress to be counted. Up until that Wednesday in December, we have fifty-one elections for presidential electors and more elections for delegates to the nominating convention. Each of the jurisdictions (states and territories) involved in these elections have different rules and procedures.
Having said that, there are several general things that are consistent from state to state. First, for the general elections, the parties certify the name of their presidential and vice-presidential candidate in late August or early September. Second, there is a state election authority which receives and processes the candidate paperwork for state and federal candidates. For the most part, these officials rarely refuse candidate filings, but they are tasked with determining whether the filing to be on the ballot is complete and shows that the candidate is eligible to run under state law. Third, decisions on whether a candidate qualifies to be on the ballot is subject to some form of judicial review. But, assuming that the election authority finds that a candidate is eligible to run, the different states have different rules on who can challenge that determination. In all, or almost every state, the opposing candidates have the right to bring such a case, but the rules as to who else has that right differs from state to state. Fourth, if, for some reason, a party’s nominee has to be replaced on the ballot, it generally falls on the state party to name a replacement. Fifth, for the presidential election, there is actually a ticket composed of the candidates for president, the vice-president, and the presidential electors. It is the last two or three where the potential for chaos emerges.
Also posted in Elections, Electoral College, Judicial, Uncategorized
Tagged Ballot Access, Donald Trump, Felon Disqualification, Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court
Comments Off on Candidate Trump — Felon Ballot Access Restrictions and the Fourteenth Amendment
The Republican Campaign & the Fear of Attacking Trump
Barring some major unexpected change, President Biden will not face any major opposition for the nomination next year. At the present time, his opposition is composed of fringe candiates who reject most of the Democratic platforms of the past thirty-five years.
On the Republican side, there is supposedly a nomination contest. But in many ways, we are seeing a repeat of the 2016 campaign with Donald Trump starting from a stronger position than he did in 2015. Back then, Trump was an unknown quantity as a politician and Republican voters were simply playing with the possibility of supporting Trump. Now, he is a known and the “maybe” 25% is something like a 40% certain and a 30% maybe. But the constant is that most of the top contenders are unwilling to attack Trump.
Part of the reason why Trump has emerged with only a handful willing to attack him is a general perception about negative campaigning. The problem with negative campaigning is that it has a cost. Negative campaigning is aimed at “persuadable” voters. At best, it persuades the voter leaning to the opponent to vote for you (a gain of one vote for you and a loss of one vote for your opponent or a swing of two), but it is acceptable if it merely results in the voter deciding to sit the race out (a loss of one vote for your opponent). People do not like negative campaigns and such campaigns drive up the negatives of both the candidate doing the attack and the candidate being attacked. If successful, the negative campaign drives up the negatives of the candidate being attacked more than it does the candidate doing the attacking. In the general, negative campaigning works because you tend to have two candidates with enough “certain” voters that even if all persuadable voters flipped to a third candidate that third candidate would still finish third.
Also posted in 2024 Convention, Debates, Presidential Candidates, Republican Debates, Republicans
Tagged 2016 Republican Presidential Primary Campaign, 2024 Republican Primaries, Donald Trump, negative campaigning
Comments Off on The Republican Campaign & the Fear of Attacking Trump
The Independent State Legislature Theory, Election Law, and the Trump Crimes
Recently, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment charging the Orange Menance with crimes related to his attempted coup after the 2020 election. It is expected that within a week or two a state grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia will add state charges related to the efforts of dictator-wannabe Donald Trump to convince Georgia election authorities to alter the results of the election in that state.
Much of the crimes committed by Donald Trump and his band of incompetent coconspirators were based on a flawed version of the independent state legislature theory and a misunderstanding of election mechanics.
First, the independent state legislature theory. The independent state legislature theory is based on two clauses in the U.S. Constitution. One of the clauses is found in Article I and applies to the election of members of Congress. The other clauses is found in Article II and deals with the selection of presidential electors.
Also posted in 2020 General Election, Elections, Electoral College
Tagged Criminal Charges, Donald Trump, Georgia, Independent State Legislature
Comments Off on The Independent State Legislature Theory, Election Law, and the Trump Crimes
What the Indictment Might Mean for 2024
To begin with the obvious, an indictment is a document used to formally bring criminal charges against an individual (here the Orange Menace). Under the law, all criminal defendants are presumed to be innocent of the charged offense, and the prosecution has the burden to present sufficient evidence to convince twelve jurors to unanimously agree that the evidence proves that defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no precise timetable for when a case must go to trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a trial begun within eight months of charges being filed is sufficiently speedy to satisfy the speedy trial clause of the U.S. Constitution. If, as often happens, it takes more than eight months to bring a case to trial, the courts then use a balancing test to decide how long is too long. In theory, Trump might be able to delay the trial until after the 2024 election. If he succeeds in this goal, the problems for him will be mostly how much of a distraction the pending case(s) will be (both in terms of time and money) and how voters react to the charges. While it’s too early to tell for sure, the initial reaction of voters seems to be that the true believers will see any accusation against their god as persecution and an attempt to block them from electing him. This groups might be just enough to get him the Republican nomination, but this group is not large enough to get him elected. On the other hand, a significant group of swing voters seem to be tired of the chaos and criminality associated with Trump, and these charges (unless something else comes out to undermine them) seem likely to make it harder for Trump to win the general election.
The “interesting” questions come when Trump is convicted. (Most defendants are convicted. While there is an old saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, that saying is only half true. Yes, the prosecution controls what a grand jury hears, but they still need some credible evidence that the defendant committed a crime. And, after you get the indictment, you still need to win a trial. While some prosecutors might put the hand slightly on the scale to get an indictment in a case that is a close call, it does little good to bring charges when your evidence is so weak that you have no chance at getting a conviction.) And this is a question of ballot laws in the fifty states (plus D.C.) and the rules of the Republican Party.
Also posted in Elections, GOP, Presidential Candidates, Primary Elections
Tagged 2024 election, Criminal Charges, Donald Trump
Comments Off on What the Indictment Might Mean for 2024