Oral arguments lead to Trump remaining on the ballot. In other words, Politics, not Law, wins.

Et tu, Ketanji? Et tu?

The otherwise awesome justice just failed my test for jurisprudence. She was literally telling the lawyer, Murray, that the 14th Amendment section 3, by saying only "officers" but not President or Vice President, when it included Representatives and Senators, means, back in 1868, Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens could not run for any office EXCEPT president and vice president. Huh? Even with a back and forth in the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment where one senator explained the office of president and vice president are included in the term "office"--and literally no other senator said it means it doesn't? Even when one reviews the US Constitution and sees that Representatives and Senators are called "members," not "officers," which is why those legislation positions were added? I had thought this was the weakest argument for Trump to make, even if the lawyers had a right to try it out at least. I also have consistently been saying none of the Colorado Supreme Court justices took that argument seriously, and the majority slammed it (The dissent did not state any disagreement with the majority on that ground).

Also, how stupid are these justices when Trump's lawyer said, "Well, Trump didn't actually take part in the attack on the Capitol..." and they accepted that with none pointing out how the felony-murder rule works, how conspiracy law works, and how the case law from the earliest days of the Republic held that any person even minutely connected before, during, or after acts of Treason are traitorous themselves. I guess all this only applies to leftist agitators, and people of darker skin colors.

Further, it is frustratingly ironic that Trump can literally say in his post-argument press conference that there was an "insurrection," but it was started by Nancy Pelosi. Yet, inside the Supreme Court's courtroom, the idea that this was merely a riot, which is essentially amorphous without leaders, was being taken seriously by some of the so-called justices. 

As I predicted in my post dated January 6, 2024, the US Supreme Court will likely keep Trump on the ballot despite the materially undisputed facts of Trump lying to the public about a fraudulent election in which he was deprived of re-election, his amassing people in DC to march on the Capitol building, and using language of war and violence (yeah, the one line about "peacefulness" doesn't cut it, as courts look at overall content and circumstances) to stop a presidential transition. That is not only the definition of "insurrection," which is a riot with intent from a leader seeking to control the government, or stop a government action. As I have said in my December 31, 2023 blog post, it is why Trump was indictable and would likely be convicted for Treason. There was, from the materially undisputed evidence, an intent to intimidate at the very least. January 6, 2021 was unlike yippies in 1968 seeking to "levitate" the Pentagon with flowers and meditation. It was also unlike the recent anti-Israeli war sit-in in the Capitol Rotunda. In neither event did Pentagon or Congressional people run for their very lives. We all saw this live. The idea that there is a reasonable doubt to this is itself ridiculous when the record before the US Supreme Court makes the statements I just articulated materially undisputed. But, we are at the late Weimar stage of our nation. And fecklessness rules the establishment, whether liberal or conservative/right wing.

In my January 6, 2024 post, I predicted the US Supreme Court would at least have six votes to keep Trump on the ballot. I guess the remaining three libs are going along, as I am sure there will be a hard push on Sotomayor. Feckless libs and corrupt reactionaries. That's our current Supreme Court. No belief in the law which they are supposed to uphold and enforce without fear or favor. SMH.

Will there be different candidates than Trump and Biden nominated this August? The chances are small, but growing.

I've said it before on Facebook/Meta. I'll say it again. There is a growing (though today still relatively small) chance Trump will be removed from the Republican ballot at the Republican Party convention this August. His cognitive abilities are clearly on the decline in ways that if this was Biden, legacy corporate media would be all over it. I also think he may be convicted in the DC criminal trial by then, which will be a cause of marked decline in swing voter support.  

It is my view Biden is even more likely than Trump to not be on the ballot at the Democratic Party convention this August--unless Biden's polling numbers dramatically improve and he avoids what I see as the inevitable physical fall that occurs with people who are 80 or older.  I can see Biden stepping aside for CA gov Gavin Newsom, who is now a leading active campaigner for Biden, or some surprise candidate. This will result in a 90 day sprint and the media will be relatively slow to catch up if the Dems use the advertising power that corporate Dems have--and bankers decide it is better to let the Dems win than the Republicans--as Republicans continue to show themselves incapable of governance in a way that threatens the function of American society. 

Biden's replacement will likely want to muddy the Israel-Palestine issue. Newsom or another replacement candidate will utter sufficient generalities towards Palestinian rights, and talk of two state solutions. This will ensure sufficient confusion among most who are not fully engaged with the history of the region and issue. The generalities will also come in a context where, by the summer, Israel's permanent displacement of Palestinians from Gaza will likely be essentially completed. Israel will, for its part, likely cool its repression for 90 days in the West Bank so that people are again fooled. Then, in 2025, Israel will start again its major settlement building and we will see even more displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank. This is the consistent Zionist project, regardless of the delusions of Americans who think of themselves as "liberal" Zionists. 

In any event, the 90 day sprint with a new Democratic candidate will also likely bring younger people back into the Dem fold, as there is no Republican replacement who will be both acceptable to the Republican base and to the general public. The Dems will advertise hard on the abortion issue and LGBTQ rights. This is not to imply those latter two issues are not important issues. They are important, especially when one issue affects tens of millions of LGBTQ Americans, and the abortion issue so, so many women. What remains frustrating, though, is regardless of the fact the vast majority of Americans are live-and-let-live on LGBTQ issues, and recognize now more than ever that abortion is about women's health and bodily autonomy, we have a political structure that gives more power to the minority of Americans who believe the flawed interpretation of their Christian religious philosophy (other religions don't have this level of being anti-abortion). It is therefore an issue, particularly with a revanchist, right wing Supreme Court majority. Thus, these are salient and important issues.

But what that also means is this: Palestinians are the leading sacrificial lambs in American politics. Other sacrificial lambs are those of us who recognize the need for fighting the effects of climate change and overcoming global corporate driven inequality. Again, this is why I support the growing and continuing agitation for Palestinian rights against genocidal enabling politicians, particularly in the Democratic Party. The Palestinian issue helps those agitating better connect the dots to the military-industrial-fossil fuel complex.  And It remains my hope young people continue to be more open to challenging capitalist ideological domination and see a social democratic future expressed in public policies.