Tit, Meet Tat
The inevitable threats to remove Biden from the ballot emerge.
Via NBC News: Republican secretary of state threatens to kick Biden off the ballot as Trump payback.
“What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic,” Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote on the social media site X on Friday. “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”
[…]
Asked how he would disqualify Biden from the ballot for insurrection, Ashcroft said that he’s “let an invasion unstopped into our country from the border.” Vice President Kamala Harris, he added, “supported people that were rebelling against the U.S. government during the riots in 2020,” referring to racial justice protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.
“If this is the standard, does that suddenly mean she’s not allowed to run? None of us can say, because there is no standard,” he said.
This is, of course, predictable. On one level, Ashcroft isn’t wrong to note these are uncharted waters. Still, I would invite him to hold a hearing that tries to establish the fact that Biden’s approach to immigration (which, ultimately, is not all that different from Trump’s in terms of outcomes, if not actual enforcement–just sans harping on a wall) rises to the level of insurrection (or even being able to define a migration crisis as an insurrection). Nor do I see how Black Lives Matter protests linked to the murder of George Floyd could be categorized as an insurrection, let alone that Vice President Harris is someone uniquely responsible (why? Because she is Black?).
Of course, it is easy to spout off on Twitter, but a lot harder to make all of this actually happen.
Similarly, The Messenger reports: DeSantis Says He’s Looking to Make ‘Credible Case’ to Remove Biden From Florida Ballot.
“This is just going to be a tit for tat and it’s just not gonna end well,” the GOP presidential candidate warned Friday alongside Rep. Chip Roy, R-TX, according to a video posted by CNN. “You could make a case — I’m actually looking at this in Florida now [if we] could we make a credible case” to block Biden from the ballot “because of the invasion of 8 million.”
Although DeSantis later added he doesn’t think “that’s the right way to do it.”
I know all of this immigration stuff plays well with his audience, but I still fail to see how that would be sufficient to invoke section 3 of the 14th Amendment (especially when we had similar problems during the Trump administration–so would be be disqualifying too?).
Indeed, if there are federal judges (let alone an appeals court) who would uphold a section 3 claim based on what amounts to a refugee crisis on our border, then the system may be more broken than I think it is and we really are doomed to a significant degeneration of governance.
There is room to debate whether section 3 requires a criminal conviction, but Trump’s role in January 6th and in other attempts to overturn the election is pretty clear (although yes, I understand how MAGAites don’t see it that way and how other GOP voters are motivated to rationalize it away). This is in no way analogous to the situation on the border.
And this is all of course inevitable, at least from a rhetorical point of view, and is probably one of the reasons that SCOTUS will find a way to punt on section 3 instead of taking very seriously a presidential candidate who, when in the highest office in the land, tried to overturn a legitimate election.
But we are both in very serious and yet also deeply unserious times.
All of this reminds me of the following (via Reuters): US House Republicans plan impeachment hearing for Biden’s border chief.
A Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives committee next week will advance an effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over allegations he has been derelict in his duty of managing the U.S.-Mexico border, the committee announced on Wednesday.
The House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing on Jan. 10 related to the impeachment allegations with witnesses to be announced in the coming days, it said in a press release.
First, failing to achieve the majority party’s policy goals hardly qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor (at least in any rational assessment). Second, since Congress is responsible for immigration policy, they are are responsible as anyone for its ongoing failure.
I would note, for example, that the only cabinet secretary impeached (and also removed) was William Belknap who was Secretary of War. He was impeached over a clear case of bribery. (There were several others who had serious charges against them who resigned before they were impeached, which actually was also the case with Belknap, as well as a couple of others that seem to fall in the political stunt category that eventually went nowhere, as I expect to ultimately be the case here).
That we have a real and complex issue at the southern border is inarguable. But, Congress has done precious little about it for years (decades!) and I can guarantee that holding impeachment hearings (or even removing Mayorkas) will not improve the situation one iota.
Nor, to return to the topic of the post, does being president while this issue exists, make one the cause, let alone party to, insurrection.
When Republicans don’t like a law, they just break it. The only part of the Constitution they care about is the second half of the 2d amendment. Every argument MAGAts propose to support their position is a lie. They aren’t really even pretending anymore, they intend to overthrow the government and impose a Christofascist thugocracy. It’s who they are, who they always were, Trump just turned over their rock and let them skitter about.
Biden’s approach to immigration (which, ultimately, is not all that different from Trump’s in terms of outcomes) , is already an “unstopped” invasion of 8 million rapists, insane asylum escapees, and drug dealers in the boilerplate rhetoric of most Republican politicians.
If words (let alone facts in evidence) have no meaning in this political moment, isn’t “insurrection” a term that can mean whatever they want it to mean? And is it really that hard to imagine there are some number of federal judges out there (among the many that Trump appointed expressly to be partisan) who would be willing to support that interpretation?
This will evidently be tested. I fear the test will prove us more broken than you hope.
Well if all the Republican states throw Biden off the ballot and all the Democratic states throw Trump off the ballot, then we have a nice tidy election in only the swing states.
Funny way to get back to the status quo.
@Rick DeMent: Holding the election in the House of Representatives–first candidate to 26 votes wins–is a funny way to define “status quo.”
@Rick DeMent:
I was thinking something similar, but I wonder what parties the relevant election authorities are in those states. My guess is some of the, less stupid, Republicans are 1. Generally attempting to discredit this election/s and 2. Set up a situation where no one wins the electoral college allowing them to seize power through congress.
Personally, I think 2024 is going to be one of the worst years this county’s seen. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw political violence. I suspect that SCOTUS is going to grab one or more conservative door prizes such as overturning Griswold. The situation in Israel and the Middle East is going to get worse and have unpredictable effects on our politics. There’s also an enormous chance a woman is going to die horrifically because she was denied an abortion or other care. Add in a Trump conviction or him or Biden dropping dead for other wild fun and you have a recipe for hell.
BLM whataboutism is rife in conservative discussion of the 14th. Look at any, say Volokh, comment thread on the subject.
I like to point out the contrast that, setting aside that one was trying to overturn the government and the other wasn’t, the BLM protests were about the real murder of george Floyd, with video, sworn testimony, and criminal convictions. J6 was about lies, internet rumors, and other nonsense.
@Scott F.:
This.
The GOP has gone full-on postmodernist*, taking the (sometimes explicit) position that words only have connotations, not denotations, and they are used solely to influence and control other people. The fact that Trump could say with a straight face that he was going to “root out all the […] fascists” and not get a belly laugh from his audience pretty much sums up where political discourse in the country has gotten to.
The media — not just the paid propagandists, but all of them — are egregiously culpable in how we got here.
*The irony of this is overwhelming, given how much conservatives loathe postmodernism in the academy.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: That would only happen if there was not a majority of EVs. Technically, it could happen that Red states ban Biden and blue states ban Trump and there still be a majority winner in the EC.
Of course if we really go into November 2024 with that situation, we will have other more immediate problems to deal with.
@DrDaveT: I made a similar observation to a friend a number of years ago: it is all about narratives these days.
@gVOR10: To be clear, I am aware of the right-wing narrative on this subject and the rampant whataboutism attached.
I am just saying that a hearing trying to hold Harris as disqualified under section 3 because of BLM would be a bit of a stretch (to put it mildly). I am not saying it is impossible, but would assert that it would be absurd.
Desantis is a fool
He rather should be quite happy to undercut Trump – he cowardice in putting knives in Trump (and comically stupid jousting with Disney) rather show him to be very bad at playing to win.
@Lounsbury: I had a similar thought. His best chance to be president is for Trump to not be on the ballot.
Maybe he still thinks he will be the veep (but I think he is deluding himself on that one). Or that he is fighting for 2028 (but if so he should have simply waited).
@Steven L. Taylor: I’ve commented before that this is DeUseless’ only shot. His only campaign tactic is being a MAGA asshat Governor and he’s term limited after 2026. The Tampa Bay Times has a long article, paywalled, this morning on how the new session of the lege is expected to be a lot quieter than last year as DeUseless isn’t launching his prez campaign and he’s tied up out of state. They also have a list of ten major issues in front of the lege, auto and homeowner insurance crises, a broken prison system, Medicare expansion, etc. that for the most part they aren’t expected to do anything about. They are expected to enable child labor, further loosen gun purchase restrictions, and sabotage the initiative to ensure abortion rights.
@gVOR10:
What do you think the chances are they attempt to remove the term limits?
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m assuming that each side will move to invalidate the electors from the opposite sides ballot that has no opponent. It’s certainly the tactic I would use confronted with that scenario.*
Additionally, I found myself wondering under what scenario Rick DeMent figured that the Democrats would come out ahead on electoral votes in a nation where most red states are likely to declare Biden ineligible to run for office. Or even break even. Either way it struck me as one of those “wouldn’t it be ironic if…” situations that are never likely to be ironic in the manner the ironist intended. A stupid idea for a stupid debate or GIGO. Take your pick.
*And yes, this is another of those why-you-don’t-want-Cracker-to-hold-office things.
@Michael Reynolds:
There is actually a principled way to do that. It’s called “civil disobedience” and it has two parts:
1. Breaking the law in a way that draws attention to unjust laws but does no lasting harm
2. Accepting the legal penalties for breaking the law
The idea is to shame the authorities who make the laws into changing them. It has been known to work, but it requires that public opinion eventually get behind the protesters, and that the authorities actually have shame.
@Beth: I think there are good odds DeUseless will try. It doesn’t feel like he has the hold on the rest of the state GOPs he once had. I don’t know if he’d get support or the rest of them would be happy to see him go. Being Florida, that question would largely revolve around lobbyists and I don’t know how things would go behind the curtain.
@gVOR10: @Beth:
It’s in the Constitution of 1968. He could run again, but after sitting out one election cycle.
Could they try? Yes. But it would seem to be pretty difficult for them to do it absent a ballot initiative this year (don’t think there is one) or some really twisted court decision.
I’d like to see them bring such arguments in front of a court. I’m sure they’d succeed in putting the jester back in court jester.
@Rick DeMent:
Colorado will almost certainly vote for Biden regardless of whether or not Trump is on the ballot, and if Trump is somehow winning there, then Trump’s ballot access is the least of Biden’s problems.
Maine is a bit more interesting. While Trump is unlikely to win the state at large, he should be viewed as a favorite for that one electoral vote from the 2nd district. Someone over at Political Wire came up with a map of how that one EV could make the difference between Biden winning and losing:
https://www.270towin.com/maps/mrE2B.png
Basically, you start with the 2020 map and hand Trump Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Nebraska’s 2nd. In that case, if Biden carries ME-02, he wins the EC by the knife’s edge: 270-268. If ME-02 goes to Trump, it’s an electoral tie and the race gets thrown into the House where Trump has the advantage.
Is that a plausible scenario? I think it is. Nevada hasn’t been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 2004, but it was close last time, and while it did vote to the left of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, that doesn’t mean it will do so next time. As for NE-02, Biden won it by nearly 7 points last time, which would seem to make it safer for him than any of the core battleground states. But the weirdness of the electoral-vote splitting, its being a purple district within a very red state, and its being out-of-the-way for regular campaigning, makes me wonder how sturdy it really is.
Of course this is all probably angels on the head of a pin. Offhand I’d say there’s about a 5% chance SCOTUS rules that Trump is ineligible everywhere, a 10% chance they leave it up to the states, and an 85% chance they strike down all attempts to remove him from the ballot.
Now you’ve got me wondering… If every state had only write-in balloting — no prompting from the state as to who is running and which party they represent — how would that affect the likely outcomes in the various states (especially the swing states)? Would it generally favor Trump, or Biden?
@DrDaveT: I recently read a little about the laws of writing in candidates during a presidential election, and it’s incredibly complicated. There are eight states that don’t allow it at all, some that require registration, others that don’t; Mississippi only allows you to write in a candidate who was removed, withdrew, or died.
In any case, if a candidate who’s constitutionally ineligible to be president wins a state as a write-in, that candidate presumably would not be permitted to send electors to Washington.
I wonder if Republicans realise they’re flirting with a scenario where the Supreme Court finds that Trump is disqualified from serving as president, but Biden isn’t.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Why would you think it would go into the HoA?
Also in the realm of “tit meet tat”
Since Ackman wants to throw out accusations of antisemitism when his wife is accused of the same plagiarism he condemned Gay with… Ackman needs to explain why he’s intentionally racist towards Gay.
We all know, of course — He’s just trying to cancel anyone&everyone insufficiently servile to his specific censorious whims regarding Israel. To be clear, Gay was actually defending free speech.
Funny how Republicans are always interested in canceling speech that doesn’t benefit them. It’s almost like they don’t actually have a principle other than power.