660 Comments
User's avatar
Doktor Zoom's avatar

Just popped in to add the Washington Post’s livestream, which is gooder than the AP's because it identifies who’s speaking.

Don’t play both at the same time; it might open a hellmouth or scare the dog.

Expand full comment
OG Blockhead's avatar

Dr. Faustus: Don't play both? Why not, if I but gain profit from it and come to greater knowledge than He who framed the world? Mephistopheles, do thou my bidding.

Mephistopheles: *plays both, hellmouth opens, impish demons scamper out*

Dr. Faustus: Oh, fuck.

Expand full comment
tehbaddr's avatar

More betterer.

Expand full comment
Uncle Milburn's avatar

Dok, we're not paying off your student loans to have you use words like gooder!

Expand full comment
Notorious J.I.M.'s avatar

If a Doctor says it, why, it must be accurate.

Expand full comment
Old Man Yells at Cloud's avatar

Be Goodest

Expand full comment
"M"'s avatar

Mine aren't paid off yet

I keep checking my email for some further communique from the Secretary of Education but so far no dice

Expand full comment
DJ Teetop's avatar

Right? Airbody knows gooderer is proper usage.

Expand full comment
Jus_Wonderin's avatar

Are we not already within an open hellmouth? My dog has been scared since 2016.

(She has a V E T appointment today for which she had a B A T H yesterday.)

Expand full comment
"M"'s avatar

I don't blame the doggie

I woke up in horror that November morning and it's been a nightmare ever since

Expand full comment
Uncle Milburn's avatar

Sounds like pupper needs a W A L K.

Expand full comment
SkeptiKC's avatar

A few generous treats need to be in this good girl's immediate future. She has had one HELLUVA couple of days.

Expand full comment
Gary Seven in Space's avatar

Take a trip to the garage...

Expand full comment
Jus_Wonderin's avatar

We agree on this. You/She and I. <g>

Expand full comment
Michael B's avatar

CNN is doing that too...

Expand full comment
PropellerVigo's avatar

Thanks. That helps me hone my ire.

Expand full comment
MRK's avatar

You say that like opening a hellmouth wouldn't scare the dog, which makes me wonder about the dog.

Expand full comment
DLZbub's avatar

My Scurvy would befriend Satan.

Expand full comment
RefillingThorsBeer's avatar

My Catahoulahellhound would say "HI DAD!!!"

Expand full comment
SkeptiKC's avatar

The Light Bringer has long been a good friend of mine.

We misfits have to stick together.

Expand full comment
Doktor Zoom's avatar

I guess the "at least" shouldn't have been left implied.

Expand full comment
Old Man Yells at Cloud's avatar

If Zoom can identify who is talking why can't SCOTUS?

Expand full comment
MRK's avatar

Tradition.

Expand full comment
insolenthedgehog's avatar

"Who day and night must scramble for a living . . ."

Oops! Sorry. My inner Theatre nerd is showing.

Expand full comment
Schmannity's avatar

PBS audio better

Expand full comment
Linoleum von Curmudgeon, Esq.'s avatar

Thank you!

It is a vast improvement.

Expand full comment
DDB9000's avatar

MSNBC is also...

Expand full comment
DemoCat's avatar

I personally feel the Wingnut 6 will parse the issue of “insurrection” and dodge the real issue of whether a person guilty of insurrection should be barred from running. They will rule that Trump wasn’t convicted of “insurrection,” or any other crime against the U.S. government related to 1/6. They will say it’s “debatable” and contested by Trump that he took part in the actions of the J6ers to a criminally culpable degree. He fired up the crowd at the Ellipse, and used barely disguised rhetoric like “fight like hell.” He did encourage them to march to the Capitol and even offered to join them. No doubt he wanted a mob of supporters to create a scene, at minimum, and more likely a disturbance that would require Congress to adjourn. But the SCOTUS is beholden to Trump, each of the 6 to varying degrees, perhaps. No doubt they have their safety in the back of their minds. If they issue a ruling that effectively ends Trump’s campaign, ALL the liquid hot MAGA will be directed at them. They will rule Trump hasn’t been legally adjudicated guilty of insurrection, so states using that as a basis to bar him are skipping a step. So they will decline to reach the real issue. I find it incredibly sad that someone guilty of the things Trump has done, the damage he’s inflicted on our country, lies he’s told, could be permitted to somehow run again. It’s an indictment on our entire system and a large portion of our society.

Expand full comment
John S Smith's avatar

If this is left up to the individual secretarys of state, Trump would only get removed from the ballots of those states that were so blue that they'd elect a secretary of state that would kick Trump off. Trump wouldn't win those state's electoral votes anyway, and it would just fire up the MAGAhats in the red and swing states.

Expand full comment
BrianW's avatar

Gambler? Sure, sometimes. Sucker bets? No thanks. That's where this is.

Expand full comment
Gary Seven in Space's avatar

This will be 9-0 against Colorado. Wait and see?

Expand full comment
Runfastandwin's avatar

It's a sad day when Brazil understands the constitution better than $SCROTUS.

Expand full comment
2Cats2Furious's avatar

I just wrote a 1000 word essay that got wiped out. Fuck.

I’ll just say TFG wins this case at least 7-2, if not 9-0.

Expand full comment
Dave's Not Here's avatar

Gorsuch's voice sounds like a 1950s doctor extolling the virtues of smoking.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

I was listening on the radio and I felt like they all sounded like they have been chain smoking in a tiny room for the past 20 years. What's up with that?

Expand full comment
Plain Marie's avatar

Everybody is fighting off some crud? Every other person I know has or has has recently: COVID, the flu, a cold, sinus infection, bronchitis, the coughing crud.

Expand full comment
PropellerVigo's avatar

Except Alito. He sounded like he just finished jacking off.

Expand full comment
TheGreatAndPowerfulMormos!'s avatar

My bet: the states lack standing, ballot removal must be determined by congress.

Sincerely, the nazi court

Expand full comment
Zyxomma's avatar

Ta, Doktor Zoom. I shall not play both at once.

Expand full comment
Msgr MΩment, Neurodegenerate's avatar

Looks like somebuunny summoned the hellmouth.

Expand full comment
Richard S's avatar

I'm not following this very closely, but I have to wonder if two lines of inquiry have come up.

1. Seems that from what I've heard so far, PAB's legal aides are sticking with the argument that "the president is not an officer", despite the extremely detailed decision rendered by Colorado. Has anyone mentioned that, by not bringing up the "insurrection" part of things, PAB is essentially conceding the point that the events of Jan 6 did indeed constitute an insurrection?

2. Has anyone mentioned that, as per the actual literal text of the 14th Amendment, PAB can petition Congress for a reinstatement? That he's not likely to get it with this Congress does NOT mean that the option isn't there. Why is he bothering the Court when there is a clear and obvious way for him to get the OK to be on all ballots everywhere?

Expand full comment
Runfastandwin's avatar

I think the insurrection thing is unappealable because latin.

Expand full comment
OG Blockhead's avatar

"Legal analysts" are apparently shitting themselves at how badly Colorado argued its case.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-ballot/

Expand full comment
Old Man Yells at Cloud's avatar

Maybe if they had used a lawyer old enough to shave, he would have had more experience.

Expand full comment
GiggleSnort's avatar

CNN sez it appears the justices are angling for ways they can side with Trump, mostly on narrow grounds, not by making a judgement on whether he did insurrection or not.

Expand full comment
carovee's avatar

I wouldn't blame CO when SCOTUS votes against them. The conservative justices were always going to give Trump's lawyer help from the bench.

Expand full comment
Old Man Yells at Cloud's avatar

Co can use the Abbot Gambit and simply give the finger to SCOTUS.

Expand full comment
Runfastandwin's avatar

If only.

Expand full comment
paperlesstiger's avatar

Yeah, green-light insurrection. What could possibly go wrong?

Expand full comment
PropellerVigo's avatar

New prediction: 9-0

Section 3 is not self executing, because of section 5. Congress is the sole means of enforcing the provisions of the 14th amendment by its own text.

The presidency and vice presidency are not enumerated as officers in section 3 because the requirements for those offices are defined elsewhere and can't be changed by a simple act of congress; they would require a separate amendment.

Pretty much wraps it up, and avoids any question of the insurrection.

Expand full comment
Cryny's avatar

Relying on Congress to enforce anything seems like a bad idea.

Expand full comment
PropellerVigo's avatar

That's the point. They're going to punt.

Expand full comment
Lady MS's avatar

Relying on anyone but ourselves to shut this mofo down is a waste of angst.

Expand full comment
Lady MS's avatar

Before the hearing began, MSNBC’s Anand Whatshisname (the guy with the white bouffant) made, perhaps, the most important point of all: every moment spent consumed with the endless cases, like some L&O miniseries, is a moment not spent doing the gruntwork to keep Dolt45 out of office. We can’t wait for nature or the legal system to save us from this menace. If Wonkers alone pledge an hour per week using whatever skills they’re most comfortable with (phonebanks, postcards, LttEs, voter ed/reg, etc.), we’ll be looking at thousands of peoplehours in sevice of democracy. Let’s fuckin’ GO!

Expand full comment
KayinLa's avatar

YES! There are more of US than them! We need to mobilize every vote. My friends and I are working at that all the time. There are many groups you can join and do what you can to save us from the crazy cult followers. Get engaged NOW!

Expand full comment