The Erosion of our Rights - 2025

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree with that. Let him get his third impeachment. And his fourth or fifth too. I'm confident that there will be valid reasons.

But Trump would have to do something super egregious for enough Republicans to vote to remove him from office. And given what he's gotten away with so far, it's hard to imagine what that might be.

[batmagadanleadoff]

He won't have to run.
I fear that by then he will have declared a state of emergency, called out the military and imposed martial law, banning future elections. It may happen as soon as before the 2026 mid term elections because a Blue wave could gain enough Seats to get him impeached.

It'll be our Reichstag fire. Maybe he'll arrange to have a few Tesla dealerships blown up and then blame the explosions on the invasion of Tren de Aragua as pretext. Because only he can stop the Tesla expolosions.

[Lefty Specialist]

I fear war with Iran. He's already threatening to bomb them if they don't agree to a nuke deal (you know, like the one he tore up). Iran can be counted on to retaliate, and there's your Reichstag Fire. The Houthi bombing was a warm-up for this.

There will be some sort of pretext for cancelling elections, either in 2026 or 2028. I can't believe I actually wrote that sentence. But every time you think these guys have gone too far, they go further.

[kcmets]

But every time you think these guys have gone too far, they go further.

And Bingo was his name-o...

[batmagadanleadoff]

Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) on Monday argued President Trump “wasn’t advocating” for a third term when he floated a possible 2028 run over the weekend, adding that such a move would require a “highly unlikely” change to the Constitution.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/522 ... hird-term/

Good ol' Charley begs to differ:

Excerpt:

Frankly, I don’t see why he wouldn’t try this in 2028. Even if the court grows a new and permanent backbone and rules that he is ineligible, there’s nothing to stop him from running on his own hook. There’s no Republican politician out there with the stones to take him on in as public a forum as a presidential campaign. The party structure has proven worse than useless against him. His base would love him even more because he once again was thumbing his nose at the Deep State—and a big chunk of it already doesn’t trust Chief Justice John Roberts and actively hates Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

He still has his plane and enough people out there in the country willing to host his gatherings of the rubes. Plus, even with the court’s preposterous immunity ruling, he’s still in at least some danger of ending his life in jail. And that’s just for what he did in his first term. (If the House flips to the Democrats in 2026, the path would become a little more difficult. But remember: If a presidential election reaches the House, each state gets one vote and, obviously, Republicans can still lose their majority and still have majorities in a majority of the state delegations.)

I have no doubt that some of Trump’s lawyers from the firm of Lickspittle and Doormat are scheming away already. There’s nobody around him these days with the patriotism God gave a goose—nobody to say no to his lunatic strategies. He’s not joking. He doesn’t have that kind of wit.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... hird-term/

[batmagadanleadoff]

Some scary thoughts about the"loophole" in the 22nd Amendment and that "third term".

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... ation.html

[rchurch314]

how deep to you have to have your head in the sand to think that trump would run a shell game con like appearing as the VP on the ticket? Subterfuge? From one of the dullest people on earth?

He barely stepped down during his first stolen term. He tried a coup, and then still refused to resign, and then just sort of ambled off because somehow he knew just standing in the White House didn't make him president anymore. Then no one did anything about it and he stole another election and now he's got enough gestapo employed to try and make sure everyone just continues to obey his word not the law.


No, like everything else, he's just going to do it and no one's going to stop it. What teeth are there in the 22nd election? none. is anyone going to dare to not let him run in the primary? No. And then he's the nominee. So what? Is he going to get left off the ballot? Can you really imagine more than like 2 people actually standing up and saying "Well, that's tough luck selecting a nominee that's not eligible. Guess It'll be Chuck Schumer for the Democrats, Jill Stein, and the other various parties as the election. Dem's the breaks." No. And then when he wins the rigged election again, are they going to stand up and say "well, you see, despite the election we claim is the basis of our democracy and the will of the people, he's not eligible so we'll pick the second place person." No.

Oh, and see again the gestapo that will make sure all this happens if there's even the slightly push back.

[Edgy MD]

My fellow Marylander has been disappeared into that black hole of a prison, and the government has acknowledged that (a) they had no grounds to do so, and (b) they do not care.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Here comes some voter suppression on steroids -- a terrible, awful, terrible National law:

Maybe Don’t Take for Granted That You’ll Be Able to Vote in the Midterms
By Dahlia Lithwick
March 31, 20255:54 PM

Excerpt:

It’s the latest step in the MAGA plan to overhaul U.S. elections, by which “overhaul” means “disenfranchise millions”: The “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act,” or SAVE Act, will be put to a vote in the House on Thursday. This week’s vote will follow President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional power grab of an executive order on voting last week, and comes hot on the heels of the president’s clarification over the weekend that he was absolutely not joking about securing an unconstitutional third term for himself. On this week’s Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talked with Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, about why the SAVE Act would be an unprecedented move by Congress, how free and fair elections are under increasing threat in the United States, and what concerned citizens can do about it.

Their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

[***]

Wendy Weiser: In the past, every time Congress has passed rules regarding elections, they’ve improved the voting process, expanded access to voting, but the SAVE Act, if passed, would be the first time in our nation’s history that Congress passes a law suppressing votes, restricting access to voting.

The SAVE Act would require a passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers to register to vote in federal elections, which is a vote suppression measure that could block millions of eligible Americans from voting. Just over half of Americans actually have a U.S. passport. To the extent that the act allows birth certificates or other documents to vote, we’ve run studies with the University of Maryland and other data analysts and found that more than 9 percent of voting age citizens—that’s 21.3 million American citizens—don’t have a passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers readily available.

[***]

In addition to disenfranchising up to 21.3 million people, the SAVE Act would also completely upend voter registration. It would end mail registration. It would end voter registration drives. It would end online registration and make it much harder to do automatic voter registration, because it requires voter registration to happen in person. You need to show those documents in person to an election official, you can’t mail it in.

Read it all at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... terms.html