I guess everybody’s seen the SCOTUS decision today that invalidated the Colorado (as well as the other two states that did so) court decision to kick the former president off of the ballot. 

Neil predicted weeks ago that that decision would be overturned and that he would not be surprised if it was unanimous…which it was. However…although all 9 voted to overturn the decision a majority of 5 found that any enforcement of the 14th amendment would need enabling legislation from Congress while the 3 liberals and Justice Coney Barrett wrote partially concurring opinions stating essentially that the majority opinion went too far.

He agrees with the idea that it went too far…but also he thinks that the partial concurrences didn’t go quite far enough. Generally…their disagreement was that the court usually decides only the decision in front of it and doesn’t expand beyond that…and that the majority opinion requiring congressional action to enforce was a step too far. His opinion is that if the former president had been convicted of insurrection then he needs to be kicked off the ballot but it would have to be a federal court decision to do so, not a state one. I know that all of the liberals claim that the 14 amendment is self executing and that it doesn’t say conviction is required. That is true…but it also doesn’t say that conviction is not required and elsewhere in the amendment it talks about due process…and due process means a trial by a jury of your peers. The problem is that whether the man is guilty of insurrection is purely and simply unknown at this point…at least from a legal standpoint. Sure…his supporters say he’s not and his detractors say he is…but none of that matters. Until a jury finds that he is guilty of the crime of insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt then by definition in US jurisprudence he is innocent until proven guilty. Frankly…I think he probably should have been charged and then let the justice system sort that out once and for all…but the DoJ chose not to indict and prosecute him for insurrection…and there’s really only a couple of good reasons for that…because they either didn’t have sufficient evidence to get a conviction or they were not sure enough that the thought of an acquittal was not something they wanted to allow the possibility of…take your pick. But absent a jury decision…all of the talking heads and partisan morons on both sides who opine on whether he did or didn’t…are just irrelevant.

And he’s actually surprised that even the liberal justices concurred that a state cannot kick a person off the federal ballot…he was pretty sure that at least one of them would agree that a state could do so. 

What’s really surprising is the internet rangers commenting…with their detailed legal knowledge, degrees, and experience…that he participated in the insurrection. While…and I agree…arguably, it is true that he did participate in one…one can also make the counter argument that the man truly believes that the election was stolen (we don’t agree with that, but I digress)…and both sides on both of those questions can point out talking heads and legal pundits and whatnot that ‘prove’ their point. And the anti former president people talk about the 14th amendment being ‘self executing’ because it doesn’t require a conviction…but then it doesn’t *not* require a conviction either leaving the question open and in the earlier sections it does specify that there is “no deprivation of life, liberty, or property” without due process. And while I agree that one can make valid arguments both ways regarding his participation…due process means (at least in the US) a trial by a jury of your peers and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Without an *actual jury trial*  to evaluate the evidence and determine if the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is met…then the principle of *innocent until proven guilty* applies and at this point unless I’ve seen whatever actual evidence exists in person as a member of the jury and examined the minutia in the law regarding the elements of the offense and all that…making a blanket statement that he did…or did not…participate in an insurrection is simply impossible. Without delving too deeply in to the evidence which I haven’t seen…if the man truly believes that the election was stolen then disrupting the electoral college vote counting could be considered as following the law to protest the election as unjust. I’m not saying it was unjust or not…and so far I’ve seen exactly zero evidence that it was unjust or stolen…but then I haven’t seen all of the evidence at all…just that “because I say so” doesn’t make it an established legal fact. And the judgement of a single state judge in Colorado doesn’t make it a fact either. And the fact that of the 7 justices in the Colorado Supreme Court…all appointed by Democrats I believe…3 of them disagreed that the court had the power to eliminate him from the ballot does’t make it true either. Simply put…as the SCOTUS said…this is a *federal* election…and while states are charged in the constitution with running elections they do not have the power to eliminate candidates from a federal ballot. This was clearly the common sense and ‘read the constitution’ answer all along…so I guess that makes Neil, Connie and myself eligible to be appointed to the SCOTUS…not that it will ever happen since whoever is doing the nomination and counting the votes in the Senate is more interested in getting a Justice who will vote the way they like rather than them following the law…and both parties are equally guilty of that demand.

His next prediction is regarding his claims of presidential immunity. The lower court provided a pretty blanket denial of any immunity for any president after he/she leaves office…and the court in their announcement to hear the appeal said that there was some question as to the amount of immunity a former president has. His opinion is that immunity for official acts will remain in place but immunity for unofficial acts while it does exist while he is in office unless he is impeached and convicted/removed from office but that a former president can be prosecuted for unofficial acts…and that any actions he took regarding the election in 2020 will be held to be candidate acts and not official acts. We’ll see what happens later on. 

Hopefully…after their oral arguments in April they will issue a decision relatively expeditiously and if they rule against him the trials can start. Unfortunately…if not and he wins the election…then after inauguration he will direct the DoJ to drop all federal charges against him. That won’t help with the state charges of course…and while the DoJ has an unwritten policy not to charge a sitting president it isn’t an official policy and states have zero policy about prosecuting a sitting president.

It’s gonna be a mess though. Personally…he thinks neither the former president or the President should be on the ballot this year for a variety of reasons (more than one each)…but it’s gonna be what it’s gonna be. And he thinks that both of them should take a cognitive test and it would show that neither is fit for the job…but then there’s that whole pesky constitution thing that establishes the requirements to be the President and “take a cognitive test” isn’t on there. So…much like the effort to force term limits on the SCOTUS justices or force them to follow a congressionally approved ethics policy…Ima guessing it just ain’t happening.

One other interesting article in the
news…up in Philadelphia Saturday morning a state trooper pulled over a car for expired registration and several other moving violations which may or may not be subject to the officer’s interpretation. The vehicle stopped and then a second vehicle pulled up behind the troopers car. Turns out that the first car was being driven by the Executive Director of the Office of LBGTQ Affairs and the second was driven by her husband. We’ve only seen the woman’s Facebook video at this point and not the dashcam footage…but the trooper (according to the report) approached the second vehicle after telling the driver of the first one to remain in their vehicle. He then told the driver of the second one that he was interfering with a traffic stop and ordered him (legally) to move on and depart the area. The husband declined to do so, argued with the trooper, and exited his car…at which point the trooper told him he was under arrest for obstruction. A scuffle ensued and the trooper took the man to the ground and cuffed him…all while being recorded by the woman who…in violation of lawful orders…had exited her vehicle and was filming the interaction (the exit was unlawful, the recording was lawful). She kept yelling “dat my husband” and “I work for the mayor” and “this is because we’re black” to which the officer responded “No, it isn’t”…as if any of those gives her a pass to have expired registration on her vehicle. She ended up arrested as well…and charges are currently pending results of a complete investigation and evaluation of the dashcam video. The mayor however…was quick to respond ““A video circulating on social media that depicts a portion of the incident is very concerning to me,” rather than saying something like let’s get the facts and see what happens. Obviously the mayor took the side automatically of her employee rather than having an investigation. And naturally…the liberals are all in a tizzy about this one…and if the end result is that the charges are justified by the investigation I don’t think we’ll see national media reporting that tidbit.

Now…Ima only a bear and don’t drive…but I asked Neil and he told me that way back when he was 16 years old and got his license he learned a couple of things about a traffic stop…if they ask if you know why they stopped you the answer is no, say yes sir and no sir (or ma’am as appropriate), don’t argue, don’t get out of your car unless directed, tell them if you have a concealed carry license and are armed, don’t do anything threatening, and accept your ticket. If you think the ticket is unjustified…then go to court and present your case to the judge. This whole idea can best be illustrated by
this Chris Rock video (but I warn you…it’s got some adult language in it)…while his comedy was directed towards black drivers stopped by the police…it’s right on the money. It’s quite topical…but I wonder if today’s comics (the video was made in 2007) would make the same video today or if it would be censored by assorted media organizations. As a matter of fact…if you’re innocent of the thing you get the ticket for…you can get it dismissed. Neil has personal experience with this regarding a parking ticket he got in the Washington Navy Yard while getting his Navy retirement physical…despite having an appointment and proceeding directly to the second floor as he was directed…he missed the sign at the first floor desk (which he was told to ignore) that said to get a parking pass from them. The ticket was issued by Washington DC police despite being on federal property at the Navy Yard and while it took him 3 tries including 2 letters to the mayor of DC…he did eventually get it dismissed since he had proof he was there for official business.

Let’s see…what else is happening.

Answer…not much. They had date night and bingo and that’s about it…and have a concert to attend coming up this weekend.

He did get out and get me some pictures of a new…well, at least new to being around our pond…creature the other day…a raccoon. Those critters usually only come out at night but he looked out the other day and there was one sitting on the ground by a tree out back on our side of the pond. He snuck out to get some photos and…naturally…it ran up the tree where it couldn’t be seen. But…being smarter than the average bear (see what I did there)…he just sat on the lanai with the door propped open to give himself a sort of blind that he could stick the lens out the door and shoot in between things. And sure enough…10 minutes or so later down the tree the li’l rascal came and he got these nice shots from 30 feet or so.

It seemed a bit skittish but once he cracked the doors and shot through the gap it couldn’t really see him so remained relatively calm although it did keep a close eye on him.

Eating something it caught here…

Giving Neil the evil eye stare down look…

And finally wandered on off down the bank of the pond…guess it was looking for more food.

He’s starting to get psyched for his trip to Tanzania…just a few weeks to go. And he did order himself…another…telephoto zoom lens (they’re like chocolate, you can never have too many) but it’s on backorder and likely won’t be here for this trip…but mebbe for Costa Rica in the summer it will be.

Interesting things found on the net.

Who wore it better?

Password requirements.

What do the red area and blue areas have in common…think on it and I’ll let you know later.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The answer is that the red area contains 5% of the world’s total population…and amazingly enough the blue areas together also contain 5% of the world’s total population.

Cyas.