Below is my column in The Messenger on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. There are now over a dozen states considering similar demands from advocates to prevent voters from being able to vote for the current leading candidate for the presidency. In California, Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis publicly called upon the Secretary of State to “explore every legal option” to follow the same path as Colorado. It is a temptation that is irresistible for Democratic politicians in a race to the bottom of our rage politics.
Here is the column:
he Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion, making history in the most chilling way possible. A divided court barred Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot.
For months, advocates have been filing without success in various states, looking for some court to sign off on a dangerous, novel theory under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. They finally found four receptive jurists on one of the bluest state supreme courts in the land.
Even on a court composed entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, Colorado’s Supreme Court split 4-3 on the question. The majority admitted that this was a case “of first impression” and that there was “sparse” authority on the question. Yet, the lack of precedent or clarity did not deter these justices from making new law to block Trump from running. Indeed, the most controlling precedent appears to be what might be called the Wilde Doctrine.
In his novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” The four Colorado justices just rid themselves of the ultimate temptation and, in so doing, put this country on one of the most dangerous paths in its history.
The court majority used a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — that was written after the Civil War to bar former Confederate members from serving in the U.S. Congress.
In December 1865 many in Washington were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s onetime vice president, waiting to take the same oath that he took before joining the Southern rebellion. Hundreds of thousands of Americans had just died after whole states seceded into their own separate nation with its own army, navy, foreign policy and currency. So Congress declared that it could bar those “who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
January 6, 2021, was many things — and all of them bad. However, it was not an insurrection. I was critical of Trump’s speech to a mob of supporters that day, and I rejected his legal claims to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Congress. However, it was a protest that became a riot, not a rebellion.
Indeed, despite the unrelenting efforts of many in the media and Congress, a post-January 6 Harvard study found that most of the rioters were motivated by support for Trump or concerns about the election’s fairness, not by a desire to rebel.
Even the Justice Department’s special counsel Jack Smith, who threw every possible charge at Trump in two indictments, did not believe he had sufficient basis to charge Trump with incitement or insurrection.
Much can be said about this decision, but restraint is not one of them. What is most striking about the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is how the majority removed all of the fail-safes to extend the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to block Trump.
There were a number of barriers facing advocates who have tried to stretch this provision to cover the January 6 riot. The four justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation possible on every one of those questions in order to support their decision.
The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment, where the four justices dismissed the free-speech implications of disqualifying presidential candidates based on political position and rhetoric.
The result is an opinion that lacks any limiting principles. It places the nation on a slippery slope where red and blue states could now engage in tit-for-tat disqualifications. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, those decisions do not need to be based on the specific comments made by figures like Trump. Instead, it ruled, courts can now include any statements made before or after a speech to establish a “true threat.”
It was inevitable that the Trump-ballot challengers would find four jurists in one state willing to follow something like the Wilde Doctrine. However, it is also important to note that a series of Democratic jurists previously refused to do so in various cases. They did so not out of any affinity to Trump but out of their affinity to the Constitution.
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. What is particularly galling is that these four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
The only good news is that this flawed theory can now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it is likely to be put to rest conclusively.
For many voters, however, the opinion will only reinforce Trump’s claims that Democrats are engaging in “lawfare” to achieve in the courts what they cannot achieve in the polls. Because of that, the opinion could not come at a worse moment. Trump is surging in opinion polls, and many Democrats are now openly saying they fear President Biden is about to be beaten in 2024. Not only is Trump beating Biden in many polls but he has a sizable lead among young voters.
For those voters, the Colorado ruling looks like a case of Biden being on the ropes when the referee just called the bout in his favor. Even if, as expected, these justices are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, many Americans will not forget what they will consider to be an effort to take away their vote. While these four justices offered their “first impression” in this dangerous opinion, the lasting impression of many voters is not likely to be good for the court or for Democrats.
In reaching this decision, these four justices admitted that “we travel in uncharted territory.” Sometimes that cannot be avoided, but in this case the Colorado Supreme Court steered off the constitutional map.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Ever notice how Democrats always say the exact OPPOSITE of what they are trying to do ? Democrats, assisted by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NPR, and NBC all chant in unison that these court filings are “Saving Democracy” while in fact they are destroying it (literally). Just my opinion, but I believe they do it out of fear. Genuine fear that they might lose power. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Ever notice how Democrats always say the exact OPPOSITE of what they are trying to do ? Democrats, assisted by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NPR, and NBC all chant in unison that these court filings are “Saving Democracy” while in fact they are destroying it (literally)
Douglas Murray would agree, and yet he does something about it. Watch
NB: “Hello, 911? I would like to report a murder by a gay man”
😂
SkyRaider,
Well said and spot on.
It is not Democrats specifically, but Leftists generally, who generally say the opposite of what they intend. In 1921, the new Soviet Government abolished democracy in the name of democracy.
“The principles of democratic centralism were adopted by the 10th Congress in the form of a resolution written by Lenin, “On Party Unity.” In practice, particularly under the leadership of Joseph Stalin from 1928, democratic centralism was much more “centralist” than “democratic,” as party congresses became infrequent occasions for rubber-stamping decisions made by the top party leadership.”
https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/democratic-centralism
Democratic Centralism is what our modern Democrats believe in. All political debate will occur in the top echelons of the Democratic coalition, where “narratives” to fool the rubes will be decided upon. Then everyone in “the Party” will push the narrative (“Trump is Hitler”) and everyone else will be silenced.
Edwardmahl,
Well said and you just described the Bobs and Sammys on the good professor’s blog to a ‘t.’
A picture is worth a thousand words. 🤡🤡🤡🤡 to 👨⚖️🧑⚖️👨⚖️ ruling.
Well, Trump said he would drain the swamp and here he is. Although it’s tempting to become discouraged looking at the state of our government and judicial system, the fact is that before you can heal an infection, you have to expose it to the air. The rot, the infection, whatever you want to call it, runs very deep and very wide in this country. For whatever reason, Donald Trump is that catalyst that quite literally brings out the worst in people, and that’s what we need because we need to know. Who’s in – in terms of our constitutional republic – and who’s out. It reminds me of “Judgment at Nuremberg” where German judge Janning who is on trial says, “You must believe me, I never knew it would come to this.” And the American says, “It came to that the first time you sentenced a man you knew to be innocent.” Judges who would very carefully safeguard the rights of serial killers find Donald Trump et al to be beyond the protections of the law. One day, Trump will no longer be with us and then history will take a deep breath and look at these years and be aghast, because unlike WW2 Germany, we have the internet. We know everything in real time. These judges may be heroes to the left but history will judge them far more harshly than they have judged President Trump. And now SCOTUS is in the hotseat, which will be interesting considering that Roberts despises Trump and Barrett and Kavanaugh have consistently tried to distance themselves from Trump. And the question is, as it has always been, if their hatred for Trump is stronger than their love for this country and the Constitution. I’m not confident, but either way, history is watching. The country will survive but many careers will not.
Let me know when the Republicans START jailing all the Democrat Criminals?
Russian Hoax Conspiracy?
Hunter Laptop Cover up by US intel people?
The Biden(and others) business of SELLING our government for personal profit, etc?
WHEN ARE THESE people going to jail by the THOUSANDs?
it is clear…Democrats are fascists.
It is clear…Republicans fund Criminal Democrat Fascists across Government!
Time to END that…cut federal spending 50%, end all federal aid to cities, states and colleges. Let Democrats FUND their FAILURES
Today…the WORSE they make it…the MORE money they get!
Turley: “For many voters, however, the opinion will only reinforce Trump’s claims that Democrats are engaging in “lawfare” to achieve in the courts what they cannot achieve in the polls.”
+++
It doesn’t so much ‘reinforce’ Trump’s claims as it proves them.
We have a Mockracy, if we can keep it.
This is reminiscent of another 4-3 political hack decision 23 years ago, also by an all Democrat state supreme court in Florida.
Kansas
This is my singular go to example of judicial activism. A rouge court running amuck.
First, start with the FL SC is an appellate court. It can only rule on items brought before it. Appellate courts can not go about, issuing rulings because they want to. This “court” ordered State wide recount, that no one wanted. Their claim being, the calendar was ticking and certification must be made in time to select EC Electors. But of course the court knew that was a fig leaf to camouflage their true reason. They hoped a recount might switch the outcome, and they had nothing to lose, if the recount failed to find the votes for Gore. Reason 2 was important. If the vote was not certified, it threw the election to the State House of Representatives. Republican majority, so EC electors go to Bush. These are the kind of Judges that would used the power to force the House to make the vote if it were a Dem Majority.
SOTUS slapped them down, and stayed the FL SC order, and asked the Court to identify where their power to order such a recount originated from. I don’t think the FL SC ever responded.
This opened my eyes to how Judges are no better, an often worse than the average man on the street.
The Florida court resolved a alleged statutory conflict this way: one clause said the Secretary of State “must” certify the vote by the day she did, the other clause said she “may” do so. The Florida Supreme Court resolved that alleged conflict by saying that, when taken together, the clauses mean she “may not” certify the vote. Therefore, they ordered a recount with completely different standards in each county, which SCOTUS ruled on a 7-2 vote was unconstitutional (it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment). Most people say Bush v. Gore was a 5-4 decision, but the 5-4 vote was on whether it was too late to send it back for a recount with uniform standards (which it clearly was).
It’s the first part that signaled the hack-ness of the Florida court’s ruling: that “may” and “must,” taken together, mean “may not.”
I think the most interesting question now is whether SCOTUS will unite around a single theory to reverse this. They have several options:
1. The President is not subject to Section 3;
2. The procedure adopted by the Colorado courts violated the due process clause;
3. Congress alone has the power to define the terms for implementing Section 3;
4. Disqualification under Section 3 requires a prior conviction for insurrection or rebellion under the applicable Federal statute;
5. Jan 6 was not an insurrection or rebellion; and
6. If it was, Trump did not engage in it or give it aid or comfort.
In a sense, 1 would be the easiest, though it is based on a highly technical reading of Section 3. Former AG Mukasey has articulated this theory in the WSJ, and one version of it was adopted by the lower court in Colorado.
Some combination of 2-4 seems to me to be the best option. Much of the reasoning of the dissents by the three Colorado justices highlighted those points, particularly the denial of due process.
I suspect the Court will try and stay clear of 5 or 6.
Great analysis Daniel! Thanks.
There’s some legal debate about (1). See, for example, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 (William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School, and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law) and
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4568771 (Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston, and Seth Barrett Tillman of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth Faculty of Law). Not that you’re likely to find any detailed discussion of it here, because the commenters here seldom want to dig into legal details, taking their cue from Turley that this blog only pretends to be a legal blog.
Yes, I agree that there is scholarly debate about (1). There is in fact debate about all these points, and arguments can and have been made for or against all of them.
But in the end, SCOTUS will need to make a decision and explain it. I’m pretty sure they will reverse the Colorado decision, but I’m uncertain how they will explain doing so. I suspect Roberts will try and get close to unanimity on both the outcome and the rationale, but settling on a common rationale may be a challenge. It could be that they get close to unanimity on the outcome but splinter on the rationale.
I also think they will want to settle on one or more rationales that will shut down all the other attempts in various states to remove Trump from the ballot under Section 3. That argues somewhat against a pure due process rationale, because that might leave it open to state officials and courts to come up with procedures that differ somewhat from those used in Colorado.
A serious question.
Why is any of this in front of any judge. Primaries are run by the political parties. These are private, not public concerns. So what jurisdiction are these ruling emanating from?
Dems run theirs different than Republicans. Republicans use the primaries to allot voting delegates to the national convention, that selects the Party’s nominee. Dems do about the same, except the Dems have super delegates that can overturn the will of voters.
Why is any court interfering on a private corporation’s internal doings?
The CO primaries are still subject to CO law.
Daniel,
Great comment and great analysis.
I work in contract law, although not a lawyer. Our negotiations, bargaining, and disputes are subject to binding arbitration. I’ve seen many arbitrators (who are almost exclusively lawyers) do precisely what the four Colorado Supremes did: they begin with their desired outcome and then work backwards to concoct the most plausible reasons for their pre-determined decisions. Facts can be tortured into submission; precedent can be ignored; if a single thread of reasoning keeps them tethered to the contract they cling to it, in pursuit of their goal. This was an exercise in dishonesty from the start.
Bob’s comment makes no sense. The other side has no side except sheer fear that Trump will win and that possibility now trips the safety valve of stopping him by any means necessary. They should stand in fear. I suspect that, if Trump wins, We may see a cleansing of the Federal Government not seen since Andrew Jackson assumed power. I hope I see it happen. Not because I love Trump or even have him as my favorite candidate but because there is a rotting corpse laying in Washington D.C. and it and all the parasites and bacteria inhabiting rotting corpses need to be shoveled out of that city and dumped in a deep hole somewhere and covered over with several miles of concrete. Please don’t dump the corpse in the ocean off the east coast otherwise it might it lead to the largest fish kill of all time as well as make the east coast unlivable for humans.
The problem that this Colorado Supreme Court has caused is that it has given a very small sliver of hope to those who would take this decision and act on it violently and endanger candidates all over the nation because they now have a state Supreme Court that gave them some legitimacy..
This so-called court should remember that there was a Judge’s trial at Nuremberg after World War 2 of Jurists who had given legitimacy to the Nazi government by upholding and implementing the laws for racial purity. They had a chance to stand for legitimate laws and human freedom and they failed. These 4 Colorado judges walk a very precarious path. Very Precarious.
I have no fear that trump will win in 2024. None. If he is on the ballot in all 50 states, he will win a few states. He will never win enough states to win the electoral college. He has 100% of half of what used to be called the Republican Party. The other half of what used to be the Republican Party will split with some voting for trump, some not voting, and some voting for the Demo candidate whomever that will be. The vast majority of the independents will either not vote or vote for the Demo candidate, only a handful will vote for trump. A minuscule number of demos will vote for trump, the vast majority will vote for the Demo candidate and a few will sit it out. Trump will never win enough votes to be president again.
As for Colorado using the 14th amendment…Take a plain reading of the amendment. Nothing in there about indicted, or convicted. The court, based on evidence, said he either partook in insurrection or gave aid and comfort to those that did. He sat watching TV in glee as his people marched on the Capitol (like he asked them to), and demanded Mike Pense and Nancy Pelosi so they could hang them. Their intent was to keep trump in power after loosing the election. Not my words, this was what all those convicted said they did. That is the very definition of insurrection.
In most countries around the world, a failed insurrection means the death of most of the people that partake in the insurrection. In the U.S. we just threw about a thousand of them in jail for a few days to a few years. Nobody has been hung or shot as they would have been in other countries. If you do insurrection, you either succeed or die. He failed, in the U.S. that means (according to our constitution) you cannot hold office again.
Funny how the right loves original plain language meaning, until original plain language meaning gets stuck in their throat.
I saved this turd to repost after every steaming turd you drop post election.
Delusional is all I can say.
“Take a plain reading of
the amendment18 USC 2383. Nothing in there about indicted, or convicted.”“Take a plain reading of
the amendment2 USC 192. Nothing in there about indicted, or convicted.”Dumbest argument ever.
@Anonymous: RE:”Dumbest argument ever.” Are you daft!?!?!?. Are you rewriting due process in order to prove your case. Not unlike the Colorado Supreme Court it appears. The language therein is only applicable and enforceable upon a finding of guilty as charged, after indictment and trial by a jury of his peers. Good grief! You need to retire to bedlam!!
ZZ doc….it was sarcasm daft one
GEB,
Well said.
It is the Bobs on this blog and others who cling to the insurrection narrative to justify fascism. They are so blinded by their hate or infected with the sickness of TDS, they cannot see how they have more in common with 1930s Germany, Mao’s Culture Revolution or Iran.
This is the party that chants, “From river to sea . . .”
This is not “blocking democracy”. Trump spearheaded a two month long coordinated illegal attempted coup that ended in violence and the VP almost getting assassinated. The Constitution says that people who do that are disqualified from office. This is less “blocking democracy” then the Electoral College electing someone who lost the popular vote. Trump and his supporters have had 3 years to plan better and put people in key election managing offices so that the next time they would have a better chance of succeeding. Trump can not be allowed to try again, and 14A S3 is in place for this very reason.
Sammy Metamucil drops his morning turd. Good boy sammy
“This is less “blocking democracy” then the Electoral College electing someone who lost the popular vote.”
Dumbest comment ever. There are 50 separate popular votes for President. You sir are ignorant.
There is no national popular vote.
Using the term shows your ignorance and gullibility.
When this is all said and done we will see these 4 CO Supreme Court leftists left embarrassed and humiliated, Alvin Bragg ruined, Fani Willis ruined and Jack Smith left as tattered as Robert Mueller.
I assume you mean the 4 CO Supreme Court leftists, Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Marquez and William W. Hood III.
Hullbobby,
None are ‘ruined’.
They will continue in their careers and will land jobs outside of government w those Democrat backers for playing their role.
Muller? He’s shot. He was shot and was only a figure head.
-G
Removing the front-running candidate from the ballot is the ultimate in election interference.
14 A s3 was explicitly written and adopted to carry out that kind of election interference.
Once again, Turley can’t bring himself to make a legal argument that engages with the details of the ruling and the details of the 14 A s3’s historic use and interpretation.
Steaming turd^^^^
“[T]hese four justices admitted that ‘we travel in uncharted territory.’”
That’s not true.
That “territory” is amply charted. See USSR and today’s Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, Algeria, Rwanda, Syria, . . .
Can the Left sink America any lower?
Sam,
I was just think something along the same lines, can the leftist Democrats sink America into a banana republic any further then they have?
“[C]an the leftist Democrats sink America into a banana republic any further then they have?”
Tragically, yes.
After Banana comes totalitarian — with the “deprogramming” of dissenters.
Sam,
With their drive to censor dissenters, use cancel culture to silence dissenters or even cost them their lively hood, to force their woke agenda on everyone else, years of pushing the Russiagate hoax, screaming Jan 6th was an insurrection when it clearly with the newly released video showing it was much more peaceful than the Jan6th committee clown show cheery picked, lawfare they are using to persecute those they do not like and now selecting who is allowed/approved to be on the ballot, the DNC echoes Germany in the 1930s to include assaulting Jews, or Mao’s Culture Revolution.
When someone tells you or by their actions they are fascists, believe them.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.
“We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.
“Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”
Yeah, that definitely looks like “USSR and today’s Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, Algeria, Rwanda, Syria” /sarc
Steaming turd^^^^^
“. . . that definitely looks like . . .”
If you weren’t a Leftist apologist, you’d see that the CO tactics are *identical* to those used by tyrannical countries.
Those countries used and use “policy judges” to exclude opposition candidates — you know, to give tyranny a veneer of respect for the law. Those 4 CO judges are policy “judges” — you know, to give their politically motivated decision a veneer of respect for the law.
If you weren’t a rightist apologist, you’d see that the CO ruling looks nothing like the tactics used by those countries. Those CO judges you complain about purposefully stayed their own ruling. Next you’ll be telling us that a majority of SCOTUS justices are “policy judges” too.
Those CO judges you complain about purposefully stayed their own ruling, because they knew it was a steaming turd.
“Those CO judges you complain about purposefully stayed their own ruling.”
We’re going to kneecap you. But maybe later.
Some solace.
The majority ruling — because they stayed it, and they anticipate it being appealed to SCOTUS and granted cert / ruled on by SCOTUS — does not in any way “kneecap” Trump.
If anyone looks more like anti-Constitutional fascists, it is the all new, woke leftist Democrat party. They have more in common now with Iran then they do with America.
Upstate, we have seen the proof of your point with such banalities as having a group called “Q*eers for Palestine”.
Democrats are fighting their Second Civil War against America
Time to END that criminal Party!
Indeed, the resemblance is strong
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c460b271972a3052f92563a5a1d70baf
The almost gleeful exhortations of the AG and the Lt. Gov in the respective states says more about their intent and purpose than any serious consideration of wrong doing on the part of the candidate. Perhaps it’s an inherent failing in the practice of law, reshaping a square peg to fit a round hole. that is at the heart of this. After all, what the moral and ethical compass of an Andrew Weissman has taught us about that could fill volumes. “”From day one, Andrew Weissmann and the Enron Task Force have been pushing the envelope beyond where it could go,” said Ramsey. “This is a destruction of their credibility.”……’Supreme Court overturns Arthur Andersen’s Enron conviction
By MARY FLOOD,
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
May 31, 2005
ZZ, The Enron Case is a great example of the Weissman mindset and government overreach. This is why in 2020 one of the first things the new Democrats wanted to achieve was adding new justices to the Court, i.e. Court Packing. Without the Court we have today we would have seen Trump removed from enough states ballots rendering it impossible for a Republican to win. If you think it would have ended with Trump I will remind you that when DeSantis was looking like a threat…TO TRUMP, the media and the left was attacking him as the new Hitler.
JT, you used to be fair. This is another one of your one sided screeds that cater to the lowest of the low. Sad you have stooped to this level. You think this is the wrong decision by the Colorado Supreme Court? Fine, There are many arguments on the other side you just poke fun at. And it is this aspect of your postings that is most disconcerting. Just like trump, you throw out insults a typical 5 year old would be comfortable with. You’re better than that, try. Just look at half or more of the replies that follow this post, they are filled with pre school level insults. That is no way to run a country. Same with the dear leader you are supporting, trump calls wounded veterans losers, he makes fun of people with physical disabilities, he raped a woman, and many other women say he raped them as well. He squirted away classified documents in his bathroom, why? Reading material while sitting on his thrown? Or perhaps reading material for his many foreign “guests”?
I don’t think any sane person doesn’t realize that Trump is a jerk, airhole, morally deficient, etc. However, most sane people also feel that the Colorado Supreme Court is very wrong on this decision.
“Wrong” as in applied the plain reading of the Constitution to the undisputed facts?
Now comes sammy metamucil, with “undisputed” facts. Add that to true facts and false facts and obvious facts and proven facts and all the other types of facts the left has. Good boy sammy
I doubt that most Americans have read the decision in order to make an informed opinion of it.
“I doubt people have read the opinion to form an opinion about that opinion.”
Ketanji Browne Jackson’s stated opinion is that a favorable outcome in .01% additional medical cases TRUMPS the Constitution.
Trump on the ballot is not alarming.
What the Colorado SC ruled is. It is anti-Constitutional. It is anti-American. It is pro-fascist. It is setting up for a one party rule.
And you seem to be cheering it on.
If you leftist Democrats really want a civil war, keep it up.
Have you even read the ruling? Hard to see what’s actually in the ruling that “is anti-Constitutional,” “anti-American,” “pro-fascist” and “setting up for a one party rule.”
they removed Trump…for something he isn’t convicted of? I can see DOPE is taking hold of America…with your Logic!
The 14 A s3 doesn’t say “convicted of,” or even “charged with.” It says “engaged in.” That you can’t or won’t deal with the actual wording of the amendment suggests that you’re the one with the logic problem.
“Take a plain reading of the amendment 18 USC 2383. Nothing in there about indicted, or convicted.”
“Take a plain reading of the amendment 2 USC 192. Nothing in there about indicted, or convicted.”
Actual Wording.
Dumbest argument ever.
It can’t be “anti-Constitutional” if it is in the Constitution, which this is clear as day.
Sammy Metamucil, seems he may have taken too much laxative last night, the turds are dropping from his ignorant mouth like diarrhetic drool.
𝐈𝐟, 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐨𝐰 (encompassment) the matter comes to the SCOTUS, An Opinion should include:
The dissolution of the Party System (Maintaining that no less than 5 Political Parties make a quorum) and an imposition of Party Term Limits (e.g.: Political Parties will have a Limit on Their existence).
It’s time to end the Uni-Party and Complicity of Congress and the Presidency.
Bob, how do you explain the WAPO editorial Board, Ruth Marcus, Ty Cobb, former AG Barr and all of the LIBERAL attormeys that are calling this radical, insane, undemocratic and even fascist?
Bob, I only ask if you will come back to apologize when the Court tosses this with at least a 7-2 decision? Common sense and legal analysis may never win over Sotomeyer and Jackson, but I think Kagan will join the majority when the decision is written. And we may even get a 9-0 decision, but with the radically far left 2 dim bulbs I cited above it will probably be 7-2.
9 – 0. No justice is going to want his or her name attached to a facsist attempt to bar another party from the ballot (and that is what this ultimately is). Trump is only a trial run.
Bob-on-my-knob stops by to drop his morning turd. Good boy bobby
We now have a reply from a 15 year old living in his mom’s basement.
Do you think Bob-on-my-knob os a real person??? U might need to grow up.
Bob-on-my-knob with more brilliant commentary. He “squirted” them dod he. Kind of like the diarrhea you’ve deposited here this morning?? Good job bobby
Think about this. Those “jurists” are sitting around all day smoking weed. Its legal, available, and perfectly acceptable. They start vaping/smoking/tarring/gummy-ing when they wake up and dont stop until they go to bed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a small minded tool and doesnt know many libtards.
When you say those jurists, I assume you mean the four Colorado state supreme court justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Marquez, William W. Hood III.
Resolving this is easy. Vote for the candidate of your choice on election day,