IMO, SCOTUS will not rule on the question of whether or not Trump participated in the insurrection, nor will they formally define "insurrection". All they need to do is to declare the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President or deny that this clause is "self-enforcing" and requires Congress to pass law to make it enforceable.

Babbit was murdered. She was a slight, unarmed woman executed in the capitol building because she jumped through the wrong window. — NOS4A2

That's a ludicrous characterization. She was among a group of people breaking a window that barred entry to a corridor members of Congress had recently passed through, in their escape from a mob that had already injured policemen. Babbit was climbing through that broken window when she was shot. Her presence in the Capitol was illegal, breaking that window was illegal, and the cop exercised his personal judgement while doing his duty.

Babbit was in DC because Trump had riled her up with lies and said to come. Sad that she died because of the lies.
.

That’s not up to me, or the courts. That’s up to Congress, as only they have the power to enforce the provisions of the article. — NOS4A2

I thought you were refraining from making legal judgements. If you're going to dabble in it, don't treat your personal opinion as dispositive (as lawyers say).

As I told you several days ago, the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has exclusive right- that is an inference you are making. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment is self-executing (some legal scholars agree)., and pointed (among other things)to the fact that SCOTUS has previously ruled that other sections of the 14th are self-executing, and thus inferred this one would also. A dissenting opinion disagreed. So it appears that intelligent, knowledgeable people can disagree on this point. The only opinion that will ultimately matter is that of SCOTUS. When they do, it will make new law.

Please provide your definition of "insurrection". The Colorado Supreme Court ruling surveyed a variety of definitions, and I don't see that any apply. For example, they quoted Trump's attorney, saying it's "more than a riot, less than a rebellion". An objection raised in a parliamentary procedure doesn't even constitute a riot.

[

His fitness for president has already been proven. — NOS4A2

How does any past actions erase the fact that Trump was irrational in his judgement of the election result? You've chosen to excuse his falsehood by assuming he truly believed he won, but then refuse to recognize the negative implication this has on Trump's intellectual capacity. You'd be better off calling it a shrewd lie.

No, not a single person was hurt because of “Trump’s untruths”. The nation suffered because there was four years of hoaxes, and many are trapped in a moral panic the likes of which have never been seen. — NOS4A2

People went to prison as a result of Trump's election falsehoods. Police were physically injured; Babbit was killed. Trust in the election system and rule of law is at an all time low, and division at an all time high. Only an anarchist would applaud this.

Yes, Trump's "Russia hoax" hoax is a factor - one of his own making. The Russia investigation was legitimate, albeit that some mistakes were made. Trump should have celebrated the process since it exhonerated him of conspiring with Russia (we'll never know how much his obstruction played a role in this, but it's moot now). Instead, he undermined confidence in the system, and fanned the flames of conspiracy theorists.

Willful ignorance entails poor reasoning. If Trump reasons that poorly, he's not fit to be President. You keep avoiding this.

Regarding the legal issue: by holding people accountable for willful ignorance, it encourages one to avoid it where matters of law are at hand- especially when it negatively impacts people. People were hurt, and the nation has suffered, from Trump's untruths- and it's morally correct to hold him accountable irrespective of whether he intentionally lied, or was willfully ignorant.

Assuming Trump truly believed he won, the morally optimal approach would have been to pusue all legal paths, but to concede when these legal paths failed. That would show respect for the Constitution. This was what Gore did in 2000. Instead, Trump showed disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law.

You’ve found me another reason why law in general and the legal profession in particular are stupid. — NOS4A2

You seem to be opposed to rule of law. I can't say I'm surprised.

The law strives for impartial, reasoned judgement, even if it doesn't always get it right. It's still far more reliable than any alternatives. Undermining the rule of law is thus morally reprehensible- it gives primacy to a personal, biased judgement.

Nonetheless, Appeals to authority and the claims of state bureaucrats and council are not the evidence of critical facts. And there has to be a crime. — NOS4A2

This seems incoherent. He's been charged with crimes, and ideally he'll have the opportunity to defeat the prosecution's case. What "appeal to authority"? Are you referring to legal precedent? State bureaucrats? Who are you referring to? The eyewitnesses? Or are you just insisting we all consider him virtuous until proven guilty? (That would be extremely hypocritical, coming from someone who's complained of Biden's "litany of lies" - but who can't identify any specific lie).

ROFL! You ignored the relevance to Trump's fitness to serve!

Regarding the law:
"The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-6.ZO.html

Why should I care who told him what? — NOS4A2

Because your position implies Trump was willfully ignorant. That's relevant to the crimes he's charged with and to his ability to serve as President.

We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime? — NOS4A2

The election wasn't fraudulent. Trump was told this by White House Counsel, DOJ Leadership, and had received the findings of 2 independent research agencies that confirmed there was no widespread fraud - findings Trump never shared. You must truly have a low opinion of Trump's intelligence if you think he actually believed the election was stolen despite all the information he was given. At best, he was guilty of willful ignorance.

he wanted Congress to makes a stink about certification just as the Democrats in Congress did to the certification of Trump in 2016 — NOS4A2

That's silly. He wanted much more than this: he wanted Pence to block the certification.

You said:

I said he lied about having no knowledge of his son’s business dealings. — NOS4A2

He doesn't say this in the video, and I heard nothing that can't plausibly be interpreted as true (or believed true by Joe)- which one should do when presuming innocence. If I missed something, identify it.

On a related note: do you agree Comer has failed to presume Joe's innocence throughout his investigation?

You said all the things I mentioned, and failed to give him a presumption of innocence.

Now you're making a new claim. Point me to a specific quote.

You construed Biden's assertion that he's not been involved with Hunter's business as a lie. Joe can reasonably consider a dinner and phone calls as non-involvement in the true nature of the business- so no lies.

You only identified a falsehood by some unnamed White House representative.

It is not only a human right, it is stupid to do otherwise. — NOS4A2

Were you being stupid when you claimed Biden lied about Hunter's laptop? You never showed he personally lied.

Every part that defines the office, electoral process, and the qualifications.

One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here. — NOS4A2

How is that a human right? Clearly, it's a legal right - but exclusively in criminal trials. It's not applicable to civil suits, and individuals are free to make judgements - such as your judgement of Biden's actions.

I think it's US society as a whole, through its Constitution.

U.S. Society, through the Constitution.

Thank you for clarifying that you were arguing that the decisions were morally wrong. This was not obvious- considering you referenced the Constitution several times, which seems irrelevant to the morality of the decisions.

That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights. — NOS4A2

The ability to run for President is a" basic human right"?! Is it therefore immoral to enforce each of the qualifiers (over age 35, native born, max of 2 terms)?

What if the decision makers believe Trump actually participated in an insurrection? Aren't they morally bound to enforce the legal restriction? Do you deny their right to make moral judgements?

But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do.

A fair trial is required before imprisoning someone. Running for President is a privilege, not a "basic human right".

The Constitutional right to free speech does not imply it is virtuous to lie for self-gain. Do you deny that Trump lied for self-gain?

I think what you're getting to is something similar to "broad logical necessity". It's not uncommon to equate this with metaphysical necessity. It does constitute common ground for evaluating metaphysical systems. It has its place, but can also lead to confusion - such as with a modal ontological argument.

Thanks - I have now read through that. He obviously disagrees with the decisions, but it seems entirely based on regurgitating Trump's defense points- all of which have been considered by Colorado courts, and weighed against the contrary points. That's what Colorado courts did, and Maine's soon will - as is their prerogative in both cases. Same with SCOTUS. How THEY weigh the facts will be all that matters, irrespective of whether it changes anyone's mind about what "should" occur. So I'd simply like him to recognize that the correct processes are being followed, no one has done anything wrong (legally or morally, irrespective of one's agreeing with the decisions), and that the final result is yet to come - but we should respect whatever decision is made - because it will be the final word.

Elaborate on the Maine case.

My point was that she was required by law to make a decision, and she followed the correct process. No one has done anything wrong. Of course, you can disagree with her decision, but it was her decision to make- just as (ultimately) it will be a decision for SCOTUS to make. If you feel she made a reasoning error, then identify it. Bear in mind, this was an administrative hearing and decision, and it will next be taken to court.

Re: Colorado, you said: "Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?"
Whether or not their decision is "correct" will be determined by SCOTUS. But there's nothing prima facie incorrect about basing the disqualification on the trial that found there to be clear and convincing evidence Trump participated in insurrection. I don't see how an impeachment acquittal has any bearing: an acquittal doesn't preclude a criminal indictment for the same acts, and besides - the Senate Trial didn't entail a relevant finding of fact - it merely denied the articles of impeachment.

I cannot follow. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it — NOS4A2

Maine's Secretary of State was required by Maine Law to hold a hearing and make a decision on the matter. How can it be considered wrong to follow the law?

That he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted, and also that he has been acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process, are two points against the argument that he has engaged in insurrection. — NOS4A2

The question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection was evaluated on the evidence by Colorado Courts. Their Supreme Court noted:

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three".

This footnote is also relevant:
"President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of
proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal,
claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a
constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a
preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the
Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because
President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it."

I'm not sure of this, but I think "abandoning it" means this particular point isn't subject to appeal.

ROFLMA! Trump's attorneys are almost certainly going to make that argument!

He was acquitted of insurrection in the impeachment process with the Chief Justice presiding. — NOS4A2

That is one of the Constitutional questions that SCOTUS will have to decide on. The question was evaluated by the DOJ's Office of Legal Council, in 2000.Their conclusion was:

"The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office."

Their conclusion seems well-reasoned (supported by 45 pages of analysis, considering both sides of the question), and deserving of more weight than the sort of armchair analysis we engage in around here. If you've seen something equally well-reasoned that draws a different conclusion, please share it.

Assuming the Romney/Manchin ticket does not materialize. If it does, all bets are off.

I would vote for them. — jgill

If only ranked choice voting were possible! That would make such a ticket truly viable - no one would fear wasting their vote on a candidate with virtually no chance of winning.

Not being logically contradictory just means it's logically possible. God's existence is logically possible, but no physicalist would consider God's existence to be metaphysically possible.

Here's my view:
Under physicalism, if it is truly possible for the speed of light to have differed, it would have to be because the speed of light is contingent upon some law that is more fundamental. We don't know if there is such a law, and therefore we don't know if the speed of light is truly contingent. Consequently, we can't say that an alternative speed of light is truly metaphysically (or physically) possible. We can only say an alternative is conceptually possible.

IMO, outrage is reasonable as an initial reaction, but it should be followed by analysis.

Legal processes have been followed. The legal bases for removing Trump in both Colorado and Maine are documented. Analysis ought to be based on the merits of the legal arguments, rather than the ad hominem attacks we see. The same will be true when SCOTUS rules. We may agree or disagree with that ultimate decision, but we should all accept it as the final word.

Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion? — NOS4A2

I love to see dissenting opinions, when the dissenter fully backs up his opinion with facts.

Yes, by possible world I mean for example, a world where the speed of light is less, the gravitational constant is 10 times greater, etc. Those are not necessary exactly because they could have been otherwise. — Lionino

Conceivability does not track metaphysical possibility. What makes you think the gravitational constant (or speed of light...) could have been different? Wouldn't that entail a deeper law that produces those values?

After doing some thinking, I am not so sure whether physicalism implies the equivalence of metaphysical and physical possibility. — Lionino

What do you have in mind as something physically impossible, but metaphysically possible?

You also refer to "possible worlds". There can only be non-actual possible worlds if there is contingency in the actual world. The only known, true contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy. Do you have something else in mind?

Great article. I recall there were 2 outside consulting firms that were hired to search for fraud (Berkeley is the other). Political speech is generally propoganda, but in Trump's case - it was aimed at defrauding the public- hence the indictments.

NOS4A2 is still correct that biased media also produces propoganda. But all propoganda works only when we embrace it uncritically. Trump's base seems to fail at that.

. If we can't be sure that what is in our "maps" is also in the "territory," then it seems that our physicalism might reveal itself to actually be subjective idealism. All knowledge turns out to be about how the mind represents the world, not the world itself. It is impossible to know anything about the noumena, the world in itself. But then why posit the noumena in the first place? It seems to be a position based solely on intuition and dogma. But our intuition continually turns out to be bad, the world isn't flat, etc. Plus, the noumena's existing or not makes no real difference for us. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Very interesting post!

I disagree that "all knowledge turns out to be about how the mind represents the world, not the world itself". Our internal representations are just the starting point. Fundamental physics (e.g. quantum field theory; general relativity) are well beyond our intuitive frameworks and the success of this science is a basis for confidence that these models are a good approximation. Any ontology is speculative, but doesn't it make the most sense to extrapolate from such science rather than to abandon it?

Physicalism is coherent: if we are produced from a world that is natural and physical, then our survival would require successful interactions with the actual world- thus implying our representations are functionally accurate- so it's a perfectly reasonable starting point to explore the world and to explain it. It's all about explaining the world to ourselves, so the starting and ending points are on the same basis. What I'm seeing in idealism seems somewhat defeatist:

Yet if we get rid of the noumena then we don't have a way to explain why all minds should work the same way, and if they don't work the same way and we can't know the intervening noumena, then we are basically all locked in our own seperate worlds. Or maybe we lose grounds for other minds existing entirely?

An ontology is a model of the noumena, is it not? So we aren't at all getting rid of it. Physicalism explains why all human minds work the same: they have the same physical construction, the product of the same evolutionary history- shaped by successful interaction with the world as it is.

I don't understand what you're saying. "Inference to the best explanation" is a form of abductive reasoning. It entails consideration of explanatory hypotheses (the explanations) and identifying the one that seems best in terms of things like explanatory power and scope, and ad hoc-ness.

Thanks. That sounds reasonable.

Inference to a best explanation is nothing if not a metaphysical process, right? — Mww

It's an epistemological process.

. All the evidence that is used to support the claim that "everything that has been discovered to date is physical," could equally be used to support the claim that "everything discovered to date has been mental." — Count Timothy von Icarus

The starting point, for a physicalist, is the basic, innate belief in a world external to ourselves, one that we perceive a reflection of through our senses .

What's the starting point for an idealist? Don't you have to adopt a position that is contrary to our innate noetic structure?

What about logical necessity? How is that 'necessitated by the physical'? — Wayfarer

Truthmaker theory (as explicated by David Armstrong, the patron saint of Physicalism) provides a grounding for logic.

If we define "physical" as what is currently understood by physics, the dilemma arises because our current understanding of physics is likely incomplete and may change in the future. As a result, the claim that the mind (for example) is 'physical' might be false simply because our current physics does not fully capture all physical aspects of the universe. And If we define "physical" as whatever a future, complete physics will include, the dilemma arises because this definition is too vague and open-ended. We cannot currently know what the future physics will encompass, making it difficult to make meaningful claims about the mind being physical based on this definition. — Wayfarer

A physicalist metaphysics is not dependent on what is known, or will be known. It is based on the axiom that everything that exists is physical. Physicalists accept this axiom because it is indeed all that's needed to account for everything known to exist - i.e. it's the most parsimonious ontology.

Consider me as one of those physicalists that won’t deny that the world might contain, as you say, many items that at first glance don’t seem physical.

Can I be a metaphysical physicalist? At least until convinced I can’t be? — Mww

So it's just the grounding for your worldview, right? You don't need an argument for it. — frank

I agree with Mww, but add that it's grounded by the fact that (IMO) physicalism is an inference to the best explanation for the known facts of the world. Most every aspect of the world is physical, the one possible exception being the hard problem of consciousness (which actually can be accounted for, but depends on a bit of hand-waving). But alternative metaphysical theories depend on more ad hoc assumptions.

Explain why you refer to Kirshner's tweet as "propaganda". (def: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.)
Kirshner is an experienced former Federal Prosecutor who has examined the Trump cases (filings, rulings, etc), so it seems a plausible prediction, irrespective of the fact he's biased against Trump. FWIW, he correctly predicted the verdict in the Sexual Predator lawsuit.

By contrast, Trump wrote this on "Truth" Social:

It’s becoming more and more obvious to me why the “Crazed” Democrats are allowing millions and millions of totally unvetted migrants into our once great Country. IT’S SO THEY CAN VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. They are signing them up at a rapid pace, without even knowing who the hell they are. It all makes sense now. Republicans better wake up and do something, before it is too late. Are you listening Mitch McConnell?

I don't see how anyone could deny that THIS is propaganda. It's clearly misleading (at least), and intended to promote and publicize a particular political cause.