Sarah Palin Strikes Again

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 04:28:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska who agreed to be used by John McCain as a Hail Mary pass in his failed bid for the presidency, is on the loose. In New York, no less, where she is a party to a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. Trial is set to start Feb. 3.

On Saturday night, the UnVaxxed Palin had the gall to eat dinner inside Elios, a well-known New York restaurant on the Upper East Side. You have to show proof of vaccination to eat indoors in Manhattan. But no one at Elios asked her for it. (Restaurateur Elio died in 2016.)

And guess what happens? On Monday she tests positive for COVID. So all the other people who were dining at Elios and the employees are now in jeopardy.

Is she just stupid, or does she really think rules don't apply to her? Some people may just be seriously misinformed about the vaccine and the virus(like Eric Clapton, but with Palin, it just seems like she thinks she can do what she pleases. I hope NYC fines her (and Elios for not asking her to show her ID).

< Saturday Open Thread | Avenatti Cross-Examines Stormy Daniels at Trial >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sarah Palin Strikes Again | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Talk about a tin ear for metaphor (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Peter G on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 09:35:53 PM EST

It seems pretty clear to me that the best way to express a strong anti-vaccine sentiment is not to say, "Over my dead body." But Palin was never known as a talented rhetorician.

Palin did it again last night (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Towanda on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 05:23:48 PM EST

and Twitter has videos and photos of her again at the same restaurant. Not only unvaccinated but now also covid positive, so she should be in isolation. And the restaurant that claimed the first time was a mistake should lose its license for endangering others.

Who's in charge at Elio's? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by jondee on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 05:49:05 PM EST

The owner Anne Isaak, was quoted saying she was against Palin coming back to dine there.

"Against" like the owner doesn't have the final say?


: The lowest wrung (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by jondee on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 06:28:43 PM EST

on the ladder of political celebrity in the U.S is now out-moroning Trump, MTG, Gaetz, Jim Jordan et al
Problem is, on the right, it's close to the top wrung.

Just stupid. (none / 0) (#1)
by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 06:17:39 PM EST

Robert Kennedy Jr (none / 0) (#2)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 06:39:55 PM EST

Is such a disgrace to that storied family. Sad. He was a featured speaker at the anti van party last weekend.

Apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Zorba on Tue Jan 25, 2022 at 11:10:42 AM EST

There were counter-protesters there who were chanting "Let's go, Darwin."
(The police made them move, though, to their designated area.)


I now it's mentioned once in a while (none / 0) (#3)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 06:52:54 PM EST

but it seems like more should be said about the bat shite hypocrisy of the same people bleating about how wrong it is for some one to tell you what to do with your body as far as vaccines that want to force victims of rape and incest to carry a pregnancy to term.


I have thought the (none / 0) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 07:40:01 PM EST

same thing. Apparently taking 2 seconds to get a shot is a big inconvenience but having women be birthing slaves for 9 months is a-okay with these idiots.


: "Birthing slave for nine months" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Peter G on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 07:54:59 PM EST

and then an involuntary parent for 18 or more years.

Absolutely correct Howdy. (none / 0) (#5)
by fishcamp on Mon Jan 24, 2022 at 07:47:34 PM EST

Years ago I filmed on an eagle relocation film in Medford, Oregon with Bobby Jr. as the host for an American Sportsman show. He had raptors most of his early life and was just perfect for the show. We became friends and he came to Aspen often to ski in the winter and fish in the summer. I'm truly appalled at his stance on vaccination as is most of his family. He's a good guy with a bad idea.


Apparently, (none / 0) (#9)
by Zorba on Tue Jan 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM EST

: Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Zorba on Tue Jan 25, 2022 at 11:12:55 AM EST

About the double post.

Can this work? (none / 0) (#11)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 25, 2022 at 07:38:47 PM EST

Lawyers Trying to Disqualify Madison Cawthorn
January 25, 2022 at 8:54 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 0 Comments
"A group of lawyers is working to disqualify from the ballot a right-wing House Republican who cheered on the Jan. 6 rioters unless he can prove he is not an `insurrectionist,' disqualified by the Constitution from holding office, in a case with implications for other officeholders and potentially former President Donald Trump," the New York Times reports.

Just the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jondee on Tue Jan 25, 2022 at 09:24:26 PM EST

they elected that putz the first time makes me think labeling him an insurrectionist will make him even more of a hero to every Born Again neoconfederate gun-slinger worth his salt.


Frankly, I question the constitutionality (none / 0) (#12)
by Peter G on Tue Jan 25, 2022 at 09:12:37 PM EST

of state laws that purport to allow disqualification of candidates for Congress. See U.S. Const., article I, section 5 ("Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members ..."). The Constitution thus confers this power on Congress itself, subject to challenge in federal court. Cf. Powell v. McCormack (1969) (including footnotes 80-83).


14th Amendment (none / 0) (#14)
by BGinCA on Tue Jan 25, 2022 at 11:11:01 PM EST

Section 3 I believe is relevant here:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, ... having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States...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."


I think the problem is intent (none / 0) (#17)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 08:16:57 AM EST

Proving intent. Right? It's why, apart from the all white jury, the famous Fort Smith trial got no convictions.

As to peters comment, that's why the subject line is a question..

Will it work. It seems too easy.

That's said it's seems like a possibly effective political message. Jondee is correct, it's what "the base" wants. The base is 25-30% of the country. I assume the question is how many of the 70-75% can be made to care.

I'm not convinced. Sadly it's not just the right in this country that can be unbelievably stupid.


I understand that section 3 of the 14th (none / 0) (#18)
by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 12:40:05 PM EST

says what it says. Assume that January 6 was an "insurrection" as referenced there. My point was only that Article I sec 5 appears to give the House itself the exclusive power to interpret and enforce that provision, subject to narrow federal court review, and not any state court at the behest of a group of private citizens, as is being attempted with Cawthorn.


Suppose (none / 0) (#21)
by BGinCA on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 03:58:22 PM EST

a candidate is elected after having only been a citizen for 6yrs. But the majority party in the House wishes to keep him. Is there no recourse to disqualify said unqualified member?


Whatever the procedure is to bring (none / 0) (#22)
by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 06:07:44 PM EST

the question of qualifications to the floor for a vote, is how it would be raised. Each house of Congress has a million internal procedural rules. But if the majority of the House then votes that the person elected from a district is qualified -- whatever the true facts -- I'm not sure who, if anyone, would have standing to file a challenge in court. Not voters in the district suing in state court, was my main point. Powell v McCormack was the opposite situation. By a wide, bipartisan margin the House voted that Rep. Powell was not qualified because he had committed ethical violations during a prior term as a Representative. He then sued in federal court. Both lower courts ruled they could not question the House vote, but the Supreme Court by 7-1 vote ruled that the House could not exclude him except on a ground articulated in the Constitution itself. They did not decide whether there were limits on the authority of the House to expel a member, once seated.


As you say (none / 0) (#23)
by BGinCA on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 06:53:34 PM EST

Powell is the opposite situation. I don't see how the House can ignore or overrule a Constitutionally mandated requirement. Worthy v. Barrett and Others, was a reconstruction era case in NC Supreme Court. In which a sheriff was disqualified from office based on the 14th amendment. While of course this is pertinent to disqualification by the House I believe it shows that this matter can be litigated.


This (none / 0) (#24)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 07:15:39 AM EST

They did not decide whether there were limits on the authority of the House to expel a member, once seated.

Could it matter that they are not as I understand trying to expel him but to stop him from running. Again.


Or at least (none / 0) (#25)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 07:48:56 AM EST

keep him off the ballot


The distinction between being qualified (none / 0) (#26)
by Peter G on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 08:12:14 AM EST

to run, versus lawful grounds for expulsion, may matter to the scope of the authority that the House has over its own members (according to the Supreme Court in Powell). But does not matter to the point I was making, which concerns the extent to which the authority of the House itself over these matters may be exclusive, barring state courts from exercising any role.


Just saw an interesting conversation about this (none / 0) (#27)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 04:27:54 PM EST

The lawyer person was making the point that this is not as hopeless as it sounds because, for one thing, an odd bit of the state law says once charges are lodged that he is an insurrectionist he is put in the position of being forced to prove he is not. To get on the ballot.
He said this had been used successfully before even in the 20th century. (No idea). They used a quote from one of the lawyers saying "I should not be hard to prove you are not an insurrectionist". And then played a collection of the shite he has said publicly. It might be hard in his case.

The case is apparently about the oath he took, and then broke, to protect and defend the constitution.

Disclaimer- I'm not a lawyer and I am just repeating what I heard.

I might post the video when it's available.


The challengers (none / 0) (#31)
by KeysDan on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 06:34:49 PM EST

to Maddy's candidacy include some high-powered legal figures in the state, including two former judges on the North Carolina Supreme Court. It should be easy for Cawthorne to prove he is not an insurrectionist, right?


As a part of Madison Cawthorn's (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by KeysDan on Mon Jan 31, 2022 at 03:15:09 PM EST

defense, his lawyer, James Bopp, is using the Confederate Amnesty Act of 1872. Mr. Bopp claims that the Act is not applicable to Civil War soldiers only, but that Congress meant for the Act to apply to all future insurrectionists.

"Congress passed the 1872 Amnesty Act which removed all persons whatsoever from the disability under Section 3 as a result of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion."

This cringe-worthy Confederate Amnesty Act argument would seem to be an admission that Cawthorn was a part of the 2021 insurrection. While the law suit is a long-shot, this defense must have been determined to be an asset in his new Republican district.


: Let's just say that Mr. Bopp's argument (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by Peter G on Mon Jan 31, 2022 at 05:09:08 PM EST

does not strike me as the best reading of that statute, which provides, in full:

An Act to remove political Disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Article of the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), That all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
Approved, May 22, 1872.

Yeah, Congress definitely granted an advance amnesty, in 1872, to any member of a future Congress who might engage in treason or rebellion, at any time under any circumstances, other than those who held office during the Civil War. A very reasonable interpretation.

: Since we have not heard from Bopp (none / 0) (#47)
by ladybug on Mon Jan 31, 2022 at 04:25:30 PM EST

other than some selective sound-bites we don't know what the full defense will be. But there are a lot of issues in play. How does a local state board of elections get to decide federal constitutional issues? That will be the first hurdle. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

You and Howdy are ignoring the problem (none / 0) (#32)
by Peter G on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 08:07:36 PM EST

that the U.S. Constitution seems to be pretty clear that no state court has jurisdiction to entertain such a case if it involves a candidacy for Congress, no matter what North Carolina's statutes may say. If I am right about this, then you don't get to the question of whether Cawthorne is guilty of "insurrection," much less who has the burden to prove or disprove that.


You and Howdy are ignoring the problem (none / 0) (#33)
by Peter G on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 08:07:52 PM EST

Damn! I did it (none / 0) (#34)
by Peter G on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 08:08:25 PM EST

again.


: That's OK, (none / 0) (#38)
by KeysDan on Fri Jan 28, 2022 at 10:43:32 AM EST

one for Howdy and one for me.

Not really ignoring (none / 0) (#35)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 09:07:38 PM EST

anything since I have no idea. Just repeating what I heard. But he did also say that if anything comes of it we will know soon because the ballots are set and printed in the spring.

I think he said May.


It seems like most of the best stuff (none / 0) (#36)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 09:13:58 PM EST

about this is behind a paywall. Like the NYTimes if you care to google. This is SLATE

Don't Underestimate the Legal Challenge to Madison Cawthorn's Reelection
Yes, it's a long shot. But it could actually work.

: This might be the paragraph (none / 0) (#37)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 27, 2022 at 09:17:29 PM EST

Does this conduct disqualify Cawthorn from public office under the 14th Amendment? Several North Carolina voters think so--and they believe they have a legal opportunity to prove it. State law allows "any qualified voter" registered in a candidate's district to challenge that candidate's qualifications for office. When a challenger puts forth "reasonable suspicion or belief" that the candidate "does not meet the constitutional ... qualifications for the office," then the candidate must "show by a preponderance of the evidence" that he is indeed qualified. If the candidate in question fails to carry this burden, the North Carolina State Board of Elections must remove him from the ballot. The candidate can appeal his disqualification to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, then to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which currently has a Democratic majority.

So the be clear, if the guy you are (none / 0) (#39)
by Peter G on Fri Jan 28, 2022 at 12:00:04 PM EST

referencing is not addressing the preliminary question of whether the U.S. Constitution allows any state court to adjudicate this question, as applied to a candidate for Congress -- regardless of who is right on the merits -- then he is missing a big issue ... the one I have highlighted.


In the NYT article (none / 0) (#40)
by ladybug on Fri Jan 28, 2022 at 01:10:57 PM EST

your point about the Constitution appears to have been raised by Cawthorne's lawyer but was dismissed by Fein, one of the challengers, who said: "If he's right, than [SIC] a nine-year-old could show up with enough signatures and qualify for the ballot, because only Congress could disqualify him after the election." So that issue is being floated somewhat. But most of the attention appears to be on upcoming court battles to determine whether the protest was an insurrection and by extension whether Cawthorne incited it.


"One of the challengers" is not (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Peter G on Sun Jan 30, 2022 at 09:48:18 AM EST

the best source of a thoughtful opinion on constitutional law, if you ask me. The fact that the Constitution's language and structure can sometimes lead us to odd or undesirable results is not much of an argument that my interpretation is wrong. Just consider the anti-majoritarian characteristics of the Electoral College or of the Senate itself.


: Patience is such an underrated virtue. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by oculus on Sun Jan 30, 2022 at 10:30:54 AM EST

: Yes, (none / 0) (#43)
by ladybug on Sun Jan 30, 2022 at 01:33:01 PM EST

I agree. I was rather struck on how little attention your Constitutional point gets in the media as opposed to the more popular interest in determining if Cawthorn is an insurrectionist. I thought the example of a nine-year-old winning the seat seemed an unserious argument, but in the NYT it seemed to be given more weight than Cawthorn's lawyer's point, which I wish had been elaborated more. Ron Fein is the FSFP legal director, which is the group leading the challenge to Cawthorn.

I understand that section 3 of the 14th (none / 0) (#19)
by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 12:40:32 PM EST

: oops (none / 0) (#20)
by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 12:42:27 PM EST

howdy, please (none / 0) (#15)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 04:22:39 AM EST

don't go off topic and put them in an open thread. I really need to keep the threads on topic.


: Sorry (none / 0) (#16)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 26, 2022 at 06:51:36 AM EST

That was supposed to be in the open

To be fair, (none / 0) (#44)
by ladybug on Sun Jan 30, 2022 at 01:40:52 PM EST

the mask mandates are confusing. Where I live in California many local restaurants and even gyms are full of unmasked people and this is a very blue area.

: And they are not (none / 0) (#45)
by ladybug on Sun Jan 30, 2022 at 02:00:35 PM EST

always asking for vaccine cards too.