"politically fraught with peril"

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said that it may be legal for state courts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running in the 2024 election, but that doing so would be “politically fraught with peril.” https://t.co/1eLC8XvjAX

— Anchorage Daily News (@adndotcom) December 23, 2023

So imagine, Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President and he's getting good polling results.  But someone sues to keep him off the ballot because he wasn't a natural born United States citizen.  

The Constitution says clearly:

"Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would Sen. Murkowski or any of the others talking about "fraught with political peril" say we shouldn't enforce the Constitution because it would be "fraught with political peril" to do so? 

Well that's exactly what is happening with Murkowski and others who want to keep Trump's name on the Colorado ballot.   As President, he, at the very least, gave aid and comforted those trying to overthrow the election of Joe Biden by storming Congress and stopping the ratification of the election. (And we don't even know who all he showed or sold secret documents to yet.)

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump's denials are no different from the denials of any accused criminal who tries to twist words and find legal loopholes to avoid the legal consequences of their actions.  

Does he really have to be tried for insurrection?  We all watched it live.  We watched the Jan 6 committee reviews of video tape and listened to witnesses, many who were Trump appointees who were with him in the White House on January 6.  

We've heard the tape of Trump demanding of the Georgia officials: 

"All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have," Trump says, according to audio of the call. "There's nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you've recalculated."

He's a known liar and he knew he lost Georgia and was demanding the Georgia officials overturn the election by finding him the votes he needed.  

So what is this "political peril" everyone is so worried about?

First, I'd ask, when did we start inserting political consequences into court proceedings?  Yes, it's happened, but it isn't supposed to.  It's the rule of law, not the rule of the mob that courts are supposed to uphold.  

Second, what crystal ball does Murkowski have that tells her there will be political peril?  No one knows what will happen in the future.  So this is just conjecture of what might happen.  Sure, there are lots of Trump supporters who likely would be very angry.  

Propagandists on the Right will tell Trump's supporters that this was an illegal prevention of Trump's right to run for office.  Is that a reason to ignore the Constitution?  Absolutely not.  This is a phantom peril.  Of his most rabid supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 

"Approximately 723 federal defendants have had their cases adjudicated and received sentences for their criminal activity on Jan. 6. Approximately 454 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration. Approximately 151 defendants have been sentenced to a period of home detention, including approximately 28 who also were sentenced to a period of incarceration."  

"Approximately 714 individuals have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, many of whom faced or will face incarceration at sentencing."

(DOJ, December 2023)

I'm not saying Trump supporters won't make lots of noise, maybe do damage, and generally try to reenact another January 6.  They have already made death threats against the  judges on the Colorado Supreme Court.  Trump isn't calling on his backers to stand down.  But we have police.  We have the National Guard.  We have the military if we have to put down another insurrection.

Third, if Trump is on the ballot and loses again, we are just as likely to face political peril then as now, maybe more so.  If they successfully bully the courts into ignoring the Constitution now, Trump supporters will be even more emboldened to try to prevent a peaceful transition again.  

Surely it's a better option to uphold the Constitution now and  remove Trump from the ballot now and let his various court cases play out. Let's face this speculated political peril now rather than later.     

Fourth, if the court ignores the plain language of the US Constitution and allows Trump to be placed on the Colorado ballot (and in other states if Colorado is successful in this), then we are already in political peril, we've already stumbled out of democracy and the rule of law.  The fact that we are even debating this says we are already one or more steps into the fascist dictatorship Trump has already said he would head.  

Fifth, Gerald Ford, after he became president when Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, also feared political peril if Nixon were prosecuted.  So he pardoned Nixon.  While I think that decision was wrong - and set up a precedent for Trump to grasp at - it didn't violate the law or the Constitution.  The president has the power to pardon.  But when pardoning Nixon 

"Ford announced that he had pardoned Richard Nixon for all crimes he committed or "may have committed" while president" (Washington Post 2006)

which tells us he fully believed that an ex-president can be tried for acts committed while president - something Trump has said couldn't be done.   

Sixth, Murkowski and others have said that the people should have the final say by voting.  But no matter how much people would want to vote for Schwartzeneger or Trump, the two are constitutionally ineligible to be president.  We don't vote on whether to ignore the Constitution.  

"Political Peril" here is the bogey man the Right (and some on the Left) are using to justify ignoring the clear language of the Constitution.  Remember, this fight is for the man who spent years spreading the lies about Obama being born in Kenya and not being a natural born US citizen.  

Trump's whole strategy is to cause distrust of every US institution and then to say that "I alone can fix it."   The idea of "political peril" is part and parcel of his game plan.  Democracies don't make exceptions for bullies who threaten violence if they don't get their way.  

That is exactly what is happening here.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT a natural born US citizen and is not qualified to run for president. 

Donald Trump supported an insurrection to overthrow the vote of the people and maintain his position as president even though he lost the popular and electoral college votes.  And he isn't qualified to run for president.  

Let's face whatever peril lies ahead now instead of next November when that peril might reappear if US voters vote for Biden over Trump once again.  Let's stop that peril now rather than let the Trump machine work to more effectively falsify the election results than they did in 2020.  

My Email To Senator Sullivan And His Response And Links For You To Contact Your Senators

Out of great frustration with Republicans in the Senate I sent an email to my junior Senator Dan Sullivan:

 

" Here's a Tweet from a Republican former head of the House Intelligence Committee: 

Mike Rogers 

@RepMikeRogers 

· 8h 

Our adversaries aren't waiting for the transition to take place. @JoeBiden should receive the President's Daily Brief (PDB) starting today. He needs to know what the latest threats are & begin to plan accordingly. This isn't about politics; this is about national security. 

Senator Sullivan - do your damn job and protect our Democracy from the internal threats caused by Trump's refusal to acknowledge reality and his spreading of conspiracy theories and fomenting his supporters to believe the election was stolen. And protect our nation from foreign threats by making sure the presidential transition proceeds immediately. 

I don't know what threats and enticements have kept the Republicans in the Senate so meek when it comes to confronting the very worst and most dangerous president of the United States ever, but you're a Marine. Do your duty, sir!"

Here's the response I got today:

"Thank you for contacting my office. Your opinions and concerns are important to me. My staff and I are hard at work to ensure Alaskan voices are represented in Washington and you will soon be hearing back from us with a more detailed response to your inquiry. In the meantime, please make sure to visit my website for additional information on recent legislation. 

I appreciate and am honored to have the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. Senate. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Sullivan 

U.S. Senator "

OK, I'm willing to accept that this is simply a courtesy response so that people know the email was received.  And he's promising a more detailed response.  

But we know that at least 109,000 people voted for Al Gross (Sullivan's Senate opponent).  If 5% of those people called up Sullivan's office each day for the next week on this topic, that would be 35,000 calls.  (Well not really because it would jam up his system, so you could send emails if you can't get through on the phone)  That kind of response might get his attention.  Though just coming off an election win, maybe not.  

Here's the website with all the contact information for Dan Sullivan. 

Here's the page for Lisa Murkowski.  (The Office Location link gives you phone numbers.)

And for non-Alaskans, here's the page to find your Senators.

 

Dear Senator Murkowski:

[I got an email saying to write my Senators about the Supreme Court nomination, so I wrote Senator Murkowski, even though she already said she would vote to confirm.  I know that as a Republican she's under great pressure to vote yes.  It's easy for all of us without that pressure to fault her.  And I do believe she's wrong.  But I also have taught ethics to graduate students and public officials.  It's MUCH easier to decide another person's ethical decision than it is to make our own.  When everything one has worked for is threatened, it's often hard to do 'the right thing.'  I advised my students to save up, as fast as they could, a year's salary so that when they are asked to do something illegal and/or unethical, they could refuse, knowing that they had a year to find another job.  

What I wanted to emphasize in this letter is that the Republicans have totally messed up the process of nominating Supreme Court justices.  The Federalist Society and others have spent 40 years or so focused on developing a theory of law that would favor the interests of corporations and people with lots of money.  The Democrats missed what was happening for way too long - that was there mistake.  But McConnell's holding up of Obama judges and the Merrick Garland, messed with fair play.  He could do that not because it was right, but because he had the votes.  

So this is what I ended up sending Senator Murkowski yesterday]:

I realize your decision to vote for Amy Coney Barrett was not an easy one and that my voice will have no impact on that decision.

But this is so important I feel compelled to write anyway.  

In the past, most Supreme Court justices were confirmed with comfortable majorities, with many if not most members from both parties voting for them.  It was only when Republicans started voting Federalist Society influenced candidates, who were far to the right and did not represent the views of the American public, that  bi-partisan votes ended.  And it has only been a few times.  (not sure the chart below will show up properly. If not, it's from the US Senate website here:  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm)

Nominee		To Replace		Nominated*		Vote**		Result & Date***
President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney		Ginsburg		Sep 29, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett		Kennedy		Jul 10, 2018		50-48  No.  223		C		Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M.		Scalia		Feb 1, 2017		54-45  No.  111		C		Apr 7, 2017
President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B.		Scalia		Mar 16, 2016				N
Kagan, Elena		Stevens		May 10, 2010		63-37  No.  229		C		Aug 5, 2010
Sotomayor, Sonia		Souter		Jun 1, 2009		68-31  No.  262		C		Aug 6, 2009
President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr.		O'Connor		Nov 10, 2005		58-42  No.  2		C		Jan 31, 2006
Miers, Harriet		O'Connor		Oct 7, 2005				W		Oct 28, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.1		Rehnquist		Sep 6, 2005		78-22  No.  245		C		Sep 29, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.		O'Connor		Jul 29, 2005				W		Sep 6, 2005
President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G.		Blackmun		May 17, 1994		87-9  No.  242		C		Jul 29, 1994
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader		White		Jun 22, 1993		96-3  No.  232		C		Aug 3, 1993
President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence		Marshall		Jul 8, 1991		52-48  No.  220		C		Oct 15, 1991
Souter, David H.		Brennan		Jul 25, 1990		90-9  No.  259		C		Oct 2, 1990
President Reagan, Ronald
Kennedy, Anthony M.		Powell		Nov 30, 1987		97-0  No.  16		C		Feb 3, 1988
Bork, Robert H.		Powell		Jul 7, 1987		42-58  No.  348		R		Oct 23, 1987
Scalia, Antonin		Rehnquist		Jun 24, 1986		98-0  No.  267		C		Sep 17, 1986
Rehnquist, William H. 2		Burger		Jun 20, 1986		65-33  No.  266		C		Sep 17, 1986
O'Connor, Sandra Day		Stewart		Aug 19, 1981		99-0  No.  274		C		Sep 21, 1981
President Ford, Gerald
Stevens, John Paul		Douglas		Nov 28, 1975		98-0  No.  603		C		Dec 17, 1975
President Nixon, Richard
Rehnquist, William H.		Harlan		Oct 22, 1971		68-26  No.  450		C		Dec 10, 1971
Powell, Lewis F., Jr.		Black		Oct 22, 1971		89-1  No.  439		C		Dec 6, 1971
Blackmun, Harry		Fortas		Apr 15, 1970		94-0  No.  143		C		May 12, 1970
Carswell, G. Harrold		Fortas		Jan 19, 1970		45-51  No.  122		R		Apr 8, 1970
Haynsworth, Clement, Jr.		Fortas		Aug 21, 1969		45-55  No.  154		R		Nov 21, 1969
Burger, Warren 3		Warren		May 23, 1969		74-3  No.  35		C		Jun 9, 1969

When Supreme Court justices are confirmed on strict party lines, it projects a clear 

problem for the credibility of the court.  I know you said that now you are voting on the qualifications of the candidate, but clearly the process is still a serious problem when you will have a justice who was opposed by all the Democratic Senators who represent far more US citizens than do the Republican Senators.  From a 2018 article (https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-senate-is-so-rigged-that-democrats-may-never-control-it-ever-again-14ede9ac5f01/):

 "In the outgoing Senate — the Senate that placed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court — the 49 senators in the Democratic “minority” represent almost 40 million more people than the Republican “majority.” In the incoming Senate, the Democratic “minority” will still represent millions more people — despite the fact that Republicans grew their “majority” last night."

The removal of the cloture rule in court cases in general and Supreme Court cases in particular has meant that judges who are acceptable by at least some members of the minority party is no longer necessary.  

I would argue that these are procedural issues that are destroying the credibility of the US Supreme Court, just as the Congress' credibility has been seriously harmed in recent years.  

Voting Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court with only Republican votes moves the US government to further dysfunction.  The tactics of Majority Leader McConnell to not allow Obama court vacancies to be filled - including the outrageous maneuvering over Merrick Garland and then the even more outrageous change of "principle" to approve Barrett in the middle of voting.  This reveals McConnell as simply ignoring democracy and using the power he's accumulated - including changing the cloture rule - to force one more far right Republican justice onto the court.  And it will force Democrats to use similar kinds of actions to reestablish a US Supreme Court that is more in line with the values of the US population and interpretations of the Constitution that value individual human rights over the rights of multinational corporations.  And Republicans will loudly cry foul, as Democrats are doing now.

I've voiced my approval of actions you've take as Senator when they represented my values and I've voiced my disappointment with other actions you've taken.  

I know you walk a thin line, and I don't know that if you voted against Barrett it would even be enough to block her appointment.  But I'm extremely disappointed now at your decision and ask you to reconsider it, given that her appointment will mean all out warfare between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for years to come.

[This won't (perhaps hasn't by now) changed Murkowski's vote, but it does mean to me that Alaskan Democrats will need to find a strong candidate to run in 2022.  I suspect that fact that she showed doubts at all, made her persona non grata among the Republicans and they will find an alternative candidate in the Republican primary.  Though we are voting on a proposition this election that would change our voting to Ranked Choice.  If it passes the control of the parties will be weakened.  So everything is up in the air.  Even the removal of a demented president is being left to the public because the Senate Republicans didn't have the integrity to do the job themselves.  Any private corporation would have removed a CEO like Trump - either by gently by taking away his powers, or by firing him.  The Republican  Senators couldn't do that.  They have no credibility.   

And, by the way, it didn't seem worth the effort to even copy this and email it to my other Senator Dan Sullivan.]