Resounding applause to the House Ethics Committee for calling out egregious self-dealing, abuse of office and financial misappropriation. Perhaps they might assist Chief Justice Roberts in composing an Ethics Code for the Supreme Court, then apply the exact same standards and scrutiny to the current candidates for President...especially the Republican front runner.
Yeah, interestingly the chairman of the committee is an Election Denier. What Trump does is ethically OK with him, but this stuff by Santos, that's just not acceptable at all!
Congress is supposed to have oversight of the court isn't it? I think they need to expend more energy considering how to respond to unethical behaviors by justices, now before the next election.
Not over the Supreme Court, unless enabling Legislation is written and passed by both the House and Senate, then signed into law by the President. SCOTUS, in slapping us in the face with their "code of ethics (not)" just told us to go away.
Even though challenging and unlikely to pass, should be written and put to a vote. It should be very in your face, and not the polite whining of we can't really do anything. MAKE A STATEMENT about what should be, and then make it very public so that the average American, who is not even thinking about this, gets an idea of what can be, like in Roe v Wade. Normalize the idea that Congress should be overseeing them and what those rules look like. Doing things that are illegal and unethical because of implicit bias, should earn loss of job if proven at least and jail time at the most.
I listen to the Sisters in Law podcast on Saturday mornings, where four female attorneys who have been or are prosecutors and law professors (and commentators on TV) addressed this question this week. After analyzing the many weaknesses of the document SCOTUS put out, they suggested that at minimum the justices should be required to submit their tax returns for automatic review the way the president now does and secondly an Inspector General could be appointed to oversee SCOTUS. Those two simple things could turn up and deter a great deal of what we have seen--things the finance committee has turned up now but obviously Thomas never expected would be discovered.
Nov 18, 2023·edited Nov 18, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I'm anxious to hear more about the Colorado decision and the appeal process. I have long felt that there was a need for some judicial authority to determine that the Defendant had engaged in an insurrection, in order for the 14th Amendment to apply, but I never thought any reasonable person would buy the argument that a president is neither an office holder nor an officer in the federal government. The judge's decision on the latter may call into question the decision on the former.
The fact that the judge found the Defendant engaged in an insurrection but that 14A doesn't apply to the presidency is perplexing, and would seem to provide grounds for a successful appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, which will likely then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps this split verdict will lead to a unified verdict sooner rather than later.
Bob, Having granted that the plaintiffs had established Trump’s complicity in insurrection, the judge’s ruling, in my view, presents a most urgent warning as to whether the Judicial branch can be counted on to fulfill the need for constant checks and balances against the excesses, in this case, of executive power.
Let's see how it plays out. There may be a method to her apparent madness. In any case, we need to be prepared for whatever comes. If the Defendant prevails, it might just be for the primaries, in which case this may continue well into next year. If the good guys win, and the Defendant is not on the ballot in many or all primaries, we may be facing a renewed threat from someone like Nikki Haley.
That being said, the Defendant won't go quietly, and might just sabotage his own party in retaliation for what he'll claim is disloyalty in the face of his martyrdom. One way or another, we're gonna be in for a bumpy ride.
Bob, While I’ll try to hold your thoughts, still, having learned as a school girl how our Founders sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the potential undoing of its revolutionary promise, I imagine a returned Jefferson or Madison, surveying the American experiment in its third century, would be horrified by the near fatal blow to our institutions.
While you folks try to explain or debate the ins and outs of this judges ruling I sit here thinking that, as with the Senate Republicans, the ruling offers twisted logic that once again lets TFG slide through another gate in the endless efforts to try to shut him down only to live another day in the public arena spouting off about being a victim. Good grief!! The man and the process are annoying.
You're absolutely right, John. While we're all trying to be fair-minded and reasonable, the Defendant is anything but, and would turn the tables in a heartbeat. I'd much rather be us than him, and I'm confident that good will prevail. I look forward to looking back on this dark chapter in our history as one where our resolve was bent but not broken.
In the earlier decision on this matter, the judge (Minnesota?) specifically said that the decision applied to the primary only and left open the possibility of a further suit regarding the general election. I'm guessing that a pre-emptive attempt would be rejected as conjectural, but one must wonder what the response to disqualifying a party's chosen candidate would be.
It is a ridiculous argument to say they are not an office holder in the Federal government. I do not see how this can be upheld. If so, then all teachers of elementary civics and government, will have to readdress how they teach who is in the 3 branches of government on the Federal level.
If the president is not an office holder in the federal government, then what exactly is he? Under this reasoning is he indeed above the laws of said federal government?
I am not defending the conclusion, but the Framers used the terms "member" to refer to a member of Congress and "officer" to refer to a member of the Cabinet (for purposes of presidential succession). So, the Framers wanted to make sure that only "officers" could succeed the president in cases of vacancy, not "members." There was simply no need to declare that the President was an "officer." That is self-evident.
She appears to be taking a very literal reading of that clause in the 14th amendment, because it doesn’t specifically mention the word “president.” I posted above a video from the MeidasTouch network that clearly breaks down how she arrived at this conclusion.
I take line of fire in its literal sense. Don’t you think any judge or judges who disqualify Trump are putting their safety on the line and that of their families? The MAGA who went after Nancy nearly killed her husband instead. With Trump’s protected free speech he is again going after Engeron’s law clerk. I greatly admire judges who are wise but also courageous. I want Trump disqualified and at the same time am angry at a society that puts such awful decisions in the hands of a vulnerable few. It is the same society that can’t protect the safety of our young. God help us.
That's kinda the direction I was heading with my closing line about the split verdict maybe leading to a unified verdict sooner, but you put an interesting spin on it, Tom. It could be that she wanted to settle the factual side and leave the legal issues for the higher courts, thus making it harder for them to overturn her ruling on the Defendant's insurrection role, while making it easy for them to overturn the constitutional interpretation of "office" and "officer."
I'm interested to hear the Luettig/Tribe analysis. I didn't buy their "self-enforcing" argument previously, but if this judge's ruling on the Defendant's role holds up, that point is moot.
That’s really the only thing that makes sense. I’ve been skeptical of the entire argument, but the part of the ruling saying that the indictment was enough to satisfy the insurrection finding is undoubtedly more important than the ridiculous finding about the office of the President.
I feel the same way. It absolutely boggles the mind. I’m curious to hear the Tribe/Luttig response to this. The whole reasoning of this judge seems absurd to me.
Appeal appeal APPEAL the Colorado case! I am not a lawyer. I am just a regular person who feels injustice is constantly something that is dished out to us, We, The People. The Colorado judge’s interpretation of what an “officer” is very perplexing especially when she clearly spelled out what Fake 45’s role was in the insurrection. So excuse me while I vent ?!#* ! @“?!
Please, all venting is allowed. 😜 It seems like a ludicrous decision to me, and obviously Judge Luttig agrees. Both TC and I suggested that she may actually be afraid of retribution, so she is setting this up to be kicked up to a higher court. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that, given what trump’s cronies and groupies are capable of doing to people.
There is the case in New Mexico, where a state office holder who was involved in the J6 insurrection was found by a court to be guilty under that 14th amendment clause. That lawsuit was bought by CREW, the same group that is dealing with the Colorado lawsuit. I’m sure they will appeal this. If a guy who is the president of “Cowboys for Trump”
has been found guilty and barred from ever holding office again, it seems insane that the president would not be considered an officer of the United States.
“Both TC and I suggested that she may actually be afraid of retribution....” Seriously folks! When can will we stop the “afraid of retribution” decisions that continue to enable this criminal FG? Might it be time for some of these folks to stiffen up their backbone to put country above “retribution?” After all, soldiers are putting their life on the line every day to protect our country while these idiots are “fearing retribution!!”
There’s really no way to know what this judge was thinking in making this decision. We can only guess and speculate. What’s done is done so this will be appealed, probably all the way to the Supreme Court.
I somehow get the feeling that these judges don’t want to make the final decisions on this. A similar thing happened in Minnesota. I think, but certainly cannot prove, that they want a higher court to rule on this and not take responsibility for these decisions.
I've read it many times, and to me, inclusion of the president is just about as clear as it can be. I can only guess (with TCinLA's help) that the judge had a reason for taking that position.
Think about that "fear of retribution," Janet. As I mentioned earlier soldiers are dying for our country every day. But here's another group to take note of - as judges, Senators and House Reps fear retribution let's count the number of books published by people who served in TFG's administration or in Congress only to go on to publish and take big advances and payouts for their tell all accounts, most recently Mitt Romney and White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson who rode along with TFG on January 6. I regretfully have no patience with judges who fear retribution while others find no need to build their wealth. Damn! These are insane times.
Or, perhaps she just prefers that CREW appeals this to get a definitive answer from a higher court. It’s hard to get into the head of this judge or any judge; but there is still hope that as this moves forward, Trump may indeed be barred from appearing on the ballots.
Thank you. I’m with MeidasTouch. The president is a person, holds an office, and most definitely take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I hope this most swiftly to the state Supreme Court (and beyond if necessary) and that the only reason this ruling stands is that higher courts did not take it in time to meet deadlines for printing ballots. (We are an all-mail state.)
I think we’ve already missed the deadline for the primary, so that’s a done deal. But there’s still time to prevent his name from being on the 2024 general election ballots. Whether that will actually happen is another story altogether. I don’t hold out a great deal of hope because regardless of what the state supreme court does, appeals will continue on one or the other side, depending on who wins and loses, and this could go on ad infinitum.
Exactly. Whether trump is on the ballot or not here, he’s not going to get Colorado‘s electoral votes. He may win the primary though, because there are three red districts and I am in one of them.
It appears that Lawrence Tribe agrees with my analysis of what the judge did - establish strong proof of having engaged in insurrection, but left it to the higher court to reverse the "stupid part" to avoid having taken the whole thing on.
My immediate thought, but if she had ruled to keep trump off the ballot, HE would have immediately appealed. After all, that’s what he does best. Delay, delay, delay.
Without having read the ruling, it is difficult to understand how the judge could come to the conclusion that the President is not an officer of the United States. The Constitution is clear: “Before he shall enter upon the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: ‘ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States....” The question is therefore, is the holder of an office an “officer.” Clearly he/she is an office holder.
I will have to watch a rerun of todays MSNBC discussion as well as re-read the Baude et al paper to see how they addressed this issue.
Let me make this point as well: if we must interpret the constitution based upon the exact language in the Constitution, then under the foregoing provision, only a man can be President - there is no reference to a woman having the right to take the oath of office. This is the idiocies of the originalists.
Apparently the ruling is over 100 pages, most of it establishing that he did in fact engage in insurrection, and only the last few paragraphs interpreting the 14th to say that the president is not specifically enumerated in the list offices laid out as being excluded.
A "reasonable person" didn't buy the argument Bob, a judge who is trying very hard to avoid an uncomfortable decision did. Possibly a soul sister of Judge Cannon's.
Her finding that he engaged in an insurrection is pretty significant. I have a feeling there's more to this than meets the eye. Cannon is a different story. I don't think she's made a good ruling yet.
I agree you on the significance of the insurrection finding. Both judges seem to be inviting further legal action once the primary has been determined and neither gave any indication that the nomination needed to be complete, only that the state be the governing body rather than the party which they recognized as a private entity.
Cannon is weird, she made one good ruling way back at the beginning of the discussion and then, after about 5 days of silence, started a descent into judicial insanity.
Or will enough small things add up to egregiousness such that Jack Smith can take action and get her overruled or off the case. He was right not to do that in the beginning, but the trail of crumbs she is dropping leads only in one direction.
Shameful. I have once again to ask, "What are they teaching in law schools?" It appears that process and wordsmithing are high on the list, with little schooling on "justice" with any sense of urgency as US citizens stand in wait with our democracy and constitutional law threatened openly every day. Gives one an appreciation for why comedians find it easy to make lawyer jokes as Rome burns.
Similar attempts in other States have failed. All this is ground-breaking, never been seen before, push the law envelope, actions. Hopefully they get appealed, likely to the SCOTUS. Probably won't happen in time for this election. Once again, it will be up to We the People to VOTE in large #s for Democrats on all ballots, from dog catcher to Senator.
I completely agree Marsha. All the court drama is not going anyplace anytime soon. We need to fully recognize and come to terms with that as Robert has repeatedly posted. We must win at the ballot box and hope that the anti-democracy party has distorted the system to have their way. From dog catcher to the presidential candidate we must put all our energy in the effort. As has been said by better folks than me, “the stakes are just too high.”
Just a quick observation-we live in an era of unprecedented acts and I believe what scholars and legislators have discovered is that norms and rules do not apply.
In my family we have a truck driver who delivers fuel and people do like to have their gas on holidays. He almost never gets Thanksgiving off. We’re grateful he has the day this year (but not Christmas). Another family member works in the restaurant industry. He does get the day but never can even think about a long weekend. Indeed, we all do well to remember the many who help keep our lives comfortable and who are often unseen.
Retired RN here. All hospital workers are required to work a certain number of holidays. Anyone who works in a hospital knows the joy of crummy turkey dinners and delayed Santa visits.
Thank you for your years of service as an RN, Kathe. I have seen close-in, their sacrifice and expertise, and compassion, for those entrusted to their care. 🙏🏼
Ditto. My truck driver son will be working on Thanksgiving, but is home to celebrate Thanksgiving this Saturday--yay, he's the chef! Happy holidays to your family!
Holidays are times to look forward to particularly when one can have a break in the routine. It is challenging when people do not have paid days off from their jobs. They miss out on the healing benefits of these breaks. In my family we stopped celebrating "Thanksgiving" several years ago when my cousin's pastor told their congregation not to celebrate a holiday based on fallacies about the relationship between the Native Peoples and the Settlers. So, she did not want to celebrate, so we moved it to Saturday night, and renamed it "A Nice Family Meal Together." My daughter would then have a meal with all of her high school classmates which they called "Friendsgiving." I agree that I am not celebrating the long ago experiences of Settlers and the Indigenous Peoples, like removing statues, it is a relic of a gruesome past. What we celebrate is the opportunity to get together. Over the years we went back to Thursday as the most convenient day to do it. We have been the hosts for at least the last decade since my cousin who had hosted became chronically ill. One of her son's is studying to be a chef, and he has been helping me cook since he has been in chef school which he is about to complete. This year he will be the sole cook since I will not be there, and it will again be at his house. Her husband has usually come late after serving people in a shelter in the city. Now I am in Germany, as is my daughter and it is not celebrated here. In fact, most people I know here do not speak English even if they studied it in school at some point, and they don't know about the holiday. So, my daughter will have classes on that day, but wants us to call family that night while they are gathered together. We even know how to play Scattergories over Zoom having done this during the pandemic. That is our family's after dinner game. So, I wish everyone in the USA Happy Thanksgiving or Happy Family or Friends Gathering and if you cannot be together, perhaps you can zoom or Skype or Facetime in your family members who cannot be there with you too.
Thanks for this. My husband works in customer service in a very large hospital. Each year, he’ll have to choose between Thanksgiving and Christmas for a day off. We’ll be celebrating Christmas without him.
For many many years we usually celebrated Thanksgiving on the Sunday following, because we had nurses, firemen and retail workers in the family and could never get everybody together on the actual day.
I think that judge in Colorado didn't want to be the one who Trump would point the finger at if she ruled him off the ballot, so she did everything to lay grounds for it and kicked it upstairs to be "reversed." Which if true demonstrates fully the threat Trump is, that she would be that afraid of him that she would make a decision that was obviously ludicrous, to stay out of the line of fire.
Rather than put the decision in personal terms (unwilling to have the finger pointed at her), there is an argument that the fairly momentous decision of removing a former president from the ballot ought to be made by a panel of judges, by an appeals court and ultimately the state Supreme Court.
None of these intelligent responses fingers the fact that the judge’s decision is *dangerous*: she has ruled that the Constitution says the President is actually *above the law*. If, on appeals, that is not overruled and buried six feet under, we are in deep trouble, friends.
This seems plausible, as it also seems to be the case in MN. This is more evidence that Individual #1 has succeeded in striking fear throughout every sector of government, the judicial branch, and society at large. This is what he has aimed to do, and he has been effective. This effect becomes more disturbing and distressing as it ripples out across our elected officials in government, his followers who are incited to enact violent revenge, and now the bending of the justice system.
I do not agree that this decision reflects that the judiciary is scared of Trump. Rather, I think the Judge identified the points that were most critical for her decision, and then attempted to avoid the pitfalls that might weaken the decision that was most important. Decisions about the scope and relationship between the three branches always put a lower courts decision on shaky ground. If you can get the outcome you want and avoid that shaky ground, good for you. Viewed through that lens, I think the decision is politically wise, and reflects a solid and realistic understanding of our increasingly conservative courts.
Oath taken by presidents at inauguration. This ruling is horrifying. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Robert, you’re absolutely right about the issue with opening up the comments section. I have noticed that with newsletters where the writers allow anybody to comment, the forum becomes flooded with trolls, people trying to sell T-shirts and mugs, and all sorts of oddballs spewing their MAGA nonsense. It’s a pleasure to not have to deal with that kind of craziness in this forum.
It’s Saturday and I believe we should dedicate this space to good news and leave the rest behind for the rest of the week. I’m not sure if anyone saw this but it’s very encouraging:
The recent NYT poll asked battleground voters how they would vote if Trump was convicted and sentenced to prison. The results suggests there are significant risks for Republicans in nominating a serial criminal, sex offender and insurrectionist:
But all these people, with these wide margins, apparently are still willing to vote for him up right up until the time he is convicted, despite the amount of evidence already circulating to the public and the fact that his campaign is based on his intent to dismantle democracy. Why?
Polls a year out from the main event are notoriously misleading. Their only purpose is to acquire clicks for whomever’s footing the bill. After the NYT/Siena travesty of abominable journalism a couple of weekends ago, whenever I’m reading an NYT article and I encounter the word poll, I move on.
Well, maybe Colorado judge Sarah Wallace is simply being literal and seeing if we'll get the joke: Trump was more a President under Russia than the United States. Ha, kind of, and...ugggh.
Here in Colorado I wrote my first letter to our Secretary of State, heroine of defending democracy Jena Griswold, in June 2022. Off and on for almost 3 years I've been reading and thinking about this disqualification clause. Today's ruling defies basic...reality. Judge Luttig said it best. Ok, SCOTUS, here we come (let's hope)!
Is there any possibility that Jack Smith will seek relief in an appellate court for all these ridiculous and slow-rolling rulings that while not illegal are increasingly hard to construe as anything but an intent to aid the defense?
Not sure your statement is correct. I think Smith is giving her enough rope to hang herself and then he will appeal. He needs definitive evidence to get her thrown out.
Good question Susan. And when do some of these wiz-bang officers of the court begin to demonstrate a sense of urgency? Wasn't that a big part of R. Hubbell's earlier concerns with regard to Merrick Garland? We need to ask the same of the entire judicial process.
Cannon can always say that the election schedule does not bear on her court schedule and no one would be able to argue with her. If she doesn’t believe Americans are entitled to a speedy trial in this case (we are, after all, the “U.S.” part of the case) at the expense of the defendant’s rights, we’ll... she has trouble doing two things at one time, if you ask me. And I have a feeling her docket is not all that full, but I haven’t researched that specific question.
I really hope you’re right, because sometimes it looks like she’s running circles around him. Yet, I find that hard to believe because he’s highly intelligent and experienced. I’m guessing he has some plan up his sleeve that hasn’t been executed yet.
and the inordinate time it take her to make the (wrong) ruling on an obvious question is not itself a ground for appeal. But the aggregate effect of the pattern of her actions certainly seems to be laying down grounds for appeal. The issue is the clock is ticking, or she’ll get her way.
Great suggestions to talk to those working. At the Dollar store I asked the check out person how her day was going. She was shocked. She was not invisible any more. She shared she had one more hour to work. I wished her a great day and thanked her. It takes 5 seconds to “see” the person checking you out especially in this crazy busy season!
Thank you, Tim R, for your dedication to your patients during this holiday season. Thank you, Robert, for reminding us about Tim and the many others who make life run smoothly for the rest of us.
For some of us, these are not holidays because we are at high risk of complications from Covid, and cannot eat indoors with other people. These are just days in which we are alone, and contemplating the possible collapse of our democracy. If Trump is allowed to threaten prosecutors and judges with impunity, then we will get a Fani Willis postponing the trial, till it won’t even matter, and the judge in Colorado, making a ruling that makes no sense, except to protect herself.
I agree with Lauren about the holidays being difficult. I am beyond frustrated that I am unable to dine indoors with friends and family. Those who are immunocompromised and/or under treatment for other major illnesses have to take special precautions constantly. The cavalier shrug and response that we each have to watch out for ourselves, while true, doesn’t make the holidays less lonely or isolating.
I wear a mask but I'm not immunocompromised. If anyone says anything, I simply state that there are 7 million immunocompromised people in this country, and I don't want to hurt or kill them.
A few months ago, Barbara, I saw what I call a "keeper quote": "In this country there are wide differences in how people feel about the duty to care for others."
Well Robert, the paywall is very effective. I have noticed over the past couple of years that the followers of the too many Substacks I subscribe to have developed serious intelectual relationships and friendships from the quality of the comments to each other's comments over time. The cheap ass trolls just do not have the commitment. The free readers at least get the content.
LOL, Janet! I'm a retired stenographer whose final job was to proofread before sending. Sometimes I spend more time proofing a reader's comment than I do absorbing the content!
An occasional faux pas can be overlooked, but when otherwise good writing is careless, it loses its impact. At least that's what I keep telling myself.
Lynell, I have no problem finding other people’s mistakes, but like many editors, I cannot edit my own writing. I will always miss something. It’s bizarre how the brain works that way.
Thank you, Robert, for regularly providing this opportunity for readers, for taking the time to read every email (!), and for your endorsement and extension of Tim's important message. I would like to use this opportunity to let anyone deeply concerned about the climate crisis know about two things that helped me significantly during a recent struggle with my own sense of the urgency. First, in a New York Times magazine (October 29th issue), which was entirely devoted to articles about the climate, there was one called, "Time to Get Help". It focused on the growing field of climate therapists. Although there are only around 100 at this point, the number is increasing. (Note was made of the fact that many of the people seeking such help are scientists and climate activists.) Second, I learned of the Climate Psychology Alliance of North America. Their website states that their goal is to address "the psychological dimensions of the climate and ecological crisis and promote cultural shifts toward human resilience". You can search for a climate aware therapist within various ranges of where you live (althoughI am sure the likelihood of finding one at this point is not high). You can also find on that page a video of a conversation between environmentalist Bill McKibben and British psychoanalyst Sally Weintrobe, who has written a book which focuses on the psychological roots of the climate crisis. It was a great discussion which was further enhanced by very thoughtful questions from four pre-selected journalists from different places. I was very glad to discover both of these and hope that sharing this may help others.
Resounding applause to the House Ethics Committee for calling out egregious self-dealing, abuse of office and financial misappropriation. Perhaps they might assist Chief Justice Roberts in composing an Ethics Code for the Supreme Court, then apply the exact same standards and scrutiny to the current candidates for President...especially the Republican front runner.
Yeah, interestingly the chairman of the committee is an Election Denier. What Trump does is ethically OK with him, but this stuff by Santos, that's just not acceptable at all!
Santos has announced that he will not run for re-election. But remember, he lies about everything.
(;<{)
Good call.
All part of the stupendous cognitive dissonance.
Congress is supposed to have oversight of the court isn't it? I think they need to expend more energy considering how to respond to unethical behaviors by justices, now before the next election.
Not over the Supreme Court, unless enabling Legislation is written and passed by both the House and Senate, then signed into law by the President. SCOTUS, in slapping us in the face with their "code of ethics (not)" just told us to go away.
Even though challenging and unlikely to pass, should be written and put to a vote. It should be very in your face, and not the polite whining of we can't really do anything. MAKE A STATEMENT about what should be, and then make it very public so that the average American, who is not even thinking about this, gets an idea of what can be, like in Roe v Wade. Normalize the idea that Congress should be overseeing them and what those rules look like. Doing things that are illegal and unethical because of implicit bias, should earn loss of job if proven at least and jail time at the most.
I listen to the Sisters in Law podcast on Saturday mornings, where four female attorneys who have been or are prosecutors and law professors (and commentators on TV) addressed this question this week. After analyzing the many weaknesses of the document SCOTUS put out, they suggested that at minimum the justices should be required to submit their tax returns for automatic review the way the president now does and secondly an Inspector General could be appointed to oversee SCOTUS. Those two simple things could turn up and deter a great deal of what we have seen--things the finance committee has turned up now but obviously Thomas never expected would be discovered.
In a perfect world, yes absolutely. But they are "the Supremes," and don't have to do squat unless they want to.
I concur with all of this. Thank you!
I'm anxious to hear more about the Colorado decision and the appeal process. I have long felt that there was a need for some judicial authority to determine that the Defendant had engaged in an insurrection, in order for the 14th Amendment to apply, but I never thought any reasonable person would buy the argument that a president is neither an office holder nor an officer in the federal government. The judge's decision on the latter may call into question the decision on the former.
The fact that the judge found the Defendant engaged in an insurrection but that 14A doesn't apply to the presidency is perplexing, and would seem to provide grounds for a successful appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, which will likely then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps this split verdict will lead to a unified verdict sooner rather than later.
Bob, Having granted that the plaintiffs had established Trump’s complicity in insurrection, the judge’s ruling, in my view, presents a most urgent warning as to whether the Judicial branch can be counted on to fulfill the need for constant checks and balances against the excesses, in this case, of executive power.
Let's see how it plays out. There may be a method to her apparent madness. In any case, we need to be prepared for whatever comes. If the Defendant prevails, it might just be for the primaries, in which case this may continue well into next year. If the good guys win, and the Defendant is not on the ballot in many or all primaries, we may be facing a renewed threat from someone like Nikki Haley.
That being said, the Defendant won't go quietly, and might just sabotage his own party in retaliation for what he'll claim is disloyalty in the face of his martyrdom. One way or another, we're gonna be in for a bumpy ride.
Bob, While I’ll try to hold your thoughts, still, having learned as a school girl how our Founders sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the potential undoing of its revolutionary promise, I imagine a returned Jefferson or Madison, surveying the American experiment in its third century, would be horrified by the near fatal blow to our institutions.
Yes, I'm sure they'd be saying, "We never anticipated anyone like that!"
While you folks try to explain or debate the ins and outs of this judges ruling I sit here thinking that, as with the Senate Republicans, the ruling offers twisted logic that once again lets TFG slide through another gate in the endless efforts to try to shut him down only to live another day in the public arena spouting off about being a victim. Good grief!! The man and the process are annoying.
You're absolutely right, John. While we're all trying to be fair-minded and reasonable, the Defendant is anything but, and would turn the tables in a heartbeat. I'd much rather be us than him, and I'm confident that good will prevail. I look forward to looking back on this dark chapter in our history as one where our resolve was bent but not broken.
In the earlier decision on this matter, the judge (Minnesota?) specifically said that the decision applied to the primary only and left open the possibility of a further suit regarding the general election. I'm guessing that a pre-emptive attempt would be rejected as conjectural, but one must wonder what the response to disqualifying a party's chosen candidate would be.
Different lawsuit.
Same topic and concept.
Unfortunately not, bc the individual state laws differ.
Interesting further explanation by Tribe in Couric interview
https://youtu.be/-AUIjOHw9pY?feature=shared
It is a ridiculous argument to say they are not an office holder in the Federal government. I do not see how this can be upheld. If so, then all teachers of elementary civics and government, will have to readdress how they teach who is in the 3 branches of government on the Federal level.
If the president is not an office holder in the federal government, then what exactly is he? Under this reasoning is he indeed above the laws of said federal government?
I am not defending the conclusion, but the Framers used the terms "member" to refer to a member of Congress and "officer" to refer to a member of the Cabinet (for purposes of presidential succession). So, the Framers wanted to make sure that only "officers" could succeed the president in cases of vacancy, not "members." There was simply no need to declare that the President was an "officer." That is self-evident.
Let’s face it and say it: the Colorado judge reasoned backward from her conclusion.
She appears to be taking a very literal reading of that clause in the 14th amendment, because it doesn’t specifically mention the word “president.” I posted above a video from the MeidasTouch network that clearly breaks down how she arrived at this conclusion.
Clearly, a king….
Clearly bullshit. Makes a man want to pull his hair out rather than take Robert’s advice to relax over the holiday.
Very perplexing, indeed. Considering this is my state, I’m especially interested.
The judge didn't want to be the one to make that decision and put herself in the line of fire. So she kicked it upstairs to let them deal with it.
Excellent point!
I take line of fire in its literal sense. Don’t you think any judge or judges who disqualify Trump are putting their safety on the line and that of their families? The MAGA who went after Nancy nearly killed her husband instead. With Trump’s protected free speech he is again going after Engeron’s law clerk. I greatly admire judges who are wise but also courageous. I want Trump disqualified and at the same time am angry at a society that puts such awful decisions in the hands of a vulnerable few. It is the same society that can’t protect the safety of our young. God help us.
That's kinda the direction I was heading with my closing line about the split verdict maybe leading to a unified verdict sooner, but you put an interesting spin on it, Tom. It could be that she wanted to settle the factual side and leave the legal issues for the higher courts, thus making it harder for them to overturn her ruling on the Defendant's insurrection role, while making it easy for them to overturn the constitutional interpretation of "office" and "officer."
I'm interested to hear the Luettig/Tribe analysis. I didn't buy their "self-enforcing" argument previously, but if this judge's ruling on the Defendant's role holds up, that point is moot.
That’s really the only thing that makes sense. I’ve been skeptical of the entire argument, but the part of the ruling saying that the indictment was enough to satisfy the insurrection finding is undoubtedly more important than the ridiculous finding about the office of the President.
She literally may be afraid of retribution by the Trump MAGA crowd and Trump’s cronies.
Exactly right.
I feel the same way. It absolutely boggles the mind. I’m curious to hear the Tribe/Luttig response to this. The whole reasoning of this judge seems absurd to me.
Appeal appeal APPEAL the Colorado case! I am not a lawyer. I am just a regular person who feels injustice is constantly something that is dished out to us, We, The People. The Colorado judge’s interpretation of what an “officer” is very perplexing especially when she clearly spelled out what Fake 45’s role was in the insurrection. So excuse me while I vent ?!#* ! @“?!
Please, all venting is allowed. 😜 It seems like a ludicrous decision to me, and obviously Judge Luttig agrees. Both TC and I suggested that she may actually be afraid of retribution, so she is setting this up to be kicked up to a higher court. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that, given what trump’s cronies and groupies are capable of doing to people.
There is the case in New Mexico, where a state office holder who was involved in the J6 insurrection was found by a court to be guilty under that 14th amendment clause. That lawsuit was bought by CREW, the same group that is dealing with the Colorado lawsuit. I’m sure they will appeal this. If a guy who is the president of “Cowboys for Trump”
has been found guilty and barred from ever holding office again, it seems insane that the president would not be considered an officer of the United States.
“Both TC and I suggested that she may actually be afraid of retribution....” Seriously folks! When can will we stop the “afraid of retribution” decisions that continue to enable this criminal FG? Might it be time for some of these folks to stiffen up their backbone to put country above “retribution?” After all, soldiers are putting their life on the line every day to protect our country while these idiots are “fearing retribution!!”
There’s really no way to know what this judge was thinking in making this decision. We can only guess and speculate. What’s done is done so this will be appealed, probably all the way to the Supreme Court.
I keep reading the wording of the 14th and trying to figure out how that possibly excludes the president.
I somehow get the feeling that these judges don’t want to make the final decisions on this. A similar thing happened in Minnesota. I think, but certainly cannot prove, that they want a higher court to rule on this and not take responsibility for these decisions.
I think no matter how they rule the side that “loses” will appeal. So the state judges surely know they are not making the final decision.
I've read it many times, and to me, inclusion of the president is just about as clear as it can be. I can only guess (with TCinLA's help) that the judge had a reason for taking that position.
And it just may be fear of retribution. I had that same thought in my mind when I read TC’s comment.
Think about that "fear of retribution," Janet. As I mentioned earlier soldiers are dying for our country every day. But here's another group to take note of - as judges, Senators and House Reps fear retribution let's count the number of books published by people who served in TFG's administration or in Congress only to go on to publish and take big advances and payouts for their tell all accounts, most recently Mitt Romney and White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson who rode along with TFG on January 6. I regretfully have no patience with judges who fear retribution while others find no need to build their wealth. Damn! These are insane times.
Or, perhaps she just prefers that CREW appeals this to get a definitive answer from a higher court. It’s hard to get into the head of this judge or any judge; but there is still hope that as this moves forward, Trump may indeed be barred from appearing on the ballots.
The judge evidently is *making law*. Don’t treat her decision as aberrant, at least not now:
If her Opinion is upheld, she will have established (in “law”, at least) the principle that the President is above the law.
Serious, dangerous stuff.
I am interested too, but not in the US, and not in that time zone. I hope there will be some discussion of what they have to say afterwards.
I found this interesting, relatively short video explaining how the judge arrived at her conclusion in this disqualification case.
https://youtu.be/CyJ3TTlWJIo
Thank you. I’m with MeidasTouch. The president is a person, holds an office, and most definitely take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I hope this most swiftly to the state Supreme Court (and beyond if necessary) and that the only reason this ruling stands is that higher courts did not take it in time to meet deadlines for printing ballots. (We are an all-mail state.)
I think we’ve already missed the deadline for the primary, so that’s a done deal. But there’s still time to prevent his name from being on the 2024 general election ballots. Whether that will actually happen is another story altogether. I don’t hold out a great deal of hope because regardless of what the state supreme court does, appeals will continue on one or the other side, depending on who wins and loses, and this could go on ad infinitum.
If it succeeded, it might inspire other state to take steps. In the end, Trump is not going to carry Colorado anyway.
Exactly. Whether trump is on the ballot or not here, he’s not going to get Colorado‘s electoral votes. He may win the primary though, because there are three red districts and I am in one of them.
It appears that Lawrence Tribe agrees with my analysis of what the judge did - establish strong proof of having engaged in insurrection, but left it to the higher court to reverse the "stupid part" to avoid having taken the whole thing on.
I heard this ruling was handed down so there would be an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
My immediate thought, but if she had ruled to keep trump off the ballot, HE would have immediately appealed. After all, that’s what he does best. Delay, delay, delay.
That could very well be, since each side won and lost.
Without having read the ruling, it is difficult to understand how the judge could come to the conclusion that the President is not an officer of the United States. The Constitution is clear: “Before he shall enter upon the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: ‘ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States....” The question is therefore, is the holder of an office an “officer.” Clearly he/she is an office holder.
I will have to watch a rerun of todays MSNBC discussion as well as re-read the Baude et al paper to see how they addressed this issue.
Let me make this point as well: if we must interpret the constitution based upon the exact language in the Constitution, then under the foregoing provision, only a man can be President - there is no reference to a woman having the right to take the oath of office. This is the idiocies of the originalists.
Apparently the ruling is over 100 pages, most of it establishing that he did in fact engage in insurrection, and only the last few paragraphs interpreting the 14th to say that the president is not specifically enumerated in the list offices laid out as being excluded.
A "reasonable person" didn't buy the argument Bob, a judge who is trying very hard to avoid an uncomfortable decision did. Possibly a soul sister of Judge Cannon's.
Her finding that he engaged in an insurrection is pretty significant. I have a feeling there's more to this than meets the eye. Cannon is a different story. I don't think she's made a good ruling yet.
I agree you on the significance of the insurrection finding. Both judges seem to be inviting further legal action once the primary has been determined and neither gave any indication that the nomination needed to be complete, only that the state be the governing body rather than the party which they recognized as a private entity.
Cannon is weird, she made one good ruling way back at the beginning of the discussion and then, after about 5 days of silence, started a descent into judicial insanity.
I sometimes wish she would do something indisputably egregious and get herself kicked off the case.
Or will enough small things add up to egregiousness such that Jack Smith can take action and get her overruled or off the case. He was right not to do that in the beginning, but the trail of crumbs she is dropping leads only in one direction.
A wish I share, but it's hard to say what might be indisputable at this point.
yes, I have the same question..... How is it possible the President of the United States he's not an office holder?
The CO judge was too scared to make the call.
Shameful. I have once again to ask, "What are they teaching in law schools?" It appears that process and wordsmithing are high on the list, with little schooling on "justice" with any sense of urgency as US citizens stand in wait with our democracy and constitutional law threatened openly every day. Gives one an appreciation for why comedians find it easy to make lawyer jokes as Rome burns.
Similar attempts in other States have failed. All this is ground-breaking, never been seen before, push the law envelope, actions. Hopefully they get appealed, likely to the SCOTUS. Probably won't happen in time for this election. Once again, it will be up to We the People to VOTE in large #s for Democrats on all ballots, from dog catcher to Senator.
I completely agree Marsha. All the court drama is not going anyplace anytime soon. We need to fully recognize and come to terms with that as Robert has repeatedly posted. We must win at the ballot box and hope that the anti-democracy party has distorted the system to have their way. From dog catcher to the presidential candidate we must put all our energy in the effort. As has been said by better folks than me, “the stakes are just too high.”
Just a quick observation-we live in an era of unprecedented acts and I believe what scholars and legislators have discovered is that norms and rules do not apply.
In my family we have a truck driver who delivers fuel and people do like to have their gas on holidays. He almost never gets Thanksgiving off. We’re grateful he has the day this year (but not Christmas). Another family member works in the restaurant industry. He does get the day but never can even think about a long weekend. Indeed, we all do well to remember the many who help keep our lives comfortable and who are often unseen.
Retired RN here. All hospital workers are required to work a certain number of holidays. Anyone who works in a hospital knows the joy of crummy turkey dinners and delayed Santa visits.
Thank you for your years of service as an RN, Kathe. I have seen close-in, their sacrifice and expertise, and compassion, for those entrusted to their care. 🙏🏼
No need to thank me: I loved working at the bedside. It's the most rewarding career I can imagine.
Well then, seems to me more of a reason to admire you. And how awesome you gave yourself to what you imagined and loved.
“Let the beauty we love be what we do.” ~ Rumi
Ditto. My truck driver son will be working on Thanksgiving, but is home to celebrate Thanksgiving this Saturday--yay, he's the chef! Happy holidays to your family!
Hugs to your truck-driver son and chef, Ellie!
To yours as well.
Holidays are times to look forward to particularly when one can have a break in the routine. It is challenging when people do not have paid days off from their jobs. They miss out on the healing benefits of these breaks. In my family we stopped celebrating "Thanksgiving" several years ago when my cousin's pastor told their congregation not to celebrate a holiday based on fallacies about the relationship between the Native Peoples and the Settlers. So, she did not want to celebrate, so we moved it to Saturday night, and renamed it "A Nice Family Meal Together." My daughter would then have a meal with all of her high school classmates which they called "Friendsgiving." I agree that I am not celebrating the long ago experiences of Settlers and the Indigenous Peoples, like removing statues, it is a relic of a gruesome past. What we celebrate is the opportunity to get together. Over the years we went back to Thursday as the most convenient day to do it. We have been the hosts for at least the last decade since my cousin who had hosted became chronically ill. One of her son's is studying to be a chef, and he has been helping me cook since he has been in chef school which he is about to complete. This year he will be the sole cook since I will not be there, and it will again be at his house. Her husband has usually come late after serving people in a shelter in the city. Now I am in Germany, as is my daughter and it is not celebrated here. In fact, most people I know here do not speak English even if they studied it in school at some point, and they don't know about the holiday. So, my daughter will have classes on that day, but wants us to call family that night while they are gathered together. We even know how to play Scattergories over Zoom having done this during the pandemic. That is our family's after dinner game. So, I wish everyone in the USA Happy Thanksgiving or Happy Family or Friends Gathering and if you cannot be together, perhaps you can zoom or Skype or Facetime in your family members who cannot be there with you too.
Thanks for the wonderful note and background on your family traditions!
Thanks for this. My husband works in customer service in a very large hospital. Each year, he’ll have to choose between Thanksgiving and Christmas for a day off. We’ll be celebrating Christmas without him.
For many many years we usually celebrated Thanksgiving on the Sunday following, because we had nurses, firemen and retail workers in the family and could never get everybody together on the actual day.
Blessings to your truck driver family member, Susan...somebody to be proud of.
My son-in-law is very good at this job. It’s a high-stress occupation.
No doubt, Susan. A cousin of mine, long since a retired truck driver, was very good as well; and smart as a whip, too!
I think that judge in Colorado didn't want to be the one who Trump would point the finger at if she ruled him off the ballot, so she did everything to lay grounds for it and kicked it upstairs to be "reversed." Which if true demonstrates fully the threat Trump is, that she would be that afraid of him that she would make a decision that was obviously ludicrous, to stay out of the line of fire.
Rather than put the decision in personal terms (unwilling to have the finger pointed at her), there is an argument that the fairly momentous decision of removing a former president from the ballot ought to be made by a panel of judges, by an appeals court and ultimately the state Supreme Court.
None of these intelligent responses fingers the fact that the judge’s decision is *dangerous*: she has ruled that the Constitution says the President is actually *above the law*. If, on appeals, that is not overruled and buried six feet under, we are in deep trouble, friends.
Thank you Michael. You are absolutely correct in my nonlegal opinion. As the saying goes, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
I believe you are correct and the decision if it took Trump
off the ballot would have been appealed anyway. More importantly the decision could influence other states.
I think you nailed it; otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense.
This seems plausible, as it also seems to be the case in MN. This is more evidence that Individual #1 has succeeded in striking fear throughout every sector of government, the judicial branch, and society at large. This is what he has aimed to do, and he has been effective. This effect becomes more disturbing and distressing as it ripples out across our elected officials in government, his followers who are incited to enact violent revenge, and now the bending of the justice system.
I do not agree that this decision reflects that the judiciary is scared of Trump. Rather, I think the Judge identified the points that were most critical for her decision, and then attempted to avoid the pitfalls that might weaken the decision that was most important. Decisions about the scope and relationship between the three branches always put a lower courts decision on shaky ground. If you can get the outcome you want and avoid that shaky ground, good for you. Viewed through that lens, I think the decision is politically wise, and reflects a solid and realistic understanding of our increasingly conservative courts.
It appears from listening to Lawrence Tribe on "Velshi" that he agrees with the essential points of my analysis.
Oath taken by presidents at inauguration. This ruling is horrifying. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Robert, you’re absolutely right about the issue with opening up the comments section. I have noticed that with newsletters where the writers allow anybody to comment, the forum becomes flooded with trolls, people trying to sell T-shirts and mugs, and all sorts of oddballs spewing their MAGA nonsense. It’s a pleasure to not have to deal with that kind of craziness in this forum.
Hey Janet, I was just refering to you. A minute before you posted. Howdy.
I see you, Tim R. I'm a Hospice volunteer. Life, and death, go on without a care for the holidays.
Bless you, Robbie. Thanks for the work you do.
Such valuable and important volunteers you hospice folks are!! Thank you.
David French, a paragon of the conservative world wrote in the New York Times on October 29 what should be the Democrats’ narrative for Biden in 2024.
“In the face of disease, war, inflation and division, the economy thrives — and democracy is alive.”
Only a vote for a Democrat-from Biden on down the ballot-can keep it that way.
It’s Saturday and I believe we should dedicate this space to good news and leave the rest behind for the rest of the week. I’m not sure if anyone saw this but it’s very encouraging:
The recent NYT poll asked battleground voters how they would vote if Trump was convicted and sentenced to prison. The results suggests there are significant risks for Republicans in nominating a serial criminal, sex offender and insurrectionist:
Battleground 49-39 (Biden +10)
AZ 47-42 (+5)
GA 50-38 (+12)
MI 49-37 (+12)
NV 50-38 (+12)
PA 48-44 (+4)
WI 50-36 (+14)
But all these people, with these wide margins, apparently are still willing to vote for him up right up until the time he is convicted, despite the amount of evidence already circulating to the public and the fact that his campaign is based on his intent to dismantle democracy. Why?
Polls a year out from the main event are notoriously misleading. Their only purpose is to acquire clicks for whomever’s footing the bill. After the NYT/Siena travesty of abominable journalism a couple of weekends ago, whenever I’m reading an NYT article and I encounter the word poll, I move on.
Thanks. Although we are advised to ignore polls, these results will be great to see. Concluding comment - Get out the vote and get out the message.
Well, maybe Colorado judge Sarah Wallace is simply being literal and seeing if we'll get the joke: Trump was more a President under Russia than the United States. Ha, kind of, and...ugggh.
Here in Colorado I wrote my first letter to our Secretary of State, heroine of defending democracy Jena Griswold, in June 2022. Off and on for almost 3 years I've been reading and thinking about this disqualification clause. Today's ruling defies basic...reality. Judge Luttig said it best. Ok, SCOTUS, here we come (let's hope)!
It’s been so strange to see Griswold on the cable news shows! She well spoken. And quite aghast at Judge Wallace’s interpretation.
I just hope this moves quickly through the courts. Uggh is right.
Is there any possibility that Jack Smith will seek relief in an appellate court for all these ridiculous and slow-rolling rulings that while not illegal are increasingly hard to construe as anything but an intent to aid the defense?
According to legal observers, she is slow rolling it enough to help Trump, but not so much that Smith has grounds to appeal. She's being very cagey.
Not sure your statement is correct. I think Smith is giving her enough rope to hang herself and then he will appeal. He needs definitive evidence to get her thrown out.
But how much rope will be enough and will it be in time to make sure the trial happens before the election?
Good question Susan. And when do some of these wiz-bang officers of the court begin to demonstrate a sense of urgency? Wasn't that a big part of R. Hubbell's earlier concerns with regard to Merrick Garland? We need to ask the same of the entire judicial process.
Cannon can always say that the election schedule does not bear on her court schedule and no one would be able to argue with her. If she doesn’t believe Americans are entitled to a speedy trial in this case (we are, after all, the “U.S.” part of the case) at the expense of the defendant’s rights, we’ll... she has trouble doing two things at one time, if you ask me. And I have a feeling her docket is not all that full, but I haven’t researched that specific question.
I really hope you’re right, because sometimes it looks like she’s running circles around him. Yet, I find that hard to believe because he’s highly intelligent and experienced. I’m guessing he has some plan up his sleeve that hasn’t been executed yet.
He needs proof of what she is doing and she is providing it.
Perhaps each individual ruling,
and the inordinate time it take her to make the (wrong) ruling on an obvious question is not itself a ground for appeal. But the aggregate effect of the pattern of her actions certainly seems to be laying down grounds for appeal. The issue is the clock is ticking, or she’ll get her way.
Prejudice is not illegal, but is certainly a reasononable justification for relief.
Great suggestions to talk to those working. At the Dollar store I asked the check out person how her day was going. She was shocked. She was not invisible any more. She shared she had one more hour to work. I wished her a great day and thanked her. It takes 5 seconds to “see” the person checking you out especially in this crazy busy season!
Thank you, Tim R, for your dedication to your patients during this holiday season. Thank you, Robert, for reminding us about Tim and the many others who make life run smoothly for the rest of us.
For some of us, these are not holidays because we are at high risk of complications from Covid, and cannot eat indoors with other people. These are just days in which we are alone, and contemplating the possible collapse of our democracy. If Trump is allowed to threaten prosecutors and judges with impunity, then we will get a Fani Willis postponing the trial, till it won’t even matter, and the judge in Colorado, making a ruling that makes no sense, except to protect herself.
I agree with Lauren about the holidays being difficult. I am beyond frustrated that I am unable to dine indoors with friends and family. Those who are immunocompromised and/or under treatment for other major illnesses have to take special precautions constantly. The cavalier shrug and response that we each have to watch out for ourselves, while true, doesn’t make the holidays less lonely or isolating.
I wear a mask but I'm not immunocompromised. If anyone says anything, I simply state that there are 7 million immunocompromised people in this country, and I don't want to hurt or kill them.
Thank you. I wish more people had your sense of community and the common good.
A few months ago, Barbara, I saw what I call a "keeper quote": "In this country there are wide differences in how people feel about the duty to care for others."
Thank you Barbara. Your sensitive comment makes me feel less alone.
Well Robert, the paywall is very effective. I have noticed over the past couple of years that the followers of the too many Substacks I subscribe to have developed serious intelectual relationships and friendships from the quality of the comments to each other's comments over time. The cheap ass trolls just do not have the commitment. The free readers at least get the content.
I agree, and I can’t help myself because I am a copy editor (among other things), but it’s intellectual, with two l’s. :) ✌️
LOL, Janet! I'm a retired stenographer whose final job was to proofread before sending. Sometimes I spend more time proofing a reader's comment than I do absorbing the content!
An occasional faux pas can be overlooked, but when otherwise good writing is careless, it loses its impact. At least that's what I keep telling myself.
Lynell, I have no problem finding other people’s mistakes, but like many editors, I cannot edit my own writing. I will always miss something. It’s bizarre how the brain works that way.
A (mostly) retired writer and editor here. Copy editors had my back so many times.
So true, Janet; for me, too!
You know your stuff and it shows.
Lol, and I’m half asleep. So now I’m going to get into bed and actually go to sleep. Have a wonderful weekend. 😊
You too. Looks like good weather up there for a few more days. Enjoy a good walk!
Thank you, Robert, for regularly providing this opportunity for readers, for taking the time to read every email (!), and for your endorsement and extension of Tim's important message. I would like to use this opportunity to let anyone deeply concerned about the climate crisis know about two things that helped me significantly during a recent struggle with my own sense of the urgency. First, in a New York Times magazine (October 29th issue), which was entirely devoted to articles about the climate, there was one called, "Time to Get Help". It focused on the growing field of climate therapists. Although there are only around 100 at this point, the number is increasing. (Note was made of the fact that many of the people seeking such help are scientists and climate activists.) Second, I learned of the Climate Psychology Alliance of North America. Their website states that their goal is to address "the psychological dimensions of the climate and ecological crisis and promote cultural shifts toward human resilience". You can search for a climate aware therapist within various ranges of where you live (althoughI am sure the likelihood of finding one at this point is not high). You can also find on that page a video of a conversation between environmentalist Bill McKibben and British psychoanalyst Sally Weintrobe, who has written a book which focuses on the psychological roots of the climate crisis. It was a great discussion which was further enhanced by very thoughtful questions from four pre-selected journalists from different places. I was very glad to discover both of these and hope that sharing this may help others.