413 Comments
Feb 9·edited Feb 9

I think there is a big difference between Comey and Hur, and their respective reports. Comey simply was foolish in his attempt at what he perceived to be fairness. Hur was intentionally mean, vindictive, and spiteful; his remarks were aimed specifically at denigrating the president.

I am hoping that one or more diligent reporters will look into his bank accounts (or free trips on billionaires’ yachts). His behavior was right out of the Republican playbook.

Expand full comment

Ironic the court would deem to protect trumps rights to get votes even as he moved to nullify the votes of millions of Americans in 2020.. it is also interesting that colorado cant speak forthe whole nation, when texas was doing the same thing with the SCOTUS on the abortion issue.. how’d that turn out?

Expand full comment

The moment I read what Hur had said about Biden, I said, “It’s like Comey and Hillary.” I soon knew I was not alone in my assessment.

But how do we put out the raging fire of lies that continue decimating the landscape of our democracy? The country I love and barely recognize now.

The once revered Supreme Court is less than a shadow of what it once represented and was. Once a trusted institution, I no longer believe they will do the right thing. I still have moments of hope, but like a dying heart, the beats are fading.

I’m so tired of all the drama.

Expand full comment

I keep remembering one of the Supremes asking (paraphrased) "So, you think one state should determine who becomes President?" and my immediate thought was, "HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?"

I'm disgusted and full of naughty words in my reaction to both of those events today, as mentioned.

Sleep tight, there's work to do.

Expand full comment

We have to do all that we can to get the vote out and stop this clown. I got an email today from the Secretary of State for the state of California saying my mail-in primary vote was received and counted. I’m working on my neighbors now. It’s the only sure-fire way to make it happen. Get out there.

Expand full comment

Listening to the supreme court today was devastating... I can't believe these people have a lifetime job deliberating, "weighing well," the fate of a nation. They couldn't seem to note the elephant on one tray and feather of liberty on the other tray. Truly blind.

Expand full comment

"The most likely consensus or near-consensus path for the Justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is one that rejects the business of a single state to decide a candidate isn’t eligible to hold a federal office. There was lots of technical legal argumentation around this point, but it was Justice Kagan who put it into plain English, telling the lawyer for the Colorado voters that he needed a persuasive argument for why Colorado should get to decide the issue for the country. He didn't have one."

This is not my understanding. No one is/was arguing that the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court had to apply to every state; it is a case about whether the CSC applied its own Constitution and legislation correctly and lawfully; it was not implying a national disqualification.

The Federal Government doesn't conduct federal elections - the individual states construct procedures for the election of Representatives, Senators, and President / Vice President, according to each state's laws, so long as they are consistent with laws passed by Congress. A state can't hold an election in October just because it wants to.

But for the SCOTUS to now claim that "states' rights" do not or cannot apply to presidential elections would seem to fly in the face of their recent decision in Dobbs - arguing that there was no Constitutional right to an abortion that over-ruled the right of states to decide this according to their own politics and laws.

And on the basic issue, setting aside the very fluid states' rights arguments - and as eminent commentators have said - if the 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause does not or cannot apply to Donald Trump for this election, after his behaviour in November 2020 - January 2021, then it cannot apply to anyone - the provision is dead.

I would be very sad if the purportedly 'liberal' Justices side with the egregious majority on flawed grounds.

Expand full comment

I was so glad to hear Andrew Weismann really rip the SP and Neal Katayl too. He needs to learn how to do his f*cking job without inserting his opinion! I learned how to write legal reports when I was in mandate school (no I decided being a cop wasn’t for me) and you never insert opinions, only facts! I hope he becomes unemployed like Comey. I was disappointed the justices didn’t go down the insurrection trail. The best part was when the lawyer said that Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million voters on 1/6. I was expecting more from the CREW lawyers but I was disappointed.

Expand full comment

"So watch the courts, but work on the vote. It’s time for us to turn our focus there. Whether Trump will be on the ballot or not, it’s time to register, prepare to vote, and make sure our votes are counted."

Joyce is absolutely right! Plus, each of us needs to volunteer/donate/run for office with an election campaign at local, state, or federal level. Right-wing extremists and their funders have been playing the long game for 50+ years, building up a deep bench by supporting candidates for local school, rural fire, library, water district, and other boards. These people are now running for state and federal offices; many are MAGA true believers, others are MAGA cynics. Either way, they can take away our freedoms we don't get active now.

Expand full comment

Hur inserting his gratuitous trump supporting talking points into the report that exonerated Biden is despicable.

Expand full comment

Today's developments plus your insightful analysis has brought me to a state of near desperation for our country.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Joyce. I was so angry when I read the comments from the bench during the hearing of Andersen v Trump that I immediately wrote a rant against them. One thing I missed was "is it the business of a single State to deny trump a place on the ballot" The answer can be found in Article 1, Section 4, first paragraph: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;" Therefor States may individually decide upon the ballots presented to the voters in that State.

Further more Amendment 14, Section 3 uses "No person shall be" not can or if then. As to whether the President is an "officer" of the United States of course he/she is, why else do we call if the "Office of the Presidency" Nor is Trump above the law. Remember Nixon's first Vice President, Spiro Agnew? He was indicted on criminal behavior and convicted of criminal behavior.

We owe the trumpster nothing. He was without doubt the worst President ever. His crimes far exceed even Warren G Harding who used to hold the title of the worst President. As to the fear his cult would riot if he is removed from the ballot; big walloping wow. Trump has said publicly that he will only accept the election results of 2024 if he wins. [Same promise he made in 2016 and 2020] So we can expect insurrection, this time with guns. But this time we had better be prepared with the National Guard and full police protection in Washington DC and every major city in the Country - with orders to shoot.

Expand full comment

Hur certainly doesn’t sound ethical with his opinionated report. You are right, Joyce. 45 will use all of this to his advantage. Honestly sometimes it feels like we can’t get ahead. Two steps forward and three back. Our “Supremes” are such a disappointment. Yes, we have to vote, and we have to get this DC case going!!! Thank you. I just saw you on MSNBC. Were you typing this under the table? Get some sleep, dear one.

Expand full comment

I am very disappointed with the arguments I have heard from the Justices. Roberts says we shouldn’t remove Trump for the ballot because Biden might be removed in other states. Does Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not know that some cases have merit and others do not? Are we to not pursue those that have merit because a tit for tat response that does not have merit could arise? Kavenaugh thinks applying the Constitutional restrictions are un-democratic. I suppose he’d like to do away with the requirements a presidential candidate has to meet to become president. I could go on—the lines of reasoning here either are poor or they are way over my head.

Expand full comment

Cowardly Garland should have charged Trump with insurrection years ago. Kavanaugh enjoyed rubbing it in today that if that federal charge had been made by Garland as the January 6 committee called for, and Trump was convicted as many have been easily convicted who attacked the Capitol, that Trump would have been precluded from holding office and this whole article 3 charade today never would have happened. The Supreme Court never was going to rule in favor of the Colorado case. The fix was in and even Jackson and Kagan disgracefully feigned selective amnesia about the true intent of article 3 today.

Expand full comment

To see Jackson and Kagan be intentionally negligent in acknowledging what article 3 obviously means and demands is sickening.

Expand full comment