Below is my column in the New York Post on the next step in the effort to disqualify former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election. I believe that the Colorado opinion will be set aside, but it is not finality but clarity that we need from the United States Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
In his book Profiles of Courage, John F. Kennedy discussed figures who answered the call of history and how such defining moments are “an opportunity that sooner or later is presented to us all.” That moment will now be presented to nine justices of the United States Supreme Court after a divided decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The test for the U.S. Supreme Court is not just what they should do, but how they should do it. As an institution, the Court is often called upon to seize such moments to bring unity and clarity on our core values. That is why this insidious opinion must not only be unequivocally but unanimously overturned.
The Colorado decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot will be overturned because it is wrong on the history and the language of the 14th Amendment.
Dead wrong.
The question is whether the US Supreme Court will speak with one voice, including the three liberal justices.
As with the three Democratic state justices who refused to sign off on the Colorado opinion, these federal justices can now bring a moment of unity not just for the court but the country in rejecting this shockingly anti-democratic theory.
For years, the disqualification theory has been treated like some abstract parlor game for law professors.
While Democrats called for the disqualification of 120 House members, it was treated as a fringe theory.
It has now lost its charm as a legal brain teaser.
As I have previously written, the disqualification of Trump is based on the use of a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
After the Civil War, House members were outraged to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, seeking to take the oath with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.
They had all previously taken the same oath and then violated it to join a secession movement that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
That was a true rebellion.
January 6, 2021, was a riot.
That does not excuse those who committed crimes that day — but it was not an insurrection.
The majority on the Colorado Supreme Court adopted sweeping interpretations of every element of the decision to find that Trump not only incited an insurrection, but can be disqualified under this provision.
It does not matter that Trump has never been charged with even incitement or that he called for his supporters to go to the Capitol to protest “peacefully.”
In finding that Trump led an actual insurrection, the four justices used speeches going back to 2016 to show an effort to rebel before Trump was ever president.
There are ample grounds to summarily toss this opinion to the side.
However, that would not answer the call of this historic moment.
What these four justices did was a direct assault on our democratic process in seeking to bar the most popular candidate in the upcoming election.
Whatever the view of Trump, this is a decision that should rest with the voters.
No only are these four justices seeking to bar the votes of millions of voters (even barring the counting of write-in votes), but they are doing so in the name of democracy.
It is the ballot cleansing that is usually associated with authoritarian countries like Iran, where voters are protected from “unworthy” candidates.
Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”
A decision on Colorado could put this theory to rest by the sheer finality of the appeal.
However, it is not the finality that is needed at this moment. We need clarity. Clarity of purpose and principle.
The Supreme Court plays a unique role in our system at times like these.
It must at times defy us in rejecting racism as cases such as Brown v. Board of Education.
At other times, it has protected in rejecting government overreach as in cases such as Katz v. United States, demanding warrants to overcome the reasonable expectation of privacy.
This is a time where it can unify us.
The court holds the ultimate “bully pulpit” that can educate citizens on what defines us as a people.
Most people understand intuitively that what these four justices did in Colorado was wrong.
However, the court can speak as one — conservatives and liberals — in reaffirming the core values discarded by these state justices.
In that sense, it may be the greatest test of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts once observed that “the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice.”
Past chief justices from John Marshall to Earl Warren struggled to secure unanimous votes on fundamental cases to reaffirm such defining values.
The court could help unify this country in a way that may be unparalleled in its history.
It can show that justices who hold vastly different ideological views can be unified on core principles.
It can remind us that, as citizens, the Constitution is ultimately not a covenant with the government but with each other.
It is a leap of faith that, as a free people, we can decide our shared destiny and protect our shared identity.
The moment has come for nine justices to speak in one voice.
An American voice that transcends the personalities and divisions of our time.
It is a voice that speaks not to what divides us but what defines us as a people.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, where he teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
The outstanding podcaster and attorney known as Viva Frei has done an outstanding job of demonstrating why the SCOTUS has no option but to throw out the Colorado Supreme Court’s own insurrection attempt.
Viva Frei does this by presenting in simply, lay terms, his explication of the dissenting opinions of the judges who opposed the majority decision. Note that the mainstream media, even Fox, has barely touched the content of these dissenting voices:
If this stands, I will not be in Colorado to vote next November.
Since we are channeling the civil war I would offer that this is for Biden and Democrats what Gettysburg was for Lee and Copnfederates.
This is the bridge too far.
Turley is demanding a 9-0 decision – quickly.
WaPo is.
Slate is.
As Napolean said
Do not interfere when your enemy is making a fatal mistake.
Simply excellent, I hope the Supreme Court exercises supreme wisdom.
America first policy, downsizing government, controlling immigration, getting out of this growth and development economy and making manufacturing and services our basis. Trump is a blowhard for sure but he had some good policies in place. What the establishment has done to the man is despicable, it was seditious and it was treasonous and for that reason I will support him again.
I am absolutely DYING over the fact that brandrunner won’t use his name anymore because Estovir turned it into turdrunner.
Typical lefty punk-ass little kunt. Put that mask on, turdrunner/antifa boy!!!
I come before you now as Anonymous, the Ghost Turd, having been skull f*cked by Estovir, ass reamed by Tom the Turd, and gleefully ball sucked by Svelaz the Taint Wizard.
I bring you several STEAMING turds each night, though I am fully aware you would just as soon get cornholed by Johnny Holmes as to have to read my utterly putrid, mindless drivel.
But none of you seem to care, because you are ALL Estovir, The Despiser, the Greyslayer, who seeks the destruction of The Land, using the Ill Earth Stone and the Staff of Law. He leaves total devastation in his wake!! He will not rest until ALL libtards are removed from The Land and can post on Turley’s blog no more!!!
Orange Maaaaaaaaaan!!!!! Orange Maaaaaaaaan!!!!! Orange Maaaaaaaan!!!
Melenkurion abatha!
Heather Turdlayer, formerly turdrunner, formerly Richard Shill:
Be welcome in The Land. Thank you for your fine steaming turd.
REGARDING ABOVE:
This is from James AKA Tom AKA Estovir and all the puppets.
As ‘James’, Estovir decried the fact that too many commenters are using ‘Anonymous’. And here he goes right ahead to show us why we shouldn’t use any names.
No name no names no names!!!
—Ghost Turd the paranoid kunt
Regarding above
Ghost Turd continues to demonstrate that he is a b*tch ass little twat, who loves licking Trump’s foreskin when he’s not whining like a breast fed 7 year old about how he’s being skull f*cked daily by the whole planet.
Signed
James is Tom/Estovir plus Thinkthrough, Hullbobby, Jimmy, Upstate Farmer, Iowa2, Edward Mahl, Shakdi, Ralph Chappell, Guy Ventner, Margot Ballhere and many, many more.
“Most people understand intuitively that what these four justices did in Colorado was wrong.”
40% of statistics are just made up. Turley has no idea what most people understand intuitively. Watching the insurrection on 1/6 live, most people – including many Republicans – intuitively called it an insurrection.
+100
Intuitively, we all recognize a STEAMING TURD^^^^
Yes, most insurrections have the doors open and are ushered inside. It was a provoked riot at best with Nasty Nancy setting the trap for this follow up theater.
Intuition–the basis of any civilized liberal democracy. Hell, it’s almost as good as divine right of kings.
If they saw hundreds of people walking peacefully through the Capitol, as shown by Tucker Carlson, they would have disabused of the idea that there was an insurrection or even a riot.
Colorado Justices Already Receiving Threats
Justices on the Colorado supreme court are receiving a barrage of death threats after it ruled to exclude Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot next year because of his attempts to cause insurrection.
Some violent posts are in direct response to Trump’s own furious posts about the ruling on Truth Social. Trump has called it “election interference” and implied it proves the 2020 election was stolen, the lie that eventually led to the January 6 insurrection.
It isn’t the first time Trump’s posts and comments have incited threats against a court. A New York court reported last month that the office of the judge overseeing Trump’s fraud trial had been bombarded with death threats and antisemitic abuse, including some levied against the judge’s law clerk.
Trump’s lawyers in his fraud trial argued that the former president has no control over those who levy violent threats.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/21/trump-colorado-supreme-court-justices-death-threats
…………………………………
This story illustrates the deep concerns that at least half the country has concerning Donald Trump. Anyone, anywhere, perceived as a Trump enemy invariably receives death threats stoked by Trump himself.
We, as a nation, have never seen this pattern with a modern political leader. And with this column, Professor Turley makes no mention whatsoever of all the threats linked to Trump supporters. Yet no column regarding Trump’s legal issues is complete without a full context.
Steaming TURD^^^^^
STEAMING DUNG ABOVE AND BELOW FROM GHOST TURD^^^^vvvv
+100
DEPORTATION NATION!
Nearly half of the country consists almost entirely of illegal alien foreign invaders.
Immigration law on January 1, 1863, required those admitted to be citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” requiring those not meeting the criteria to be compassionately repatriated.
20th-century immigration laws were illegally employed and abused by Mexicans and various and sundry other flotsam, who hurriedly crossed the border to have their babies on U.S. soil.
99% of “asylum” seekers are criminal frauds, wanting nothing more than to enter America to obtain entitlements, benefits, and “free stuff.”
Good Post
Steaming turd belowVVVVVVVV
You voluminously dance all around the issue of what constitutes insurrection.
Your own incoherent and disjointed convolution is a dead giveaway.
Why does the word “riot” exist?
For you NOT to use it.
Jan 6 was a riot.
Insurrection is typically armed rebellion.
Jan 6 was distinctly NOT an armed rebellion or armed insurrection.
________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
revolt and insurrection imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds
__________________________________________________________________________________
RIOT
noun
ri·ot ˈrī-ət
1a: a violent public disorder
specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
b: public violence, tumult, or disorder
Didn’t a leftist inspired by MSNBC try to assassinate Justice Kavanagh? Nothing that is happening now approaches that extreme.
Justice Kavanaugh would like a word with you and Schumer. Or doesn’t having an actual assassin at your street constitute a threat?
The Colorado Decision Is Sound
The Colorado judges ruled by a margin of 4-3 that Trump is ineligible to run for president because he engaged in insurrection.
“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection,” the majority of judges concluded. “Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/21/trump-disqualified-14th-amendment-democracy/
…………………………………..
The Colorado majority has a compelling point right here. On the afternoon of January 6th, Trump kept demanding that Pence refuse to certify the election results. This dispells any notion that Trump had no malicious intentions that day.
STEAMING TURD ^^^^
+100
The terrm “insurrection” was used by Art 14 to refer to the persons who participated in an armed attempt to separate their states from the union, involving thousands of soldiers using the full array of weapons and military tactics of the day. It was a WAR. By comparison, it is possible that no one in the group that trespassed on the Capitol on 1/6/21even had a deadly weapon. The War of Succession of 1961-65 and the brief treaspass on the Capitol on 1/6/21 bear no comparison to one another.
“it is possible that no one in the group that trespassed on the Capitol on 1/6/21even had a deadly weapon”
That’s false. More than one has been convicted of carrying a gun that day, which you could have easily determined for yourself by simply searching on “firearm” in the Capitol Breach Cases database at DOJ, or looking up the news about firearms convictions for J6 trespassers.
BugAnon – I suspect you are playing with words. I said it appears that none of the protesters entered the Capitol building, not Capitol grounds, carrying a weapon. According to a Politifact comment, my statement seems to be true. It still seems true that none of your alleged insurrection entered the Capitol armed. If you contend the contrary, you should be to point to a protester who was so charged.
Professor Turly, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions. I find that you are truly a man that stands by principal and not ideology. You always tend to believe that every judge and or justice acts from a position of principal and not ideology. That sure is your greatest flaw. The left for the most part has no principal unless power is a principal,. The left truly believes they are infallable and that their view is the only correct view that can be had and that anyone who dares see another side is morally bankrupt. The three liberal justices will never casst a vot that will make this case a unanimous decision. The very best you may get is 8-1. I dobut that even more. It is either going to be 5-4 or more probably 6-3 with the liberals sticking together as if they were never separated at birth. I especially have no illusion that our latest addition to SCOTUS will every join an opinion reversing this travesty of justice. She has only committed to a Marxist ideology. Her mind is made up. It will not change. Sotomayor is almost as dedicated a Marxist and so is Kagan. The day of unbiased judges appointed by left leaning Presidents is and has been over for years. Only Conservative Presidents appoint justices who ever depart from ideology.
9 – 0. This is not a close case.
I wonder if there will be renewed calls for court packing, where Biden might try to expand the number of seats on SCOTUS to appoint ideologues and change the makeup of the Court.
See the posts from GHOST TURD below VVVVVVV
James Says:
“For Pete’s sake, enough with the Anonymous nonsense. Even Svelaz has picked a name – do better. This thread is so thoroughly taken over by at least five ‘Anonymous’, it really defeats the point. Stop being cowards/lazy and at the least present a screen name”.
………………………………….
This is another false flag post from the Blog Stooge.
James is Tom/Estovir plus Thinkthrough, Hullbobby, Jimmy, Upstate Farmer, Iowa2, Edward Mahl, Shakdi, Ralph Chappell, Guy Ventner, Margot Ballhere and many, many more.
The Stooge wants names he can smear! Quite recently he stole Brandrunner’s name and used it as ‘Turdruuner’ in an extensive series of vile posts. The Stooge will do that with ‘any’ name ‘any’ liberal posts. It’s an intimidation tactic The Stooge has employed repeatedly over the years
These unhinged ravings are fun.
Estovir stole my turdrunner name!!
Estovir skull f*cks me daily!
Its all so…….argggghhhhh
Make it stop johnny!!!
Look at this one though. So funny, he wont even use his name anymore because tommy stole it!
So now he comes under his new name….GHOST TURD!!
HE stole my NAAAAAAAAAAAME
HE is a RAVER!!!!!!!
I’m Melllllllllting!!!!!
turdrunner nevermore!!!!!!
I tried to use a name recently and The Stooge stole it from me! waahaaahaaaahaaaa!!!
Make it stop!!!
He’s intimidating me!!!!
Poor little Ghost Turd the kunt….
This is a cry for help.
Uh duh
@Turley,
You talk about Kennedy who wrote about Lamar.
Lamar was allowed back into Congress after the 1872 Amnesty Act.
Here’s the text of the Act:
-=-
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.
-=-
(Taken from Wikipedia)
Now as written. This would be a mostly repeal of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 and not the amendment itself.
As such any use of it post 1872 could be challenged.
Not sure why no one defending Trump, Cawthorn or anyone who’s been challenged didn’t raise this objection.
At the same time… as Turley points out… there was no insurrection so there’s again no way to use the 14th.
-G
It is near certain that this will fail. It is near certain that SCOTUS will toss this
What Turley points out correctly is that they must do so
Unanimously
strongly
Quickly.
They most speak with a load unanious voice – not about the intracies of the 14th amendment – but against the use of LawFare to rig elections.
SCOTUS needs to avoid using narrow technical grounds to dismiss this.
@John Say,
Narrow technical ground?
That would be arguing Trump shouldn’t be removed from the ballot because POTUS isn’t an officer listed under the 14th section 3.
Instead, look at the Amnesty Act of 1872.
Its saying that congress (2/3rds of each house) voted to modify the amendment. (That’s key)
And what they said was that it wouldn’t apply except for a specific group of people who are all now long dead.
So rather than repeal, they modified it with the required percentage (2/3rds).
That should be the end of it. Anyone who had been hit with this prior, should have challenged and won that challenge. I’m not sure how the courts ruled on Cawthorne’s case but had it gone to SCOTUS that’s a slam dunk.
In addition, if you don’t like that… there’s the whole due process issue.
Which gets into some questions which haven’t been answered… like who decides if an insurrection actually took place. No insurrection, no 14th Sec 3 .
Crawthorn did raise Amnesty Act as defense but it was rejected by the appeals court. On page 22 of the opinion it focused on the “political disabilities imposed” language and said the past tense did not allow the Act to be forward looking. Here is the opinion. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221251.p.pdf
@Concerned
I did see that.
But here’s the kicker.
If you’re saying that the Amnesty was only for the past offenders… then you have to say that the 14th is also for the past defenders.
It goes to the same language and context.
So that would mean that the 14th was meant to only be used to penalize the Civil War insurrectionists.
Or if you content that the 14th section 3 was for all insurrectionalists past , present and future… then the same would hold true for the Amnesty Act …
Which gets us into the nitty gritty.
The Amnesty act essentially said that the 14th Amendment section 3 only applies to a select few. And no one else.
The 2/3rds vote is critical.
Which also gets to the idea that the amnesty act rewrites section 3 so again it can’t be used except those specified as being exempted.
No matter how you slice and dice it… Trump and others are off the hook.
-G
“The Call of History: It is Time for the Court to Speak as One in Overturning the Colorado Opinion”
– Professor Turley
____________________
Objective, impartial, and by the law is Professor Turley.
In a society of laws, laws must be adhered to, or society is doomed.
A riot is not an insurrection, no matter how many times an insurrection is falsely claimed by anti-Constitutional, anti-American communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America.
All Justices who do not vote to strike down the Supreme Court of Colorado with haste and extreme prejudice must be impeached and convicted for crimes of high office, including, but not limited to, complicity, abuse of power, usurpation of power, subversion of the Constitution, dereliction, negligence, corruption et al.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
The shame is that the SCOTUS doesn’t have the power to sanction/punish lower court activism and “frivolous” rulings.
This was an enormous mistake by CO and democrats – one of the many they have made over the past decade.
This is a “self-punishing act”.
You would have thought that Democrats learned as their lawfare efforts against Trump backfired in their faces as Biden’s popularity declined and Trump’s has risen.
When you call someone else Hitler it helps if you are not acting like Hitler.
Are their consequences for the CO SC – opf course there are – they have burned their reputation and their trust to the ground.
But the damage they have done is broader than that.
They have made it far easier for appeals courts to rule against democrats and this administration on all kinds of issues.
They have increased the odds that the 1512(C) J6/First amendment case is decided unanimously against DOJ.
They have increased the odds of federal courts and SCOTUS saying no to lunatic efforts of democrats to rig elections through lawfare.
They have amplified the distrust that Judges will have for the arguments of democratic lawfare groups.
They have amplified the distrust that Rational judges will have for their left wing lunatic collegues and the ease with which they will ignore their oppinions.
If you want to be trusted – you have to behave as trustworthy.
The Democratic lawfare campaign against Trump not merely backfired from the start, the damage it is doing to democrats grows by the minute.
Almost no one expected any court to take this idiocy seriously. The Colorado SC decision does not Help Democrats or Biden. It harms them. It proves how dangerous THEY are.
You do not save democracy by burning it to the ground.
I’ve said they have no capacity to see the real ramifications of their actions.
No, but depending on what they say…
Judical Canon #5 does apply and one could file a complaint against them.
No entity has established insurrection or rebellion.
January 6 was a riot by definition.
By the statements and admissions of liberals and democrats, the people who conducted the riot on January 6, were attempting to overturn an election by influencing the vote of Congress.
They were not attempting to overturn a government or nation by armed force.
January 6, was a riot not an insurrection or rebellion.
No case can be made for disqualification for a candidate who “…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same…” under the 14th Amendment.
No case can be made against a President who admonished his audience to demand that Congress “do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated.”
No case can be made against a President who admonished his audience to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
If secession was constitutional, the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court and judicial branch have failed to objectively and impartially adjudicate and have usurped the power of the legislative branch and engaged in acts of legislation, which actions require correction and adjudication themselves under Article 2, Section 4.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
So Trump supporters are waving the constitution to protect Trump, and Trump said he would terminate the constitution. It should tell everybody who they are.
Trump also said he grabs pussies. You better take cover fishysmell
Beats sniffing little girls
And several women have testified under oath that he’s done that against their will. He was found liable for sexual assault. But MAGAts will excuse anything for their God Trump.
This is not about protecting Trump.
Trump benefits from this idiotic move.
This is about protecting the country.
Even WaPO woke up this morning to grasp that nothing stops Red States from barring Biden from the ballot for Insurection under this ludicrous missue of the 14th amendment
If you make “insurrection” so broad as to include the J6 protests, then you include Pro-hamas marches, BLM marches, Anti-Kavanagh marches. Ant-Dobbs protests Especially if those get out of hand – and with the left they ALWAYS do.
If you stretch “aide and comfort to the enemy” you empower states to take a voice in elections on foreign policy and border security.
Using the screwed up logic that the CO supreme court used – Red states have about half a dozen means to exclude Biden from the ballot.
Despite passing the 14th amendment NO ONE was ever kept off a ballot before, and only 3 former confederates were ever denied office.
Hundreds served in state and faderal offices – including the US Supreme court.
The very people who got through the civil war grasped how dangerous applied properly the 14th amendment was and used it only 3 times and NEVER top keep anyone off a ballot.
Democrats are too stupid to grasp – this is not only anti-democratic, but it exposes them as the fascists that they are.
No one is protecting Trump. Trump will likely win even if you keep him off the ballot in places like CO and CA.
Lincoln won in 1860 despite 10 southern states keeping him off the ballot.
From a purely political perspective – Trump and republicans want those of you onm the left to engage in MORE of this kind of idiocy.
It exposes you as the fascists that you are.
The issue is not Trump – it is the country.
Democrats have been jumping the shark over and over. The courts, the electorate needed to reign them in long ago.
This is not about Trump. This is about stopping where this will go if you keep up this idiocy.
I am happy that CO took this idiotic step.
It takes something monumentally stupid to shock the people, the courts into stepping back from the abyss.
Turley is correct. SCOTUS needs to speak with one voice, they need to do so succinctly, and they need to do so immediately.
I have previously noted many “political” ways consistent with normal SCOTUS conduct they can defang this. They can merely accept Trumps appeal and kick it into next year.
But Turley is correct, this is an unusal instance and it is time for the court to speak with unity, concisely and quickly.
To put an end to this election rigging LAWFARE.
“Even WaPO woke up this morning to grasp that nothing stops Red States from barring Biden from the ballot for Insurection under this ludicrous missue of the 14th amendment”
John, this quote tells everyone that WaPo is dishonest since as long as it hurt Trump, they felt it was OK, but when they realized it might hurt Biden and other Democrats, they determined it was poor.
When dealing with the Constitution, one must constantly evaluate what happens if the ‘shoe is on the other foot.’ That is the only way any educated person or news reporter should look at things. That protects us from those who are dull (like fishwings) and can’t see past their nose.
While there are clear constitutional issues here – that is NOT actually the big deal.
I and likely Turley hope that SCOTUS will speak not merely with a unanimous voice but also with a strong one.
There are a long list of trivial ways that the court can constitutionally dispose of this. They can decide on small constitutional technical grounds that the 14th amendment does not apply to presidents, or that it is not self executing. These are EASY decisions.
What they need to do with a loud and unified voice is to say NO! You can not game the law to overturn elections ahead of time.
You can not call a protest an insurrection. That if you are going to deprive the people of the right to vote for a candidate you better have a bulletproof ironclad beyond any doubt argument so compelling that a supermajority of people already support you.
You are representative of the Colorado court justices and their kneejerk emotional responses. That’s why Trump is so effective by using your lack of analysis and self-discipline to do his bidding. Your remarks prove it again. We could have a conversation if you lot weren’t so stupid and full of yourselves.
“Trump said he would terminate the Constitution.”
Please source this statement.
For Pete’s sake, enough with the Anonymous nonsense. Even Svelaz has picked a name – do better. This thread is so thoroughly taken over by at least five ‘Anonymous’, it really defeats the point. Stop being cowards/lazy and at the least present a screen name. I can’t help but feel that we deal mainly with old, bored armchair warriors and paid trolls on this site, and that is not going to fix a damn thing. I will be happy to sign up officially if that is what is necessary. This is *important*, and the rest is getting really old. 😐 Thank you Professor and colleagues for what you provide us with every day. To the commenters – go blow. I *wish* I were so privileged I could waste my time in that fashion. Except that, actually, I don’t, because **** – what a myopic and empty existence.
GFY
The Left is, in its very nature, a totalitarian movement. It seeks to erode individual rights, for their own good.
When the Left believes straws are bad for the environment, it bans straws.
When the Left wants people to buy more electric vehicles, they set upcoming bans on gas powered cars. This is regardless of the fact that electric vehicles are junked when the battery dies, because it’s too expensive to get a new battery, rendering the entire vehicle not environmentally friendly. The cars cannot make it on road trips, and strand motorists with regularity. No matter. The Left bans gas vehicles when people don’t buy what they’re told to.
The Left doesn’t want anyone to vote for Donald Trump, so it seeks to ban Donald Trump from running.
It’s what they do.
They feel justified because it serves their purposes. As long as another party doesn’t try to ban them from getting what they want, then they have no problem with forcing citizens to do what the Left wants.
The is election interference.
Once again, the right is punished for what the Left does.
There was yet another antisemitic protest in support of Hamas in the Capitol Building, and protesters were arrested. Strangely, it was not called an insurrection, and the politicians who openly called for such protests have not been called traitors who should be banned from ever running for office again.
Joe Biden bragged on camera about a quid pro quo in Ukraine. Donald Trump got impeached for inquiring about it. Joe Biden kept boxes of unsecured classified information in his unlocked garage with his Corvette, and sent pertinent boxes to his think tank, and nothing happened. Donald Trump is facing charges for keeping documents he had every right to declassify as President, in a locked room at Mar a Lago, with security he consulted with the FBI about, and about which he had his lawyers go through the process of objecting to turn over to the National Archives. All previous presidents were allowed to mark “personal” as anything they wanted. The NA typically spends years tracking down documents from former presidents. But the Left hates Donald Trump, and the Left runs the government’s 3 letter agencies, as well as various positions of power in state government, so Donald Trump is facing charges for less than what Joe Biden did.
The “dictatorship of the proletariat” is omnipotent.
The American Founders terminated dictatorship, specifically that of the monarch.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis (i.e. freedom and self-reliance), the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, constitutional Americans and America.
Biden is his own worst enemy. SCOTUS will not view this favorably.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1737630463236178175
Joe Biden
@JoeBiden
Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America’s standing in the world.
But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy.
If we lose that, we lose everything.
7:26 PM · Dec 20, 2023
6.3M Views
It’s irrelevant to SCOTUS. Biden has a First Amendment right to speak out about Trump, just like Trump has a First Amendment right to speak out about Biden.
Wow, look at this brilliant piece of jurisprudence!!!
Uh da dup, the fiwst amendment da dup
if only Biden spoke more often publicly, he would be taken away by the guys wearing white coats. then Camel-uh would slide into the seat, causing her to have a melt down, then Speaker Johnson would be up to bat. If only……
yes, by all means, Biden giving an opinion as US President on pending legal matters is clearly the wisest thing to do for SCOTUS and Americans to impeach the crazy ass old man
well played!!!! dumb ass
He does, but that does not alter the fact that what he says has consequence and can be used as evidence against him – both in court and by voters.
Even this CO SC decision and the Trump Gag orders rest on the claim that YOU are triggered by What Trump has said.
You can not demand that the courts take legal note of Trump’s remarks and make judgements even sanctions based on them without exposing yourself to the same standards.
Biden has a first amendment right to speak about Trump.
Trump has a first amendment right to speak about Biden.
Voters have the right to decide who they trust, who they beleive, who they are going to vote for.
Only Biden, only democrats are using the power of government to thwart that.
When you call someone Hitler it is wise not to be acting like Hitler.
Trump’s words echo Hitler’s.
Trump: “[Immigrants are] poisoning the blood of our country, that’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world.”
Hitler wrote a lot about blood being pure or adulterated, and several times he referred to blood being poisoned. Some examples of his writings about it:
“He [‘the Jew’] poisons the blood of others but preserves his own blood unadulterated. The Jew scarcely ever marries a Christian girl, but the Christian takes a Jewess to wife. The mongrels that are a result of this latter union always declare themselves on the Jewish side. Thus a part of the higher nobility in particular became completely degenerate.”
“He [‘the Jew’] is a real leech who clings to the body of his unfortunate victims and cannot be removed; so that when the princes found themselves in need once again they took the blood from his swollen veins with their own hand. … It is not however by the tie of language, but exclusively by the tie of blood that the members of a race are bound together. And the Jew himself knows this better than any other, seeing that he attaches so little importance to the preservation of his own language while at the same time he strives his utmost to maintain his blood free from intermixture with that of other races. … The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. … For as long as a people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. That is why the Jew systematically endeavours to lower the racial quality of a people by permanently adulterating the blood of the individuals who make up that people. … And out of every oppression those forces can develop which bring about a new re-birth of the national soul–provided always that the racial blood is kept pure. … [T]he problem of the maintenance or loss of the purity of the racial blood will last as long as man himself lasts.”
“It seemed as if some all-pervading poisonous fluid had been injected by some mysterious hand into the bloodstream of this once heroic body, bringing about a creeping paralysis that affected the reason and the elementary instinct of self-preservation.”
“And so this poison [of ‘the public mind’] was allowed to enter the national bloodstream and infect public life without the Government taking any effectual measures to master the course of the disease.”
“[T]he poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years’ War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily.”
When someone echoes Hitler, it’s best not to ignore it.
Bug-Anon – The constant repetition of this canard does not strengthen it. Trump is objecting to illegal immigration, which means that unvetted persons are coming into the country. Hitler was objeciing in priniciple to intermarraige of Aryans and non-Aryans. It is absurd to say that Trump is echoing Hitler by merely using the word “blood.” By that logic, all of us “echo” Hitler and many other historical figures by using the same words they used. Your own past comments probably “echo” Lenin and Stalin and Mao.
“Trump is objecting to illegal immigration”
Not solely. Because he was — by his own count — talking about more than the number of immigrants in the country illegally.
“Hitler was objeciing in priniciple to intermarraige of Aryans and non-Aryans.”
I gave you three quotes where Hitler was NOT talking intermarriage, so don’t pretend intermarriage is all that Hitler referred to by variants of “poisoning the blood of the country.” Deal with the full range of what Hitler used those ideas to mean.
“It is absurd to say that Trump is echoing Hitler by merely using the word “blood.””
I never said that it’s about the word “blood,” so don’t dishonestly pretend it is. It’s about the phrase “poisoning the blood of our country” and variants on that (e.g., Hitler: “this poison [of ‘the public mind’] was allowed to enter the national bloodstream and infect public life”).
How else would non-Aryans poison the blood of Aryans except by intermarriage?
This was probably written by Barack Obama or one of his stooges. Biden is no longer capable of putting together four sentences.