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.
Every lawyer should read the full text of the Colorado Supreme Court decision and then decide on the quality of the written opinion. No wonder three democratic justices could not in good conscience sign the opinion. The analysis is shamefully inadequate and patently biased. Simply put, the “court” (meaning four biased democratic appointed justices) relied on supposition without supporting evidence, gross examples of hearsay evidence, unsupportable legal conclusions, and sheer irrational thought to reach its decision. I agree with Professor Turley that our U.S. Supreme Court should issue a unanimous quick decision overturning the decision. Should this decision become the law of the land, every state supreme court will become empowered with the ability to disqualify a national candidate for office by relying on “state law” qualifications and disqualications.
It’s not a legal decision; it’s a stump speech likely dictated by the DNC.
For those who came to the blog a bit later today, you may want to read Daniel’s good and interesting analysis at 9:08am and a couple of follow-up comments.
O T
It appears that the S Ct has refused to hear Smith’s request for an expedited determination of Trump’s immunity claim, defying the predictions of a few of our commentators.
Look at the steaming turd below from poor dennis, who tries to console himself as his secret lover jack smith gets his ass handed to him.
It is dangerous to predict SCOTUS – but Smith’s accelerated appeal was always a long shot.
All courts want cases to be developed as fully as possible by lower courts.
Todays decision is very close to a death blow to the “get Trump” crowd.
There is pretty much no possible way that the DC case will get to move forward before 2025 – when it will die no matter what.
Trump will likely file an immunity appeal in GA, and possibly in FL though that is slightly more complex, stalling both of those cases.
Despite both Turley and many others – even some on the left begging SCOTUS for a 9-0 dismissal of the CO SC decision immediately,
My money is that SCOTUS says Nope – the case must go through the normal appelate process – but remains stayed will it does.
After the 2024 election this and all the other Trump cases will be moot no matter what.
And I suspect SCOTUS will never decide them.
It is better for them to die a natural death.
“Todays decision is very close to a death blow to the “get Trump” crowd. There is pretty much no possible way that the DC case will get to move forward before 2025 – when it will die no matter what.”
What nonsense. The DCCA will hear the case on 1/9/24 and presumably rule quickly, given its choice to hear the case quickly. None of us knows how it progresses from there. The losing party might request an en banc rehearing, but the court is not required to do it. If Trump loses, he could try to slow walk the appeal to SCOTUS, but as Steve Vladeck noted, the DCCA could prevent that by staying its ruling only for a short time and a deadline to appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS might stay the ruling pending appeal, but it may be satisfied with the DCCA ruling and deny cert. We don’t know how it will play out, or on what schedule, but it’s absolutely possible for the case to move to trial in the spring. Only a fool would argue otherwise.
Following YOUR timeline – what do you think – a month ? a week ? a day for a decision ? The less time they take the more political they look.
Trump will likely get 30 days to appeal to the En banc court – which is unilkely to turn him down quicklyh – even if they do – they have to make atleast the apearance of having made a good faith decision.
I would further note that turning down Smith is a message to lower courts as well. The message is that SCOTUS wants a good record before this comes back to them. If as you claim the lower courts rush this without consideration – SCOTUS can send it back to them again for serious reconsideration. And that actually happens alot. It happens more than SCOTUS grants cert.
Regardless even if Smith gets every break at the apelate level and they work as fast as lightning. Smith still EVENTUALLY must get past SCOTUS And SCOTUS can take the case and kick it to next term because it arrives too late for this term. But even if they take it and hear it now, they will not likely make a decision until June – by which time – Smith is stalled until after the election.
That is not only your best case, it is highly improbable. There is a reason that Smith tried to jump the queue. Because if SCOTUS did not take this now – he is done.
And AGAIN there is absolutely nothing in the DC appeal that is not applicable to the GA case – except even more so. The GA case has federal supremecy issues. Even where Federal officers do NOT have immunity. They have immunity from state prosecution where there is an equivalent federal crime. Worse still for Willis, If there are 50 charges and only ONE has a federal conflcit – the case goes to the federal courts.
Finally, there are two other factors.
Democrats screwed the pooch with the CO SC decision. It has poisoned the well. Even other Democratic judges are going to strive not to look so bat schiff crazy.
I do nto think SCOTUS ever wants to have to make a decision on any of these cases. They want them to die a natural death in the lower courts. But your nuts if you think that does not mean they will kill them if they get to the supreme court.
Public opinion and polls matter too, the better Trump is polling the less likely coiurts at any level – but especially the supreme court are likely to act to interfere with the election.
And finally – you have massive first amendment problems in all of this.
And you have it with a supreme court that a decade ago in a non-partisan case decided that threatening to kill your divorced wife and police officers in a face book post was NOT clear, specific and immediate enough to constitute a crime.
You not only have massive first amendment problems in all of this – but you are stupidly highlighting them by trying to shut trump up.
An appeal wouldn’t stop the case in Georgia, and Meadows has already created an excellent record for review.
Of course it would. Meadows winning at any step kills a significant part of Willis’s case.
Regardless, she can not proceed against Meadows without resolving that appeal – which is unlikely to happen soon.
If Meadows got all the way to SCOTUS in the next week and SCOTUS shot him down.
Trump could still file an appeal on immunity grounds and it would still have to go to the supreme court.
I strongly suspect that the meadows and trump defense teams are coordinating.
If meadows wins – Willis is done – atleast against all Federal defendants.
If Meadows loses, Meadows immunity claim is solely as a federal officer.
Trump’s claim is as president. It is much broader and will have to be adjudicated.
At this moment Willis can try to move forward against Trump – because he has not appealed.
But the moment he appeals, Willis is stopped.
They are different circuits, It is likely that the GA circuit will be influenced by the DC circuit.
It is likely that SCOTUS would merge both cases.
But Willis is ultimately going to be stuck behind this appeal too.
Jonathan: So what else is in the news? DJT is reeling from criticism over his false claim that migrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country–echoes of what Hitler claimed about the Jews in Mein Kampf. In response to the widespread criticism DJT now claims “I never read Mein Kampf!”. Probably true but that’s not the entire story.
The Independent is now reporting that Ivana Trump said back in 1990 her husband had a fascination with everything Hitler and had a book of the Nazi leader’s speeches on his bedside stand. At the time DJT said: “It was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew”. Wrong on both counts. Davis says: “”I did give him a book about Hitler. But it was ‘My New Order’, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish”. Ivana was right all along.
As often happens, DJT dissembles and distorts the truth to cover up his fascination with Hitler who he thinks “did some good things for Germany”. Some in DJT’s circle joke about what a new DJT WH will look like–a lot of aides saluting with a “Heil Trump!” and raised arms when DJT struts out of the Oval Office. No doubt DJT will beam with appreciation!
Dennis,
Congratulations on being named a finalist for the 2023 Ben Rhodes award for sycophantic excellence!
We just printed out a batch of mail in ballots with your name on them. Let us know where and when to send them and we’ll get it taken care of!
This is both absurd and despicable. How perfectly Democratic. Trump has lived a long life and served as President for four peaceful years. But we are supposed to believe that for some reason he will turn into a monster when he is inaugurated in January 2025. Is there anyone out there who believes this nonsense?
IF, not WHEN. And he was already a monster when he was president, but was better constrained by checks than he’d likely be in a second term.
Steaming turd^^^^
All the checks would disappear in his second term – the House, the Senate, the parties, the courts, the press and media, the bureaucracy, the financial markets, government debt, foreign countries. Some people will say anything. But please stay on the Trump is Hitler theme. Nothing could more successfully repel the independent voter. Or are you just preaching to the choir?
As one of the people who’s discussed it with you, Edward, I never said “Trump is Hitler.” What I said repeatedly and also gave you evidence of is that Trump’s repeated claim that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” echoes statements that Hitler made. Do you understand the difference?
Edwardmahl,
Well said.
Prior to Trump’s win, and even for the next 4 years and counting we keep hearing of all the terrible things he is going to do!
Then we look back on reality and none of their claims pan out or were even close.
Mean while we have people calling for re-education camps or taking children away from their parents just because they voted for Trump. But that is okay!
And now, more shrill cries that Trump is literally Hitler. This is coming from the same party that calls for censorship for any dissenting views of their party. This is the party that calls for canceling people from their jobs for having voiced a dissenting view of their party. This is the party that chants, “From river to sea . . .” This is the party in search of a court that will deny a candidate from the ballot, just like Iran does.
Thank you, Comrade General Secretary and Dear Leader Barack Hussein “Barry I-Have-A-Statue-In-Jakarta” Obama. The “dictatorship of the hired help” under Karl Marx’s “share the misery” motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is vastly superior to Freedom, Self-Reliance, Merit, and American Exceptionalism.
Dennis. are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending to be dumb because you enjoy making everyone else on this board seem like a genius by comparison?
Let me go with the first posibility as the correct one. You say that Trump admires and emulates Hitler. Have you actually read what Hitler wrote? It seems you haven’t and are ignorant. So, let me educate you. Here is what Hitler actually wrote about “the Jew””
“With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate.”–Adolph Hitler
Let me give you quick psychoanalysis of Hitler from this statement. Hitler feels sexually inadequate when he compares himself to a Jewish male. He fears that the Jew’s powerful sexuality will overwhelm non-Jewish German women and they will prefer the Jew as a sexual partner over him because he’s sexually weak, flacid, and impotent. And he fears that as the Jews mate with non-Jewish German women–other, similar weak, flaccid, and impotent non-Jews will begin to dissapear from the population. Hitler sees the Jew as sexually, intellectually, and economically superior to himself. So, Hitler feels inferior, not just sexually, but intellectually and economically as well. According to Hitler, the Jews will dominate if Darwinian Law is permitted to take it natural course and other inferiors like himself will vanish over time.
Get it?
Now, ‘splain to me how any of this stuff relates to Donald Trump. Hint: It doesn’t relate in the slightest.
Donald Trump – whose daughter converted to Judiasm, and who is married to a Jew who was the key player int he Abraham accords one of Trump more significant accomplishments.
The revival of the Hitler nonsense is deliberate.
Biden and Democrats are pissing off the Jewish vote and may well lose it entirely.
Thus the inept attempts to paint Trump as a nazi.
And so your quibbling over whether words come from Hitler or not obviates the fact that Trump is right about Biden’s disastrous neglect of immigration law. A democracy is finely constructed on principles that are aculturated through education and experience. It requires an informed electorate. Mass, unregulated migration dilutes that culture. Go ahead and get apoplectic about whether Hitler also used words, while the principles of democracy are eroded by the mass, unregulated migration taking place as we speak. I believe that is called straining the gnat but eating the camel whole. Enjoy your meal! I hope that you feel pride when the Republic collapses and you are left with nothing but foreign invaders.
Huh? I’m in favor of foreign invaders? Where did you pull that from? I suspect I know where you pulled it from, but I’d rather not say on this family-friendly forum.
Hitler did do some good things for Germany. Had he stopped before invading Poland he likely would be remembered as a great leader.
Regardless, the fixation on Hitler, Nazi’s and fascism is entirely one of the left.
Interesting that you grasp that and Trump WH is likely.
I would bet that the focus of the Trump WH will be in undoing the mess Biden has made.
Those of you one the left should hope that Trump is satisified with surrounding himself with Sycophants and basking in the glory of being proven right.
Unfortunately for you that is not likely to the be case.
What would you expect to be the differences between Trumps first term and his 2nd ?
First all 2nd term presidents start day one as a lame duck. It is concurrently empowering and disempowering that you will never be running for another term. In the unlikely event that Biden is re-elected this will impact him – though in a more traditional way.
Trump WILL be looking to establish a legacy. To build on his past accomplishments.
He will have the advantange that his brand of conservatism now dominates the GOP.
He will have the disadvantage that from day one his staff and all significant republicans will be positioning themselves for 2028.
Regardless I expect that Trumps focus will be first in undoing the mess Biden has made of things and then assuring that the accomplishments of his first term are significantly more permanent and harder to wisk away than they were in 2021.
John, I like many of your comments but “if Hitler had stopped before invading Poland…” is one heck of a way to defend Trump or anyone else.
hullbobby – alternative history is treacherous territory. But if Hitler had stopped with the Anschluss, he probably would have been favorably remembered in Germany for: expelling the French from the Rhineland; reuniting the Sudetenland with Germany; uniting Austria with Germany; reputiating the Treaty of Versailles; eliminating the threat of Communist revolution; rebuilding the German military; and sparking economic growth (at a time America was in depression). On the other hand, he would also be reviled for abolishing parliamentary democracy; introducing one-party rule and censorship; and dispossessing Jews of their property, careers and civil rights. Perhaps he would be viewed as the German Cromwell.
I am not defending Trump or Hitler. MANY American leaders praised Hitler at one time.
In Fact Hilter used FDR as a model and was very surprised that FDR was opposing him.
Regardless, my POINT is that these types of comparisons are idiocy. FDR said many hitler like things. He did many hitler like things.
He was not hitler.
HIlter built the Autobahn. Eisenhower buit the Interstate system – does that make Eisenhower Hitler. ?
Further Hitler’s “poisoning the blood” reference was meant to be taken almost littlerally. The NAzi’s had rules for exactly how much jewish blood makes you jewish.
While Trump’s reference was clearly metaphorical. Unless you wish to argue that the Marxism is genetically heritable.
He also reference mental health – but he was clearly not refering to people suffering from anxiety or depression of schitzsophrenia – but those suffering from he left wing nut mind virus.
regardless, there are enough evil actors in the world that with certainty you can take any politicians speech and find two significnat words that were also used in sequence by some vile tyrant.
H311 Harvard’s president plagerized large sections of other black female scholars
Please go and listen to the entire Trump quote.
First – migrants are people who come and go. Immigrants are people who come and stay.
Illegal immigrants are people who come illegally.
The US had 1M legal immigrants every year Trump was in office.
Next – though left wing nut sites like to selectively edit the quote – the reference was to:
“root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”
“They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done,”
“They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America … but all over the world.”
Did Trump intend that this apply to illegal immigrants – absolutely.
Did he intend that it apply to pasty white left win nuts who have been here for generations – absolutely.
The “blood” reference was clearly not the same as a Nazi breeding reference.
He used blood in the sense of the mind, or soul or what makes the US what it is .
While you are wrong about several claims – mostly you are irrelevant.
The fascination with Hitler is YOURs. You are the lunatices actually engaged in fascism who accuse everyone else of being hitler.
Professor Turley Writes:
These four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate”.
………………………………….
Trump lost the Popular Vote in both 2016 and 2020. And this morning The Hill reports that Nicki Haley has come within 4 points of Trump in New Hampshire polling.
Furthermore, a Harris Poll that Turley himself linked this week showed that 63% of respondents want a fresh choice other than a Trump-Biden rematch.
So this idea that Trump is the ‘people’s choice’ is not necessarily true. America can easily move on WITHOUT Donald Trump!
Anyone telling us that ‘only’ Trump can fix America’s problems is just a MAGA zombie.
News flash to the turd layer above
There is no popular vote for President.
Carry on retard.
Tom/Estovir: why is the Popular Vote tallied then???
I’m neither Tom nor Estovir, and the reason that the popular vote in each state is tallied is because it determines the Electoral College electors for that state.
Glad you asked nincompoop. Its not “tallied”. Wtf are you even talking about?
Why is it added up by the morons in the media? So small minded idiots like you can be gaslit to thinking its even a thing, much leas that is has meaning.
It figures this was asked by the drunkard elvis bug the lawn boy.
Next f-*cktarded question?
LOL. Do you seriously not know the meaning of “tally”?
Ok asswipe, you wanna play that juvenile game. Do you not know the meaning of “lost”. You said he “lost” the popular vote. Wtf does that mean? Is the “popular vote”. a contest, where votes would be “tallied” And there would be a winner and a loser? No, its not. Its not even a thing. So he didnt “lose” jack sh!t in 2016. Except for a talking point for numbnuts like you. Its a meaningless number, not just because it doesnt determine who the winner is.
Do you know why its meaningless? I bet you dont.
Let me break it down a little further for your P brain. Talley, in the context of an election, means counting the votes to determine a winner. Adding those tallies together serves no purpose, except to gaslight small minded people.
I wrote the 5:33 PM and 6:25 PM replies. I did not write the 3:52 PM where the person wrote “Trump lost the Popular Vote in both 2016 and 2020.”
You said “Its [sic] not “tallied”. Wtf are you even talking about?” which is an amusing thing for you to say, as it suggests that you don’t know the meaning of “tally,” hence my 6:25 PM reply. The popular vote is indeed tallied by lots of people, including journalists / news organizations.
As for your new claim that “Its [sic] a meaningless number,” that’s false. It’s not what determines the election, as the Electoral College vote isn’t determined by the national popular vote. But that doesn’t make it meaningless. It has meaning to lots of people, which is why so many news outlets report it, why you also see tabulations of related statistics such the popular vote margin, etc.
As i said, it is meaningless except to gaslight small minded people.
I would just give you the reasoning of why its meaningless, but lets see just how small your mind is.
In what way would you think the 2016 presidential vote totals would have differed if the president were elected by a nationwide popular vote, and why?
“idiots like you can be gaslit to thinking its even a thing, much leas that is has meaning.”
This was from my 6:01 post. So my claim that it was meaningless was not “new”.
Not a thing and meaningless was my claim all along
You make it sound so simple, except it’s not.
First, I’ll remind you that in presidential elections, the national popular vote is meaningless. So you can stop with the “Trump didn’t win the popular vote” crap. It only matters to people who want to whine. The founders established the electoral college for a reason, that reason was borne out in 2016 and would have been in 2020 had the democrats not cheated. The votes of wackadoodles in highly populated states shouldn’t carry greater weight than the votes of wackadoodles in sparsely populated states, and they didn’t in 2016 and 2020.
Second, News flash: the 2020 election was rigged and the results – all the results – cannot be believed or trusted. The Joe Biden regime is a complete and total fraud.
Third: News Flash: Polls are very unreliable and often deliberately skewed to obtain a desired outcome.
And seriously, New Hampshire?
Forth: No one is going to fix this mess. The United States is on the way out and no human can do anything about it.
The current state of affairs is that a number of individuals claim they wish to become the next president. Some of course are angling to be Trump’s running mate, others are just following orders from their handlers/doners. A grand total of two out of the entire bunch are at all worthy of consideration: Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Joe Biden is a traitor and thief and completely deserving of being put to death following a fair and speedy trial. All the so called republican presidential candidates other than Trump are frauds of one variety or another, most are prostitutes to the Military/Industrial Complex and if elected would be little better than Mr. Magoo.
The MAGA Zombies as you so eloquently put it, number in the tens of millions and are going to vote for Donald Trump, in prison or out. There are probably millions who will vote for him if the deep state manages to murder him between now and then.
So, oh enlightened Anonymous One, please share all the details as to just who we are going to “easily move on” with, and just how that’s going to happen?
Sincerely,
John D. Underwood
Tyler, TX
Thank you Aninny. Why is this “Hillary” false propaganda repeated so frequently? Are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) thoroughly unable to learn? There is no national popular, by design and by the Constitution. There are 50 State elections, the outcome of each being determined by 50 State popular votes.
For those of you in Rio Linda and those of you considering voting for democrats, democrats are greedy frauds who make a living, who thrive by constantly duping you.
Please cite where Turley said Trump was “the peoples choice” ?
Eugene Debbs was a communist, he ran for president from a Jail Cell – where he was because he advocated for the violent overthrow o fthe use government. He received hundreds of thousands of votes. No one removed him from the ballot.
He was not “the peoples choice” – Debbs was however the prefered choice of hundreds of thousands of voters.
Trump is the prefered choice of tens of millions of voters.
Prefered choice is NOT the same as the top choice from every possible candidate. As you note – neither Trump nor Biden are that.
In fact no one running it the top choice of everyone.
Preferred choice means – their choice of those available. Trump is the top choice of republican voters in republican primaries.
BTW according to RCP Haley is at a very high 24% in NH – that is 22pts behind Trump and NH is one of very few GOP primaries where Trump is not over 50%.
Several pools have Halley or others doing better against Biden in the general – but these must be taken with large grains of salt.
We KNOW the overall accuracy of Trump/Biden polls. We had an actual election. Trump nearly beat Biden in 2020 – despite the fact that he was polling 4.4pts down on election day. Trump is now polling 3.5 pts ahead. We do not know what Halley/Biden polls mean – Halley has never been in a general election, and never run against Biden. Should she get the GOP nomination – Democrats will attack her as viciously as Trump and then we will see how she polls. That variable does not exist with Trump.
Everyone knows Trump, Everyone now knows Biden. People are not being asked to vote speculatively regarding TRump and Biden.
They are voting for known quantities.
Barring a miracle – Biden is toast.
Just about every american would like a mythical candidate that not only does not exist, but they could not get elected if they did.
As someone once said – anyone who wants to be president is someone who should not be president.
SCOTUS to Jack Smith:
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2023
CERTIORARI DENIED
23-624
UNITED STATES V. TRUMP, DONALD J.
The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is
denied.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1738283294536429786
Techno Fog
@Techno_Fog
The Supreme Court has denied Special Counsel Smith’s request for an expedited review of the case against Trump.
There won’t be a trial in DC before the 2024 election.
No mistake – this is a big loss for the Special Counsel.
Where’s Dennis??
Beahahahahah
“There won’t be a trial in DC before the 2024 election.”
You don’t know that.
The case is already pending before the DCCA. If they rule quickly, it will then go to SCOTUS again.
Give it up turdlayer. Your wet dreams are foiled
Couldn’t Trump ask first for an en banc hearing?
He could ask for it. They don’t have to grant it, and given the issues of delay, they may not want to.
You are correct they could decide quickly and reject an en banc hearing quickly – how fast do you think ?
Do you think they can put this infront of SCOTUS before march ? April ? May ?
And if the DC courts do a slipshod job – Scotus can kick it back to them for reconsideration.
The SCOTUS decision is a message to Smith AND a message to the DC courts – “TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY”
They can as you claim – rush. SCOTUS has told them NOT TO. Partly SCOTUS does not want this case.
But partly they do not want a rushed slipshod record. . Slipshod can move fast. Serious consideration takes lots of time.
You need a miracle to get all the way to SCOTUS and get a decision prior to Late June.
And it would be trivial for SCOTUS to kick this into next year.
Also relevant to the timing of SCOTUS considering granting cert after the DCCA rules, Steve Vladeck (U of TX Austin Law School) notes:
“For those who are worried about Trump slow-walking an appeal to #SCOTUS if the D.C. Circuit rules against him on immunity, the court of appeals can preempt that by doing what the Colorado Supreme Court did—a stay that expires unless Trump seeks certiorari within n (say, 14) days.”
No they can not. The CO SC stay is a sign of weakness not strength.
The moment Trump appeals – and just like Smith he is likely to have to go through the approriate Federal court first – no matter what CO SC says, The CO SC loses jurisdiction. That means any stay is at the determination of the appellate court.
Temporary stays are not ways to fast track decisions. They reflect the weakness of the case.
This is normal judicial procedure 101. Two courts can not have jurisdiction on a case concurrently.
It is possible that Trump could be required to go through the CO federal courts. Those courts could refuse to grant a stay. Trump could appeal the failure to grant a stay to SCOTUS, SCOTUS could direct the CO federal court to issue the stay and return the case.
Regardless there is a reason that even many democrats are seeking to have the Supreme court kick this 9-0 ASAP – it is a very dangeorus and weak case. It may not die quickly, but it will remain ineffective until it is killed.
Separately the time limits for federal appeals are pre-determined by the rules of the court. They are not arbitrary. Judges do not get to decide them on their own.
Next while Chutkin has announced that the case is suspended until the appeals complete. Her order suspending the case is meaningless.
The case was suspended the moment Trump appealed and remains suspended until the final appeal is decided. There is nothing Chutkan can do about that. She has no jurisdiction until the case returns from appeal.
That is not QUITE true – this is an interlocutory appeal so she has SOME jurisdiction – but not enough to move to trial.
correction: presumably whoever loses in the appeals court will appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS doesn’t have to grant cert and may be satisfied with the appeals court ruling.
They could also grant cert and make a quick shadow docket ruling, though that seems unlikely.
Now the country has proof of what we’ve known for some time–the state has been totally Californicated. In 20 years, red, to pink, to purple, to deep, midnight blue. Won’t swing back because we’re done.
Mary: we’ve never seen your name before. Just dropped out of the blue?
Mary has been here quite awhile.
But who the f*ck are you to question it anyway. Would it be surprising if someone “dropped in out of the blue” and does that give them less standing than your dumb ass?
The last presidential candidate to be removed from the ballot – was Lincoln in 1860 – 10 southern states removed him.
He still won the election.
While Turley points out some of the constitutional issues.
Fundimentally this is not a constitutional issue so much as a question of how bat schiff crazy do we want our politics to be.
Lets assume the Colorado Supreme court is correct, and SCOTUS allows this.
They will also have to allow the efforts by Republicans in Red states like TX which has already started discussing removing Biden for a number of reasons – but one far stronger than the Trump insurection claim is because Biden as president directed US funds to an enemy – Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism. That certainly qualifies as giving aide and comfort to an enemy.
Should SCOTUS not thwart this idiocy we could have republican lawfare operatives in 50 states seeking Biden’s removal from the ballot.
Nor do they need to win to make the point.
That ignores that The mess at the southern border could be used as another reason to remove Biden from the ballot.
All the CO SC has done is prove to the nation that courts are political and activist in stupid and harmful ways.
We have lots of laws regarding elections. We go through a messy process involving legislatures, the executive and the courts to settle on those laws. While I argued that the constitution text makes elections the near exclusive domain of the legislature – I also stated that would be a bandaid to the problem republicans were trying to address. Any branch of government can be politically captured – including the legislature.
Involving all branches do not guarantee trustworthy elections, but it substantially decreases the odds of stupidity like this.
But even involving all branches is insufficient when as in CO one branch can go “full bull moose looney”
“The last presidential candidate to be removed from the ballot – was Lincoln in 1860 – 10 southern states removed him.”
John, that is wrong. There was no way for the state to remove Lincoln from the ballot because there were no ballots. State-issued ballots occurred later in the century.
New Hampshire passes ID Election Law.
Response by Democrats? Guess!
“Democratic National Committee Sues New Hampshire Officials Over ID Election Law”
https://themessenger.com/politics/democratic-national-committee-sues-new-hampshire-officials-over-id-election-law
###
Even third world countries require voters to present identification to vote.
Democrats can not win elections which is why they always rig them.
Republicans should remove Biden from their state election ballots
Eliminate voter registration and just require a government issued photo ID that proves residence in the precinct that you are voting.
It’s insane how many things we have to prove our identity to obtain these days, but voting ain’t one of them. One must question why all the screaming about disenfranchising voters if they were required to have a government issued ID when things like food stamps and medical care require it.
Jonathan: You often quote the famous and selectively take them out of context to try to prove a point. And in quoting Oscar Wilde you have done it again. The quote from “The Picture of Dorian Gray” is actually a reference to his thinly-veiled homosexuality. Wilde was one of the first gay authors to critique the late Victorian era views on homosexuality and was instrumental in leading to the subsequent gay rights movement. He is a hero to the present LGBTQ community. So there is no “Wilde doctrine” that can be applied to the various state attempts to keep DJT off the ballot. That’s a misuse and distortion of Wilde’s statement.
That said, there is little doubt SCOTUS will overturn the Colorado SC decision. But you don’t discuss on what basis the SC might strike down the ruling. That’s the important part. To show I am entirely non-partisan I have been looking at other legal blogs–how other legal scholars think the SC might rule.
There is no consensus. Everyone seems to think SCOTUS didn’t want the case. When the Colorado decision came down all the Justices went “Oh sh–!”. That’s because the Court is presented with a dilemma. It could narrowly hold a president is not an “officer” within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. But such a decision would leave in place 2 lower rulings that on Jan. 6 DJT FACTUALLY engaged in “insurrection”. That would not set well with the extreme right-wing of the Court–Thomas and Alito. The SC rarely challenges the FACTUAL findings of lower courts. So for the SC to challenge both the Colorado district court and the state’s SC findings of FACT would be unprecedented and would require the Court to go into a lengthy discussion of the FACTS leading up to DJT’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Most legal scholars think SCOTUS wouldn’t want to go there because the FACTUAL record does not support DJT.
The further dilemma for the SC is that if it narrowly finds Section 3 does not apply to the president it could have momentous consequences going forward. A president could engage in “insurrection” ( what you dismiss as a mere “riot”) against the government can still run for president. The logic is unmistakable. Even Robert E, Lee, the leader of the Confederate “insurrection”, should have been allowed to run for president of the US. Certainly something the Framers would not have supported.
And it’s a case of “be careful what you wish for”. Suppose Biden were to lose the election next year? And he decides he wants to stay in power so he cancels the 2024 election and uses the military to enforce it. Except for impeachment there is no accountability for president who defied the law. For SCOTUS too endorse DJT claim that he is not covered by Section 3 would means a candidate who engages in “insurrection” and may be a “criminal felon” is still able to be a candidate for president next year. Whichever way it rules will have serious consequences for our Democracy and our constitutional republic. That’s why SCOTUS didn’t want this case!
Dennis this decision is so absurd that NO the constitutional details do not matter.
We have had innumerable decisions by democrats over the past decade to color outside the lines, to change the rules. to end centuries old constraints that were impeding them.
Some of these efforts have been unconstitutional.
Many were not.
All have proven – as this obviously is to be BAD IDEAS.
The people who wrote the 14th amendment only tried to exclude someone 5 times. and failed twice. All representatives and all done using congresses already existing rules regarding its own members.
It should not take too many brain cells to grasp that it is a really really stupid and dangerous idea to utilize political power to exclude political oponents from the ballot.
The fundimental mistake here is not a constitutional error, it is not an error of the CO SC. it is a massive political miscalculation on the part of democrats.
Is there a point to your Wilde nonsense ?
Wild afford an aphorism. It was not limited to homosexuality. To the extent it was even about homosexuality that would have been as coded speech – Wilde went to jail for homosequality.
Turley’s reference to Wilde’s work is perfectly appropriate. and each of us can judge how well it fits.
Dennis – what you call “rulings” by lower court are meaningless dicta.
No one has been charged with insurrection. No court has had a hearing on the merits regarding insurrection.
Further the insurrection argument – like the CO SC decison is a dangerous boomerang.
If J6 is an insurection according to the law – any protest against a potential government action that turns violent is.
The ranting about J6 as an insurrection is fundimentally the same error as the CO SC made.
It is an attempt to use lawfare to transform rhetorical spin and naratives into legal facts.
When you can not make your legal argument with the narrowest reading of the law and the facts. you end up with a mess than has consequences far beyond your immediate goals.
It is innarguable that if you accept – the approach that the CO SC used in reaching its decision – and the approach that the courts you cite used in claiming there was an insurection. you open the doors to Republicans doing the same to you.
Can Maxine waters be excluded from the ballot for leading BLM riots ?
Can Joe Biden be excluded for giving aide and comfort to Iran ?
“No court has had a hearing on the merits regarding insurrection” is false. Former Otero County, New Mexico, Commissioner and J6 criminal Couy Griffin was disqualified for insurrection over a year ago under 14 A s3. He was removed after a bench trial, and he has twice appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court, to no avail.
As if often the case with you, John, you spout off as if you know something when you don’t.
Always a f*cking bench trial to get what you slimeballs want.
“. Suppose Biden were to lose the election next year? ”
Appears likely
“And he decides he wants to stay in power”
Probably will decide that.
” so he cancels the 2024 election”
Please read the constitution. There is no power to cancel and election.
And little presidential power regarding elections at all.
Biden can – as Trump did challenge the rsults.
Biden can as Hillary did – try to persuade electors to cast their votes for him.
Biden can as Trump did seek to have Congress reject the results of the election.
“and uses the military to enforce it.”
How so ? By magic ? Those in the military swore allegiance to the constitution.
On Jan. 21 2025 unless Joe Biden is re-elected and that election is certified by the congress – he is no longer president.
At that moment the military ceases to take orders from him.
“Except for impeachment there is no accountability for president who defied the law.”
There is no crime of “defying the law”. And of course there is accountability.
There are many outcomes by which Biden could lose the election in 2025 and still end up president in 2025.
He could win claims of fraud in court.
He could presuade congress to refuse to certify the election and then to vote him into office.
These are both lawful and constitutional means – and have occured in the past.
They are what Trump tried and failed to do.
He could actually conspire with military leaders and they could send tanks into the capitol to keep him in power.
But absent successfully getting a substantial portion of the military to support him in violation of their oath to uphold the constitution that is not going to happen. It did not happen with Trump. It was not even attempted.
It is unsurprising that people like you who engage in banana republic tactics are also afraid of banana republic tactics.
When you decide that you will win – “By any means necescary” – you must cope with the fear that your opponents will also seek to win by any means necescary.
I would also note that your argument is stupid.
If there was a military coup in 2025 to keep Biden as president, or if there had been one in 2020 to keep trump,
there would be no impeachment. Tanks tend to trump congress.
“For SCOTUS too endorse DJT claim that he is not covered by Section 3 would means a candidate who engages in “insurrection” and may be a “criminal felon” is still able to be a candidate for president next year.”
Constitutionally criminal felons may be president.
Eugene Debbs ran for president from a Jail cell.
This is again part of what distinguishes the US from banana republics.
Those in power can not keep political enemies off the ballot by convicting them of a crime.
Of course SCOTUS does not want this case.
But for the bat schiff crazy nonsense of the left they would not have this case.
Dennis McIntyre, a man for no seasons.
Thank you Harry Reid!!
Bite me Drnnis!!
I am not replying to Dennis directly, but on the topic of Biden defying the Court, he already is, just on a different subject. I saw on tv that he has chosen to defy SCOTUS and proceed with student loan forgiveness. Open defiance of Supreme Court precedent is bad business, in my view.
“The quote from “The Picture of Dorian Gray” is actually a reference to his thinly-veiled homosexuality.”
Sure. Except for the fact that such a “theme” does not explain any of the novel’s actions or dialogue. And except for the fact that Wilde wrote the story as an explicit warning against the destructive idea of hedonism.
These modern “interpretations” of the classics are utterly anti-intellectual, and are riddled with political and perverse distortions. They destroy the grandeur and scope of great art.
The decision by the all-Democrat Supreme Court of Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot is among the most undemocratic and unconstitutional rulings that I have ever read in my 60 years of teaching and practicing law.
How could this be read otherwise?
Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was not designed to circumvent the impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution which also authorize disqualification from the ballot, but require a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate and other procedural safeguards.
Under the Colorado court’s power-grab, there are no safeguards. Due process has been thrown out of the courthouse window.
In the opinion of these Colorado judges, a candidate need not even be convicted by a jury of the crimes of insurrection or rebellion before their rights are stripped away.
Finally, there is no legal precedent for such a momentous judicial fiat. If presidential candidates can be disqualified, there must be a clearly established mechanism. It’s utterly ridiculous to accept that state courts are empowered to jerry-rig an ad hoc, previously unknown process that can be manipulated in a result-oriented manner.
It is this common-sense thinking that provides the strongest argument against the Colorado court’s decision.
The 14th Amendment does not empower individual states to make such important decisions regarding the right to vote for presidential candidates. Rather, it is a time-bound provision rooted in post-Civil War fears that confederates would meddle in state reconstruction efforts.
But regardless of what the high court does, the Republicans will fight back in a tit-for-tat manner.
Outraged – and perhaps emboldened – by this obvious misuse of the 14th Amendment some may try to disqualify President Joe Biden in some states or attempt other anti-democratic means to restrict access to the ballot.
The end result will be more disarray in our electoral system in the 2024 presidential election and beyond.
Make no mistake – the Colorado Supreme Court has damaged American democracy and violated our constitution.
And the American people will pay the price – as the country inevitably become more bitter, distrustful and divided.
– Alan Dershowitz
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2023/12/22/dershowitz-weighs-in-on-how-the-colorado-supreme-court-just-brought-more-chaos-for-2024-n2632762
Yesterday a friend in Colorado reported seeing 4 ‘Raphus cucullatus’ wandering about with their heads held high. They spook about their concerns of being labeled quacks and resolved to fight their pseudonym as being Dodo’s. They continued by agreeing they should be known as Arch Angels preaching their gospel of higher authority, and knowers of heaven and earth. They were walking about with their large beaks squawking of the glorious decision to remove an Orange Bird. The supposed leader of a rebellious insurrection was to be removed from any consideration by all other birds. They also posted a letter titled:
‘Glory to the Dodo’s the purveyors of Law and Order”.
Ed Meese link “Writ of Certiorari”
Supremecourt.gov 20231220140217967
NO. 23-624
Question Presented
Whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States, which jurisdictional requirement must exist at all stages of litigation, and which cannot be waived, in filing his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this Court?
But of course.
Newsweek:
“Republicans Pull Trigger on Plan to Remove Joe Biden From Ballots”
Dec 22, 2023 at 11:28 AM EST
Republican lawmakers in three swing states have announced their plan to remove President Joe Biden from their state ballots.
Aaron Bernstine of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Cory McGarr of the Arizona House of Representatives and Charlice Byrd of the Georgia House of Representatives released a joint statement on Thursday announcing their plan to remove Biden from the 2024 general election ballots in those three states.
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-pull-trigger-plan-remove-joe-biden-ballots-1855042
Notice that they don’t have any courts ruling in their favor on that.
Because elections are constitutionally the domain of the legislature.
One of the simplest SCOTUS decisions regardin CO is to simply reverse and remand because CO does not have any election legislation on this.
I thought it was “self-executing.”
I love this name
Question Turley, what do you call fake electors, calls to state government officials and calling on his mob to stop the certification of the election. Democracy? And you have the nerve to write Colorado’s Supreme Court is out to stop democracy? Is it democracy when Trump said he will put the nations militaries in the streets? How about terminating the constitution? Then again, you only write to the Trump Cult to keep the rage going, and your making money off it. Your peers must be so proud.
what do you call fake electors,
Not fake. Alternate electors. Something the Democrats have suggested in the past. The alternat electors still have to be appointed by the Legislature.
If they are NOT appointed by legislature’s then they are not legal electors……..hence…….FAKE.
And yet, many of them WERE.
Regardless, you are free to ask the legislature to appoint you as an elector.
The legislature can do so, or not,
So the electors that voted for Biden are all FAKE ?
None were apointed by the legislature.
The constitution allows for electors to be appinted by the legislature.
But the nor is that electors are ELECTED, When you voted for Biden in 2020, you were not voting for Biden.
You were voting for the Biden slate of electors. When the Sec State certified the election – the slate of electors that had the most certified votes became that states electors.
Unless the state legislature appointed different electors.
This is uncommon, but it has ahappened before and there is case law on it.
“what do you call fake electors”
What fake electors ? There are federal court decisions that actually say that the legislatures means of addressing election fraud is to appoint its own slate of electors. Then congress gets to decide.
You conflate perfectly legal and constitutional processes that you do not like with fraud.
But you do not get to just make up the law because the way it actually is does not suit you.
“calls to state government officials”
Are you saying that we are not permitted to call state government officials ?
“calling on his mob to stop the certification of the election.”
That is called free speech.
How is that different from calling on the mob to defund the police ?
Just because you think it is stupid, even if it is actually stupid, does not make it illegal.
“Democracy?”
The CO SC decision is anti-democracy.
The things you cite are unrelated to democracy.
“And you have the nerve to write Colorado’s Supreme Court is out to stop democracy?”
Because it is.
“Is it democracy when Trump said he will put the nations militaries in the streets?”
Are you aware of how many times presidents have ordered the military on to the streets ?
Douglas MacArthur lead the miltiary in drinving the Bonus army out of the mall during the Wilson administration.
The Military was called in to deal with the Summer of Rage in 1968.
The National Guard is routinely called in to deal with riots.
“How about terminating the constitution?”
Constitution still seems to be in place. Despite the colorado SC trying to circumvent it.
Regardless, people are free to call for changing part or all of the constitution.
That is called free speech.
Those in government are bound to follow the constitution – regardless of what they have said about it.
Trump did, the CO SC did not.
I dont know what he calls all that, fishysmell, but your hysterical nonsense is called a steaming turd
When are the perpetrators going to prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for malicious and felonious “LAWFARE?”
“Of course, you know, this means war!”
– Groucho Marx, Duck Soup (1933)
I thought it was Bugs Bunny
Colorado Undermines Democracy in the Name of Democracy
https://www.thefp.com/p/colorado-court-trump-2024-peter-meijer-democracy
“In a time when elite schools appear uniquely removed from reality, amid a political moment defined by elite failure, the irony is profound. Trump campaigns on “saving America” from elites seeking to thwart the will of the people. Those elites, in turn, respond by confirming Trump’s worst allegations.”
– Peter Meijer, December 20, 2023
Sorry. It’s been a long time since Democrats have really cared about Democracy. As each day passes we see that no matter how much they claim they are protecting Democracy they are doing there dead level best to undermine it. The growing disapproval of Joe Biden proves my point. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
This is an originalist decision. The drafters intended to include POTUS.
“Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of Section Three did not include the office of the Presidency. He stated, “[T]his amendment does not go far enough” because past rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2899 (1866). So, he asked, “why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Id. Senator Lot Morrill fielded this objection. He replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’” Id. This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, “Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.” Id. This colloquy further supports the view that the drafters of this Amendment intended the phrase “any office” to be broadly inclusive, and certainly to include the Presidency.”
Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23-SA-300 ¶ 140 (Colo. 2023) (slip op.).
Who cares
Sec 3—>Sec 5—>18 USC 2383
I dont buy this as evidence’
The language is clear, ‘Electors of President and Vice President’
If the wanted to include the President, they would have said, ‘President and Vice President and their electors.
Remember the People do not elect the President. Electors selected by the State legislators select the EC Electors. The majority of the People in the state determine which slate of electors go to DC. If enough states amass enough electors than that person is President.
But we should all be making sure the peoples wishes are carried out. NOT scheming ways to bar the peoples choice.
The draftsmen of laws speak through their written words.
Taylor Swift 2024!!! Who cares if she is only 33???