Columns, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Supreme Court

“A Sad Day”: How the Colorado Disqualification Case is Bringing Back Bad Memories for the Supreme Court

Below is my column in The Messenger on the challenge facing the Supreme Court in the coming week over the electoral disqualification of former president Donald Trump in Colorado and Maine. The appeal in Maine has been filed and can now work its way up to the Court. Colorado is expected to file with the Court this week. If the Court does not act before Jan. 4th, Colorado could seek to moot any appeal and avoid review. It would then depend on the Maine litigation to bring the matter back to the Court.

Here is the column:

It is “a sad day for America and the Constitution when a court decides the outcome of an election.” Those words, condemning a 4-3 decision by state supreme court justices regarding a presidential election, undoubtedly spoke for millions of Americans.

However, it wasn’t a reference to the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent 4-3 decision to disqualify Donald Trump from running in the 2024 election. Instead, it was a statement by James Baker, then a spokesman for Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush, criticizing the Florida Supreme Court’s decision during the 2000 election.

Of course, the condemnations in 2000 would shift to the U.S. Supreme Court, when it stopped the recount ordered by the four Florida justices and effectively called the election for Bush. Then, it was the left condemning the U.S. justices as being, in the words of law professor Cass Sunstein, “illegitimate, undemocratic, and unprincipled.”

Even the justices appeared to lose some of their customary collegiality and civility in the moment. Then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously omitted the customary word “respectfully” before the phrase “I dissent” at the end of her opinion.

Now, the Supreme Court is being pulled into another election vortex by the Colorado decision and, potentially, by some of the cases in at least 15 other states. (Appeals of ballot decisions are pending in Arizona; ballot challenges are in process in Alaska, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. A Wisconsin challenge has been denied twice.)

Colorado and now Maine remain outliers after the Michigan Supreme Court rejected another disqualification effort in that state. Last Wednesday, the Colorado GOP appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to accept the case given the split among the states and the importance of the issue. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have criticized the decision by Maine’s secretary of state and urged that the courts overturn it. But the two states’ decisions — and the risk of others joining them — underscores the imperative need for the nation’s high court to decide the issue once and for all.

The Court is not an institution eager for this role. The ruling in Bush v. Gore produced one of the greatest institutional crises in the Court’s history, and the impact reverberated for decades. As someone covering the 2000 opinion as a CBS News legal analyst at the time, I was taken aback by how the motivations and even the integrity of the justices was challenged in reaching their decision. In the New Republic, for example, the majority was denounced and dismissed by Jeff Rosen as simply “four vain men and one vain woman.”

I am not the only one with vivid memories of that day. One justice from the 2000 majority still sits on the Court: Clarence Thomas. While many have called for him to recuse himself, he will likely vote with the rest of the Court if he follows past practices.

Three other justices have their own connections to Bush v. Gore.

Chief Justice John Roberts was then a Republican lawyer who helped present Bush’s case to the Florida Supreme Court and advised the Bush campaign on its U.S. Supreme Court challenge. President Bush later put Roberts on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Notably, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts said he believed that “the particular parameters in [Bush v. Gore] won’t” return to the court. He then said it would be “inappropriate” for him to comment further on such “very recent precedent.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also was an attorney on the Bush team in 2000 and played a role in the recounts and challenges out of Volusia County, Florida.

At the time, another rising star in Republican legal circles was getting her start as a young law firm associate. Amy Coney Barrett worked on the briefing for Bush v. Gore and went to Florida briefly during the recount litigation.

Roberts is correct that the “particular parameters” of Bush v. Gore are unlikely to return to the Court with its “hanging chads” and “butterfly ballots.” However, there are some echoes of that earlier fight in the coming battle over whether Trump can be barred from appearing in state presidential-election ballots.

Kavanaugh said in a CNN interview that the Court was primarily concerned about “the arbitrary, standard-less nature of the recount process in Florida.” There is likely to be a similar unease over the use of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and classification of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot as an “insurrection” by four Colorado state justices.

The Court’s member who would most want this cup to pass from his lips is, undoubtedly, Chief Justice Roberts. As a fierce institutionalist, Roberts is known to resist putting the Court in the middle of powerful political currents. Even on issues like abortion, Roberts stood alone in trying to eke out a compromise of preserving Roe v. Wade while upholding more stringent state abortion laws.

Although Roberts is not beyond joining sweeping decisions like the recent rejection of race criteria in college admissions, he tends to be an incrementalist who does not like the Court getting ahead of its skis in rendering final legal decisions on matters of ongoing political debates.

In that sense, everything about the Colorado case is likely to repel Roberts, but he may have little room to maneuver with the politically shortened calendar and the major impact of the state decision. While there is a potential mootness “exit ramp” from review of the Colorado decision, the Maine decision will eventually force the issue again for the Court after lower court reviews.

The greatest test for Roberts may not be simply to marshal a majority to overturn this ruling. Many of us view the 14th Amendment theory to be not just fundamentally flawed but incredibly dangerous. There are a host of elements in the Colorado decision that could easily result in a reversal — from the potential application of the provision to the office of the president, to the conclusory treatment of the Jan. 6 riot as a rebellion, to the casual dismissal of Trump’s free-speech rights.

Yet, Roberts has previously noted that one of the toughest jobs as chief justice comes with the effort to secure unanimous decisions in key cases. This is one of those cases.

The Colorado Supreme Court was wrong on the law, but the case raises the same institutional challenges as Bush v. Gore. Back in 2000, the Court fractured and left a bitter legacy for both the justices and the public. Faced with another controversial 4-3 decision by a state supreme court during a presidential election, Roberts will need to seek more than just a final decision. He will likely push hard for a unanimous decision, to have the Court speak in one voice to avoid the bitter fracturing of 2000.

It could prove to be the finest moment for the Roberts court if the chief justice succeeds and all of the justices can show Americans that they can set aside their own divisions to affirm core principles of the democratic process. They can speak as one, not just for the Court but for the country.

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. He teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

399 thoughts on ““A Sad Day”: How the Colorado Disqualification Case is Bringing Back Bad Memories for the Supreme Court”

  1. I must admit that I grow weary regarding the clutching of pearls vis-a-vis Clarence Thomas’ participation in any vote on the constitutionality of keeping Trump off of the ballot. His wife’s advocacy for Republican causes and candidates is the straw that liberals at grasping at to seek a reason to delegitimize his vote, and, by extension, the outcome of the entire vote of the Court.

    Justice Thomas does not lose his judicial independence just because his wife is active politically. If that is what the Left is claiming then the potential exists that every conservative justice would be expected to recuse him/herself at some point in their career (and perhaps many times). The Left would love this to be the standard because it would most apply to the conservative justices (none of the liberal female justices are married, except for Brown Jackson). Were the standard to be that a politically active spouse required a justice to recuse themselves, then for “appropriate” reasons:

    * JUSTICE ROBERTS would have to recuse himself (his spouse spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention in support of President Bush)
    * JUSTICE ALITO would need to recuse himself since his wife has been seen accompanying him to conservative events and has served on the advisory board of the Catholic Charities of Central New Jersey.
    * JUSTICE KAVANAUGH would need to recuse himself because his wife is a former political consultant who worked for George W. Bush and other Republican candidates. She has advocated for conservative causes, like school choice, and written for conservative publications.
    * JUSTICE CONEY-BARRETT would need to recuse herself because her husband is a lawyer and former federal prosecutor appointed by President Trump. He has expressed conservative views on abortion and other legal issues.
    * JUSTICE GORSUCH would need to recuse himself because his wife (a British documentary filmmaker) has produced documentaries exploring political and social issues, including immigration and religious freedom.
    * JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR would need to recuse herself because her ex-husband was a legal journalist and author who wrote for liberal publications like The Nation.
    * JUSTICE BROWN JACKSON would need to recuse herself because her husband (a surgeon and law professor) has served in positions within the Democratic Party and advocated for healthcare reform.
    * JUSTICE KAGAN has never been married, and historically
    * JUSTICE BRANDEIS’ wife was a progressive activist who advocated for women’s suffrage and social justice reforms.
    * JUSTICE MARSHALL’s wife was a lawyer and educator who supported her husband’s career and advocated for civil rights, and
    * JUSTICE BRENNAN’s wife was active in Democratic politics and supported liberal causes.

    In retrospect, should we say that these late justices’ opinions are tainted somehow and those cases need to be re-revisited? That’s a bridge too far in my view.

    Similarly, the hand-wringing over Justice Roberts’ need to craft unanimous decisions is unnecessary. What is wrong with justices’ voting their conscience? If that results in 5-4 decisions so be it There should be no expectation that Justice Roberts do any behind-the-scenes politicking to achieve any particular outcome.

    1. Justices aren’t tasked with ‘voting their conscious’. The job requires them to issue opinions based on the law itself, not on their personal opinions.

      1. Justices must objectively and impartially assure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law.

        The entire communistic American welfare state violates Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property, and is irrefutably unconstitutional.

    2. Ginni Thomas was directly involved with the attempted coup. Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from cases involving the attempted coup.

      1. You are the only one who believe there was an attempted coup or an insurrection.
        The rest of us normal people know no such thing transpired.

        1. It was literally broadcast live on TV. We have the recording from the call with the GA SoS. It was not a secret that Trump pressured local election officials to declare him the winner. The fake elector scheme has been admitted to by those involved. Trump publicly called on Pence to refuse to count some EC votes. None of those were legal. None of those are in dispute. All those together is an attempted coup.

          1. It was literally broadcast live on TV

            Men dressed in drag, wearing nothing but makeup, wigs, jock straps, and high heels, performed lewd and lascivious acts, stating “its not going to lick itself” to children under age 10 sitting right in front of them. Yet your ilk calls it “free speech” as opposed to obscenities, child abuse, sexual grooming and the other facts you choose to rename

            You wouldn’t know a fact unless if it hit you smack across your backside with you being on all 4’s, only you would have someone video record it, taking place in a US Senate building.

            🤣

          2. As the recently released Jan 6th video showed, it was not a coup or insurrection. It far more peaceful than the Fiery but Mostly Peaceful 2020 Summer of Love.
            That video also showed how the Jan 6th clown show committee cheery picked and even edited video to support their false narrative.
            The only attempted coup is the one in your mind.

        2. Upstate — Sammy is not alone. The activities of 2021 Jun 06 were an insurrection in which 6 people died that day or shortly after.

          1. Moron, of which 5 were not related to the riot. They had pre-existing conditions that they subcomed too.
            The only one was the criminal act of a CP officer shooting an unarmed woman in the neck.
            Are you really that stupid?

            1. Upstate: Nope, at least one was hit by a baseball bat (equivalent) in the head and so driven to suicide soon thereafter.
              Etc.

            2. She was shot in the shoulder, not the neck, and no, shooting her wasn’t a criminal act. He had a job of protecting members of Congress and staffers still in the House Chamber from any rioter trying to get into that chamber via the Speaker’s Lobby. She was warned that he had a gun, and she started to climb through the broken window in the door despite that.

              1. I remember that J wrote a column showing the violations by Officer Hill of the guidelines of the Capitol Hill police regarding use of deadly violence. Deadly force was not justified. Perhaps someone else can remember the date of the column.

                1. The officer’s name isn’t Hill. The shooting was investigated, and not by JT.

              2. Benson

                She was not an imminent threat to life or limb and he used deadly force.

                You’re an imbecile

                If a goddam 7-11 security guard did that he would be in prison.

          2. David, your memory doesn’t last 24 hours. You are in bad shape.

            There was no insurrection. No one was convicted of insurrection.

            Two women were killed by police officers. Babbitt and Boyland. A black male cop killed Babbit. It was not a legal shoot. A female black cop was the killer or accessory to the death of Anne Boyland. The rest of the deaths were incidental to the event though some think two men died in part because of the police firing a type of explosive close to them.

      2. Ginni Thomas was directly involved with the attempted coup.

        Justice Thomas is not the same person as Ginni Thomas. Ginni Thomas is not a SCOTUS Justice. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

        1. From the Code of Conduct for SCOTUS. Ginni most defiantly is “likely to be a material
          witness in the proceeding”

          (2) A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in
          which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
          that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware
          of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could
          fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, but are
          not limited to, those in which:

          (d) The Justice or the Justice’s spouse, or a person related to
          either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse
          of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to be a party to
          the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
          (ii) to be acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) to have
          an interest that could be substantially affected by the
          outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material
          witness in the proceeding(d) The Justice or the Justice’s spouse, or a person related to
          either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse
          of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to be a party to
          the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
          (ii) to be acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) to have
          an interest that could be substantially affected by the
          outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material
          witness in the proceeding

          1. Ginni most defiantly is “likely to be a material witness in the proceeding

            What proceeding? SCOTUS does not conduct evidentiary hearings, and Ginni Thomas was not a witness in the proceedings it will be reviewing. So the above doesn’t apply.

            1. OldManFromKS,
              Ah! Facts. Thank your for bringing them to the table and destroying our leftists friends fantasies.

            2. I hope you saw my responses today to the questions you asked me last night in the column “Destroying Democracy to Save It: Maine Shows the Danger of Zealots in our Legal System” — A.N.D.

    3. We need a unanimous decision AND we need a strong decision.

      I would note – Justices are NOT supposed to vote their conscience. they are supposed to vote the plain text of the constitution.

      I would BTW not presume that a 9-0 strong decision is not possible. There might be some subtle differences between the liberal justices and conservatives ones on fairly fringe speech issues.

      Brandenburg V. Ohio was a Warren – Liberal Court decision that was 9-0 and is the controlling law.
      I would further note that 2 of trhe justices who signed on to brandenburg would have gone further – Make no law, means NO LAW.

      Free speech is a LIBERAL issue. It is modern left wing nut progressives that have abandoned the few good things liberals have ever done.

      Regardless, Trump’s J6 speech is protected speech according to Brandenburg. It can not be criminalized, and it can not be used as evidence against Trump.

  2. 𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲?
    Portland Press Hearld – Opinion: Stan Skolfield ~ Jan 3rd. 2024
    https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/03/letter-are-we-endorsing-the-end-of-democracy/

    It’s time to trust the voters. It is up to the people to decide who the best candidate is, not a biased official or the courts. That is Democracy 101. If Trump is kept out of office because of judiciary fiat rather than a fair election, then those who support him will never accept the results.

    People who don’t like Donald Trump, for whatever reason, do not understand what they are cheering for here. They are cheering for the literal end of democracy. Some people may not like Trump but that doesn’t mean it’s OK for an official to remove him from the ballot. That decision is to be made by the people for whomever they feel is the best candidate.

    As a reminder, Trump has never been found guilty of an insurrection; as a matter of fact, he was acquitted of it during his second impeachment trial.

    So, now we have a group of biased officials deciding that someone doesn’t have to be guilty of a crime to suffer the repercussions of it. Every Mainer and American should be troubled by this decision.

    1. Did this person also object to the determination by the courts about whether Obama was a natural born citizen?

      1. What courts determined that ? None did, of any meaning.
        SCOTUS refused it.
        A Justice publicly stated so.

        Now we have JT and others here crying the court might have to make a decision – the smell of cowardice, fear, lack of judgement, judicial fiat, lack of explanation to the public, constant lying, wishing for love points by crying about the terrible position the overlords are stuck in, is everywhere.

        *Section 5 The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.*

        Obama’s claimed daddio was not a US citizen so oblunder the half foreigner was and is INELIGIBLE for potus. Not like the government followed the law, they obviously stopped giving a damn about the law a long time ago.

    2. “… that someone doesn’t have to be guilty of a crime to suffer the repercussions of it. …”
      Story of my Life[.]

    3. Polls show 61% of Republicans don’t accept the results of the 2020 election & 49% of Trump supporters don’t accept the popular vote results of the 2016 election (they believe Trump’s false claims that Hillary received millions of illegal votes.) Trump has been raging for the past 3 years, attacking Republican Secretaries of State, Governors & other election officials for certifying the results of the 2020 election after numerous recounts.

      Trump has attacked members of his own Administration & his own attorneys who accept the results of the 2020 election, including Bill Barr & Chief of Staff, John Kelly.

      Here’s what Allysa Farah Griffin, Trump’s White House Director of Strategic Communications said last week: “Fundamentally, a second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy as we know it. And I don’t say that lightly. We all witnessed him try to steal a democratic election before & going to historic & unconstitutional lengths to do so. And that shows he’s willing to break every barrier to get into power & stay into power.”

      7 Republican Senators & 10 GOP House members voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection in his second impeachment trial. It’s an interesting argument to dismiss Trump Administration officials & Republican Govenors, Senators, Congress members & Secretaries of State as “a group of biased officials.”

      1. LMAO
        “It’s an interesting argument to dismiss Trump Administration officials & Republican Govenors, Senators, Congress members & Secretaries of State as “a group of biased officials.”
        YET YOU DO IT EVERY DAY, EVERY HOUR, EVERY SECOND OF YOUR LIFE.

    4. “People who don’t like Donald Trump, for whatever reason, do not understand what they are cheering for here. They are cheering for the literal end of democracy. Some people may not like Trump but that doesn’t mean it’s OK for an official to remove him from the ballot. That decision is to be made by the people for whomever they feel is the best candidate.”
      *********************************
      The problem is that they DO understand.

  3. “Colorado is expected to file with the Court this week.”

    CO already did file. That you’re unable to keep up with simple key facts is not a good sign.

    “If the Court does not act before Jan. 4th, Colorado could seek to moot any appeal and avoid review.”

    Wrong again. The court doesn’t have to act before 1/4. The appeal simply has to be filed by 1/4.

  4. �𝐏𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐄: Tickler File: 𝐆𝐎𝐏 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬

    The Republican National Committee (RNC) released candidates from a requirement that they participate in only party-sanctioned debates, clearing the path for major networks to host unsanctioned events. All dates are subject to change as are the appearances of the Candidates.
    Update: the 𝐉𝐚𝐧. 𝟏𝟎𝐭𝐡, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 (Wednesday) debate may be the last for some Candidates that have yet to confirm participation in the later debates.

    𝐉𝐚𝐧. 𝟏𝟎𝐭𝐡, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 (Wednesday) debate in Des Moines, Iowa [CNN] 9pm ET at 𝐃𝐫𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲

    𝐉𝐚𝐧. 𝟏𝟖𝐭𝐡, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 (𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲) debate in Manchester, New Hampshire [ABC] at 𝐒𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞

    𝐉𝐚𝐧. 𝟐𝟏𝐬𝐭, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 (𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐲) debate in New Hampshire [CNN] at 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞

    —

    𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲.
    The first will be held in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 10 and the second will be broadcast from Goffstown, N.H., on Jan. 21.
    By: Dominick Mastrangelo ~ 12/07/23
    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4347791-cnn-2024-gop-primary-debates-january/

    𝐀𝐁𝐂 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟏𝟖
    ABC News, with WMUR-TV, is set to hold a Republican presidential primary debate on Thursday, Jan. 18, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. The debate will be held in coordination with the New Hampshire Republican State Committee and will come just days after the Iowa caucuses, as attention turns to the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary the following week.
    By: Jim Donnelly ~ Dec 7th, 2023
    [Link] abc.com/news/insider/abc-news-hosts-the-2024-republican-presidential-primary-debate-in-new-hampshire
    [Link] anselm.edu/about/anselmian-hub/news-hilltop/presidential-primary-debate

    𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐆𝐎𝐏 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒
    “… The second debate will be held on January 21 in New Hampshire at New England College.
    The location was originally announced as St. Anselm College. …”
    By: CNN Staff ~ December 20, 2023
    [Link] cnn.com/2023/12/07/politics/cnn-gop-presidential-primary-debates-2024/index.html
    [Link] nec.edu/news/new-england-college-to-host-cnn-republican-presidential-primary-debate-in-new-hampshire

    -30-

  5. I would love a unanimous decision too, but nothing seems to be able to penetrate the modern left’s notion that they are entitled to and possess unilateral power; it is an impossibility that a dem lost or could lose fairly, the rule of law be damned. Their arrogance and hubris are as toxic as their policies and methods. It seems more likely it’ll be a split and more evidence of the aforementioned. I guess we’ll see. We could sure use some sanity and unity on this one.

    1. James,
      Well said.
      Rule of law is not something leftist are known to follow. “By any means necessary!” is their mantra.

      1. @Upstate

        Yep, and it is madness. Many of the people in question have always found rubbing elbows with the rest of us distasteful. Might actually be for the best their disdain is out in the open as never before now, we know beyond the shadow of a doubt what we are facing.

  6. It’s not about an “Insurrection” Stupid,
    It’s about an “Narrative” Stupid.

    It’s about a Party (Dem) creating a narrative that weaponizes the; Judaical Branch, the Electoral College, and Media to control Our Constitutional Consciousness and subvert our Reason. That is: To convince Us that a particular Political Perspective is Evil and an Opposing View is Good and the Correct one.

    It’s to bad it has come to this, IT’S JUST WRONG ALL THE WAY AROUND.
    But I suppose that it was inevitable given the Path Hillary Clinton and Company set foot this Country upon.

  7. Here is a one-hour long discussion by legal scholars on this topic, with many good points on both sides of the question of whether Trump is disqualified. This type of discussion is useful because the participants (a) are very well informed, and (b) disagree with each other, so we’re not getting just one side.

      1. He was definitely for a very broad sweep for 14A,s3, whereas Judge McConnell was for a narrow sweep. They both articulate their views well, and base them on solid reasoning.

  8. Republicans have largely won the 21st Century but are overplaying their hand and this will backfire.

    Al Gore won about half a million more votes than George W. Bush received. Most voters didn’t vote for Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the election.

    Hillary Clinton won about 3 million more votes than Trump received. Most voters didn’t vote for Trump in 2016.

    Barack Obama was denied about 100 judges and a U.S. Supreme Court pick. The vast majority of Obama’s judges were of high moral character and competent to serve.

    This created a permanent imbalance in the Judicial Branch of government, not based on wrongdoing of any of Obama’s judge picks.

    Republicans have largely won the 21st Century. Why all the whining?

      2. F W – “Ruling” within the context of Constitutional parameters is the same as “governing.” (Is there a troll-meister who composes these aphorisms or are you on your own?)

    2. “Anonymous”, why the insistent recital of how many more votes Gore or Clinton received over their Republican opponent? You do know that the vote differential in CA alone is greater than the discrepancy nationwide, right? You do know that popular vote is irrelevant to the election of president, right? You do remember that Democrats were bragging about their “blue wall” of electoral votes prior to 2016, right?

      Republicans should have won the 21st century, but cheating and lying Democrats will not give up and insist that they don’t need to play by the rules.

      After Trump won in 2016 did Democrats go quietly into that night? No! They cooked up the Russian Hoax and under their rules anyone involved in this crime should not be allowed on any ballots. Right Jamie Raskin?

    3. “Barack Obama was denied about 100 judges and a U.S. Supreme Court pick. The vast majority of Obama’s judges were of high moral character and competent to serve.”
      The Supreme Court Pick was Merrick Garland. You have no credibility.

    4. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the election.

      To the contrary, the voters decided it. W won the initial count and every recount in Florida, including five recounts by independent media organizations. That means he legit won Florida, and as such, won the national election. Which, by the way, is not decided by the popular vote, but by the electoral vote. Democrats constantly refer to the popular vote but that is a red herring. Such references are as irrelevant as they are predictable. Each candidate’s campaign is designed around only one goal: maximizing electoral votes. If this country decided the presidential election by popular votes, the campaign strategies would have been vastly different, and nobody can possibly know how that contest would have turned out.

      1. More than 60 courts unanimously ruled Trump lost the election. It’s fine to challenge anything in court but then you have to follow the court ruling.

        Gore and Hillary accepted the election verdicts made by courts. Trump didn’t respect over 60 court rulings (rulings made by some Trump appointed judges).

        About 100% of all the witnesses against Trump are former Trump supporters, not Democrats.

        1. “More than 60 courts unanimously ruled Trump lost the election.”

          This is bunk. I detest Trump, but most of the cases were decided on the basis of lack of standing, not ruling against him. Moreover, while a few cases after the election did rule against him, a few cases prior to the election ruled in his favor. It doesn’t serve anyone to misrepresent these totality of these cases.

              1. There is a bit of flip-flam here since the discussion involved the group of cases that have been discussed since the election. More were later filed, but not necessarily by the same parties.

                Of the original cases that were debated on this blog, most of the decisions went to Trump and the GOP. The numbers have repeatedly been listed overwhelmingly in Trump’s favor.

              2. Wiki fvcking pedia

                Do your goddam research people

                You might as well cite a jr high essay

          2. You are splitting hairs and repeating alt-right talking points. Most cases were decided against Trump when Giuliani and his other minion lawyers had to admit, when asked by the Judge, what evidence of voter fraud they had. When they admitted they had none, but wanted an injunction anyway to prevent Biden from taking office while they tried to create some evidence, the judges threw out the cases. You don’t have standing to invoke the power of a court unless you have evidence. There wasn’t, and still isn’t, any such evidence. These ARE substantive rulings.

        2. Okay, but that amounts to a “whatabout Trump.” It does not refute anything I said.

        3. No one, literally no one “who dared to look into it”, respects the big fat lie that the POTUS election of 2020 was valid.
          The crimes are near endless and obvious.
          Movies have been made that show beyond a shadow of a doubt it was stolen.
          Professors have shown the algorithms used in conjunction with the last census to steal entire states and the vote totals mark percentages to exact amounts absolutely unable to be random and not controlled. That is absolute proof but the American retards love to say “the math is hard”, and that’s adding single or dual digit amounts together.

          Most people are utterly clueless though. They suck down the MSM and think they are informed.
          They believed the 51 intelligence officials including 5 former heads of the CIA – WHO ALL LIED. They probably still believe them.

          None of you people have even a shred of respect anymore, all you have is lies. Don’t worry, you’ve got a lot of company, you can all consult each other and agree how you told it like it is, ignoring everything that isn’t state sanctioned propaganda passed by the countless censors cancelers and minders from the government in every forward media.

        1. So W won every recount except one done by The Nation, or one done by Salon ?

          When you drop by, declare someone incorrect, then post a left wing controlled blog link with endless pages of leftspew, it means to me the former commenter got it at least 99% correct and your objection is a piddling puddle of hog piss and you’re stepping it, claiming it’s raining.

          I’m not wrong, am I ?

        2. As the article notes, the Miami Herald/ USA survey, conducted in early 2001, using five different methodologies, and surveying the entire state (not something Gore even sought), found that Bush won under four of them. Another media group, led by the NYT, had another state-wide survey conducted a year later, which concluded that Gore would have won by 61-151 votes if its methodologies were followed. This survey apparently used multiple cross-checkers and then averaged their decisions. ( I must say “apparently” because the survey cannot be opened in footnote 91).B ut no study has found that the voting machines malfunctioned in the State of Florida on election night. Thus there was never any reason to reject its count, which was confirmed by a machine recount the next day. The fact that different checkers can reach different results shows that an absolutely accurate count is not possible, as long as people are involved.

    6. Barack Obama was denied about 100 judges and a U.S. Supreme Court pick

      0bama was not “denied” anything. He was not entitled to the senate’s consent, and he didn’t have it, so he wasn’t entitled to any of those appointments.

      1. McConnell unilaterally prevented the Senate from considering any of those nominees. Don’t pretend that this was about the Senate’s consent.

  9. State’s rights are what tore this country apart in the past. It is odd, though, that the dems will utilize state’s rights as in the old south where they kept segregation alive under the banner of state’s rights, and abortion is considered a state issue yet the rallying cry for all dems when they lose a national election is “the popular vote”. It seems that they want their cake and eat it too. Lincoln made a mush of the constitution when he used his power to save the union and free the slaves but now we have a muddle a border between the states and federal authorities. Go back to the Federalist papers and the founding father’s concepts to solve this. Do not let this be decided on the streets and in the media by “democratic” methods.

    1. Responding to Whimsicalmama:

      Leaving out a few details?

      In the 1960’s, most of today’s Republicans would have been Democrats (and vice-versa). The racists and bigots in the Democratic Party switched over to Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party following the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      Rockefeller Republicans (non-racist wing of the GOP) – like Hillary Clinton – then switched to the Democratic Party. The two parties largely switched in the 1960’s.

      10th Amendment (states’ rights) aren’t allowed to violate the 9th Amendment or any other constitutional rights. So state and local “Jim Crow laws” were always unconstitutional (illegal) because you can’t cite the 10th Amendment to “deny or disparage” the constitutional rights of African-Americans, women or any other citizen.

      A constitutional interpretation of the 10th Amendment are issues like “Marijuana Legalization” as a state right. In this example, exercising 10th Amendment rights doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of other citizens (unlike Jim Crow laws).

      1. (Rockefeller Republicans (non-racist wing of the GOP) – like Hillary Clinton –) you’ve got to be kidding about this Saul Alinsky protegee, really?? where do you get your data? MSNBC or CNN or perhaps you are a harvard graduate??? Affirmative action graduate? Product of DEI? It is amazing how history is fluid and false for so many – and what is frightening the most is that you get to vote.

      2. Hillary Clinton is a goddam racist and a bigot

        Where have you been? Do you think we dont remember her campaign emails or her previous stance on gay marriage

        Fvck off with that nonsense

      3. This “parties switched” theory is nonsense. No such thing happened.

        And Hillary Clinton may have been a Republican in high school, but not since then.

        1. “This “parties switched” theory is nonsense.”

          No, it isn’t, and you can read what historians like Kevin Kruse have extensively written about it.

    2. “It is odd, though, that the dems will utilize state’s rights . . .”

      Thus the Left’s basic MO: Use whatever satisfies a momentary desire. If the desire changes tomorrow, denounce what you used yesterday. The Left is a thoroughly unprincipled party.

    3. State’s rights are what tore this country apart in the past.

      That sentence makes no sense. There is no “this country” apart from the states. “This country” is nothing but a federation of sovereign states, so their rights are primary; if you infringe their rights you invalidate the entire union.

  10. I must say that John Say has given a riveting and lucid explanation of most of the points in this rat’s nest of disqualification fever. I frankly enjoyed reading all of his points. He also makes a compelling argument for originalism in interpreting the Consitution. A living constitution becomes a hollow shell if the change of the Constitution is left to the convenience of modern thinking, especially when that can be so different in one person to the next. Best to have the law written down and adhered to as written. There is a constitutional process for changing the constitution and it should be used. You might even conceive of making the amendment process slightly easier, maybe requiring 60 % of both Houses of Congress rather than 2/3. The other options would be to ordain amendment conventions every 20 yrs with each state electing a slate to represent them for the amendment convention (excluding all representatives and senators past , with a 180 day limit of the convention, 1 vote per state, 2/3 of states vote for the amendment then sent to all state legislatures and still require 3/4 of all state legislatures to vote affirmative. This would remove congressional deadlock and allow so more growth in the country and some maturation of our institutions.
    Lastly Congress needs to do its job and pass legislation. The filibuster needs to be retired.

    1. GEB,
      Well said.
      What you lay out along with what John Say has commented on, looks to be a orderly, common sense, rule of law standard we should all agree is the way forward as a nation.
      However, by their actions and words rule of law is not something leftists seem interested in.

    2. When the high from enjoying JS’s writing wears off, think about what you are saying, will ya ?
      You really want to throw the document they have already twisted beyond recognition on the chopping block floor for these vipers and harlots to squirm up another one of their lying frauds and embed it within ?
      Are you certain they won’t deny us access to their deliberations for the next 75 years or possibly indefinitely ?
      What type of pathetic conjob do you expect nowadays ?
      I mean which level of Dante’s Hell will it mostly reside in ?

    3. The Senate filibuster and the constitutional requirement that a supermajority of states must ratify Constitutional amendments are safeguards not only for preserving individual liberty, but also for maintaining social cohesion and stability.

      When legislation is being considered that is major social change, the requirement that at least 60 Senators for cloture goes a long way in getting “buy in” from the broader public. Also, since in modern times it is rare for either party of have control of more than 60 Senate seats, it means both parties are on the hook if things go wrong and share credit and responsibility if it goes right. That maintains stability.

      The same is true in amending the Constitution.

      The changes you propose make it easier for one party to impose their will. Big mistake.

  11. We need more info which will come out in the trials.

    Which insurrection?

    From Trump’s latest re-posting on Truth Social, he suggests that he wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act via a Tweet on J6th, but Twitter would not allow it. What Insurrection? Trump’s paranoid, conspiratorial imagination was that Joe Biden was a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party. Combining this with his misperception that Dem activists had committed massive ballot fraud to throw the election to Biden, Trump was prepared to name Biden and unspecified Dems (with the backing of the CCP) as Insurrectionists. He would then block the Inauguration of Biden, using military force? By deputizing sympathetic militias to “ferret out” the Biden Insurrectionists?

    This is where we need much more info. The war-room at the Willard Hotel was working to block Biden’s Inauguration, but the nature of various plans has been so far covered-up. That cover-up will finally break this Spring or Summer, when Mark Meadows testifies as a cooperating witness to avoid GA prison.

    The other “Insurrection”? From Trump’s perspective, if Biden was leading a treasonous insurrection, then the effort to block Biden’s ascension to the Presidency – including the Pence plot, the alternate elector slates, and the violent stand-off at the Capitol — were a counter-insurrection.

    Do you see the symmetry of paranoid antagonism?

    Except, the symmetry dissolves when actions are forced to be justified by facts, not fervid, paranoid perceptions.
    There is scant or non-existent evidence for Trump’s narrative of Biden being controlled by China, nor for the massive ballot fraud meme. But, there is ample evidence of Trump’s counter-insurrection intending to block Biden’s Inauguration. We don’t have the full picture of how far Trump was willing to go under Invocation of the Insurrection Act, but at least now have his admission that he was planning to invoke it, and gobs of evidence that blocking Biden’s Inauguration was the goal of invoking it, his several other plots toward that goal having fizzled out by the morning of Jan 6th.

    These cases are a major test of American principles and informatics culture. Can paranoid misperceptions justify extreme Presidential actions? They did for the Bush 43 Admin’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. They may well have in the McKinley Admin’s decision to invade Cuba, and in the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” used by Pres. Johnson to escalate war with North Vietnam. But, a President mobilizing against a domestic foe, an imagined Manchurian candidate who has won an election that Constitutionally replaces the said incumbant?….that is a first.

    The saving grace is that Courts are places where truth prevails over lies (and misperceptions). Those aspects of informatics will decide whose “insurrection” was real, and whose was imaginary.

    What kind of future colossal blunders lie ahead if mere perceptions (that wilt under scrutiny) are allowed to be used to justify militancy under color of law? Where is our country headed if wholesale fabrications supplant truth? Isn’t that a snapshot of how Russia and Hamas stumbled into their massive blunders?

    1. LOL – Russia has won since day 1 you deluded twit.
      Ukraine is like any major demoncrat controlled district now. A pathetic crime ridden corrupt death cult.
      All you people do is make up lies.
      You can burn with the rest of them.

      1. You’re just like trump,, declare something a lie and refuse to look at evidence. In 2020 and 2021, trump went to court over 60 times yelling about evidence. He never showed evidence to a judge. NEVER. This latest BS is just that, BS, there is no EVIDENCE of fraud that would have changed the election outcome

        1. LOL.
          You’re brain dead fella.
          You live in a controlled environment and for some odd reason you can’t see it.
          There was more vote theft for a longer period of time and openly in 2020 than ever before in the history of our nation.
          You didn’t watch a single video or the endless hours of proof all over the internet ?
          Are you an msm junkie ? Do you only view “your side” who feed you “propaganda” ?
          Do you know what “no standing ” is mr lawyerman ?

          I don’t understand really what is wrong with you people other than you have no personal agency, or pretend not to.
          Do you still believe there were WMD’s in Iraq ?
          Do you still believe the jab is safe and effective ?
          Do you still believe masks work ?
          Do you still believe Schiff was telling the truth that he had massive evidence of russian collusion ?
          Do you still believe Roe V wade and latest SCOTUS overturn means “courts” are to be believed, EVER ?

          Like I said, whatever is wrong with you people, I hope someone fixes it for you.

            1. Shakdi is an anti-Semitic troll, not worth bothering with. And yes, s/he does need help, but s/he’s not likely to seek it out.

    2. Hey Pbin, now do Hilary and the Russian Hoax, the 51 Intel Agentgs and the laptop and Jamie Raskin et al arguing for new electors.

      1. If you’ve read my prior postings, you’d know that I am equally determined to deter deceitful infowarfare coming from both political fringes. You cite 2 whoppers pushed out by the left for political advantage. We cannot go back in time to prevent those, but we can tighten our standards of public candor in the future — by adopting Public Frauds Courts and Lawsuits where the Public can immediately challenge deliberate fabrications of a political nature, and the liars pushing them out and sympathetic media can be held liable for duping the public (even if temporarily).

        Examples of past Public Frauds that changed the course of history:
        • The audio editing used to destroy Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in 2004 Dem primary
        • The push poll in So. Carolina Repub primary to destroy John McCain (suggesting he fathered an illegitimate
        biracial baby)
        • The Iraqi Shiites’ pushing intel fraud into CIA about WMDs and secret Saddam-Al Qaeda alliance
        • Hillary’s Russia hoax leading to FBI Crossfire Hurricane
        • Blinken-Morrell whopper pushed into CIA to reframe Hunter’s laptop revelations as Russian hacking
        • Trump’s bogus claims of having won the 2020 election, but being cheated by massive ballot fraud
        • Jussie Smollett’s theatrical infowarfare false-flag attack

        If you feel “We’re in a political war, and lying to help win is a worthwhile tactic”, then I have no sympathy for your position. But, if you feel that “the consent of the governed” implies informed consent, which precludes the 1st Amendment going so far as to allow duping the public leading up to important public decisions (e.g., going to war, elections), then you might be interested in developing Public Frauds civil law as a means of keeping govt. officials, candidates and campaigns honest.

        Note that the left is totally braindead in wanting govt. to police the infospace for deceitful infowarfare — that’s a clear violation of 1A.

        But, using Civil Torts lawsuits (instead of prosecution), the government itself can be sued for lying, and only comes into court as a defendant (respondant). Public Frauds law gives the power to the People to define shirking of free speech responsibilities, and hold deceitful political actors accountable. It could become an effective deterrent, if Public Frauds Courts can muster rapid due-process (keeping pace with infowarriors).
        Public Frauds lawsuits are consistent with 1A, as are Defamation lawsuits where intentional lying is used to harm a reputation. Juries are the ones who act as finders-of-fact.

    3. “From Trump’s latest re-posting on Truth Social, he suggests that he wanted to …”

      PbinCA, when you use the word suggests, the rest of the statement that follows becomes your own fantasy or an idea that you wish to put forward, whether realistic or not. Is that how you want to engage? Instead of using the word suggests, why not use the quote he made followed by your interpretation? You don’t do that because you wish fantasy to prevail rather than the truth.

      “Trump’s paranoid, conspiratorial imagination was that Joe Biden was a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party.”

      There is legitimacy to what Trump is saying, but you don’t like it, so again, you use inappropriate words to meet your needs. There is a lot of evidence that China was involved in Biden’s family dealings, including payments and checks, some of which were delivered to Joe’s home and some deposited into Joe’s account. There is a lot more you wish to push under the rug, but so you hide the truth and spin.

      “Dem activists had committed massive ballot fraud ”

      There is tons of evidence that they did. I’ll provide one that should shake people up so they realize our election process is insecure: 2000 Mules. Do you wish to tell us why you find that evidence invalid?

      “The war-room at the Willard Hotel was working to block Biden’s Inauguration, but the nature of various plans has been so far covered-up.”

      Talking about conspiracy theorists, you are moving up the ladder and closing in on the top echelon. If plans were so well hidden, How do you know something was covered up? It sounds like one of those homeless people walking in the streets muttering but saying nothing. Be careful, or you might be mistaken for them.

      I’ll stop here; I hope when you post again, you will include some facts with your rhetoric.

      1. S. Meyer,
        Well said and an excellent job of pointing out the failures of PbinCA comment.
        I would only add that with the CO SC ruling and the Maine removal of Trump, it is the Democrat party engaging in election interference in an unprecedented way. These actions are a greater threat than anything we have seen since the Civil War.

        1. Thanks, Upstate; I’m tired of the idiocy on the blog. Fact is replaced by fantasy, and political parties are chosen like ball teams, which are inconsequential to our future. John Say has been producing a lot of good material, but the left wishes to avoid dealing with facts, policy, or morality.

          Right now, I am more concerned about Israel and anti-Semitism, which is spiraling to new heights. I don’t know anyone who was killed, but relatives of my friends who I don’t know are now dead. The Biden administration is self-serving and anti-Semitic in its actions, so it will promote continuous warfare until America and the world recognize that terrorists like Hamas must be stopped. My hope is Israel continues the fight until all the terrorists are jailed or killed, but we have seen that many Gazans support the killing, raping, and destruction of the Jewish people.

          1. I don’t know anyone who was killed, but relatives of my friends who I don’t know are now dead.

            A CPA colleague of mine is a Palestinian Muslim who was raised in Gaza and Saudi Arabia. His immediate family came to the United States when he was in his early 20’s @1998. He was horrified and outraged at what Muslim terrorists carried out in Israel. A) Because he does not support the slaughter of Jews/Christians. B) Because he knew exactly what that would mean for his very large extended family living in Gaza. However it’s not as large today by about 75 due to this war. He fully supports the annihilation of Hamas, but is tormented by the suffering and loss of life of the Palestinians that he personally knows do not support Hamas.

            1. “but is tormented by the suffering and loss of life of the Palestinians that he personally knows do not support Hamas.”

              Olly, that weighs heavily on my heart and is another reason I hate Hamas with a passion. They do not care about their people, the people of Gaza. Israel is trying to protect the lives of innocents, but that isn’t easy. I think my friend’s cousin died because Israel was trying to preserve the lives of its enemies. The only solution is to destroy the terrorists, but the US and Europe, along with our enemies, are giving financial support to Iran, which supplies them.

              The fault is anti-Semitism since nations of the world put up with terrorism against the Jews and do not allow Israel to once and for all end the war that has been non-stop for 75 years.

              1. S. Meyer,
                Part of the problem is now, everyone wants a nice, warm and fuzzy war.
                Fact is, war is ugly. It is brutal. And unfortunately civilians die.
                Israel is doing what it can to the degree they can to minimize civilian deaths.
                Does not help when Hamas terrorists, a death cult, does everything they can to put Gazan civilians in harms way to use as propaganda.
                I would argue with you about a non-stop war for 75 years. This is a conflict that has been going on for thousands of years and will continue for another thousand.
                What is the solution? As Israel has displayed by their actions, they were willing to give Gaza full control in exchange for peace. That did not happen.
                Trump was able to get a degree of peace established with Muslim countries will to recognize Israel and even enter into talks for peace. Unfortunately, Iran, seeing weakness in the Biden admin, launched the OCT 7th attack, and causing a ripple effect destroying those talks.

              2. I think my friend’s cousin died because Israel was trying to preserve the lives of its enemies.

                Seth, that is tragic. That reminds me of what conservatives are fighting against in this country and how we have to do that…for now. The Regime is our Iran, the Democratic party is our Hamas and the RINO’s are our Islamic Jihad. The Regime and their proxies couldn’t care less about the American people. The only thing they care about is eliminating all opposition by any means necessary. Conservatives, by our nature, want to preserve the constitutional order for everyone and that includes those efforting to destroy us. There is a limit to that nature and we are being pushed to it.

      2. I’m not defending the despicable Biden Family grifting…I’m glad the House is investigating what the DOJ let slide. I’m also aware that the Chinese $ was given well before anyone knew that Joe Biden would be President.
        I look at it as part of the CCP’s Elite Capture program at the time.

        Let’s remember the time line. Joe Biden was effectively retired, and wasn’t considered likely to run for President ever again. 2 months after leaving the VP Office, the Chinese Energy firm wired $3M to Hunter.
        It was only in 2019 that Jim Clyburn twisted Biden’s arm to run as the “consensus” Dem candidate. So, whatever influence the CCP thought they were buying, it wasn’t with forethought that Biden would become President. We don’t know what they thought they would get back. It’s not clear the Chinese knew.

        Do you see the wild exaggeration and paranoid guesswork of jumping to the conclusion that Biden Sr. was being a “puppet” (covertly controlled) by the CCP as a candidate for President in late 2020?

        You could just as easily accuse Trump of being in the CCP’s pocket because he did not stand up to China’s National Security Law destroying Hong Kong political independence in 2020. What policies of Biden appear to favor Beijing working against US interests? The prosecutions of CCP spies in the US have continued under Biden, as have the technology controls denying China advanced chip-making knowhow. Biden left China policy intact where the Trump Admin left things.

        Getting the CHIPs Act passed in 2022 was a major slap in the face to the CCP, providing subsidies to move next-gen chip-making from Taiwan to Phoenix-Oregon as a strategic US national security imperative. That move refutes the “Manchurian candidate” narrative. It shows China being marginalized.

        So, there’s only unsavory optics and vague conspiracy theory to claim Biden as President-elect in 2020 was a puppet of the CCP.

        1. “So, whatever influence the CCP thought they were buying, it wasn’t with forethought that Biden would become President. ”

          PbinCA, the CCP paid for a corrupt Democrat politician who might be President and had access to things they wanted. Isn’t it amazing that despite your earlier knowledge of the corruption, the Democrats nominated him for President and, to this day, protect him and his revenue stream? They even corrupted the FBI and DOJ to protect the President, denying the truth before and after he won the Presidency. Isn’t this what we should be talking about where an entire party has been in lockstep mode to protect the criminality of the Biden family?

          I can’t say if the CCP has control over Joe Biden, but I can see the evidence that the Biden family is corrupt, and likely Joe Biden is as well, and that money and information are being exchanged.

          “You could just as easily accuse Trump of being in the CCP’s pocket because he did not stand up to China’s National Security Law destroying Hong Kong political independence in 2020.”

          Why? That was something that occurred and didn’t benefit Trump. Further, it was the British that turned over Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997, not the Americans. You blame Trump for too many false things.

          ” What policies of Biden appear to favor Beijing working against US interests?”

          Loads. He has moved Russia closer to China. He got rid of a lot of Trump’s policy combating China. He opened our borders to terrorists, criminals, and drugs, making our country weaker, and he gave up the Bagram Airbase. Biden has weakened America militarily and economically.

          “The prosecutions of CCP spies in the US have continued under Biden,”

          He doesn’t have direct control over that aspect, but there is a degree of control over who gets prosecuted, who gets investigated, and who is informed to get out of Dodge quickly.

          You might not like Trump, but no one needs to like him. The only question is, did he make America better? He did, and Biden made America worse.

      3. “2000 mules” was based on very flawed assumptions and methodology using cell phone tracking data only….with no baseline of normal cellphone location-movement data as a comparison. It was grasping for straws, following Rudy Giuliani’s lame plaintiff lament: “we have theories but no evidence” admission in Court.

        1. PbinCA, there is some similarity to what you say and what ATS said shortly after the documentary. For some reason I still had a copy of my rebuttal to him and the fact checkers. I’ll copy it below. Your comments are dead wrong and demonstrate you neither saw the movie or recognize how much criminality it showed. If you have questions on the documentary ask, but you should see it yourself. It answers many of the questions you are asking when you write your replies.

          • “Ballot harvesting” is a pejorative term for dropping off completed ballots for people besides yourself. The practice is legal in several states but largely illegal in the states”

          FALSE

          The mules engaged in ballot trafficking, which is illegal in all states. Ballot harvesting, legal in some states, has to do with taking a limited number of ballots from family members or dependent people directly to the dropbox.

          That was not done! The ballots were picked up from a central source (ILLEGAL) and then transported to drop boxes in ILLEGAL numbers. There was no relationship between the mule and the one voting, which was also illegal.

          This was BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is ILLEGAL in all fifty states.

          ========
          “The film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020.”

          The evidence is overwhelming, including videos, whistleblowers, and people interviewed who didn’t know what was happening but filled in the empty pieces about what was happening with the ballots.

          It was BALLOT TRAFFICKING WHICH IS ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES.
          ====
          “Plus, experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby.”

          One doesn’t repeatedly go by drop boxes in the middle of the night 10 times, suddenly wearing gloves to prevent fingerprint detection.

          Cellphone location data was good enough that their data located a criminal who performed a criminal act where they were checking pings. They gave the police the information, and the criminal was arrested. So much for this type of garbage from the left.

          “There’s always a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.”

          But the uncertainty disappears as the number of times at the dropbox and the center increases. That is why they didn’t use only three events. They used ten times which would be a far outlier. Videos and other information fill in more of the details.

          The quote is uneducated. The commenter should see the film and stop parroting what the left wants to hear. He needs to state the truth.

          “What’s more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes — increasing the likelihood that innocent citizens got caught in the group’s dragnet, Striegel said.”

          3 AM in the morning would be unusual.

          “Similarly, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might be visiting both a nonprofit’s office and one of those busy areas. ”

          Would they end up at a ballot box ten times? Of course not. One needs to see the film because the data debunk these bogus statements.
          =====

          “A video of a voter dropping off a stack of ballots at a drop box is not itself proof of any wrongdoing, since most states have legal exceptions that let people drop off ballots on behalf of family members and household members.”

          But that means they take the ballot directly from the person to the ballot box, or the ballot becomes illegal. They were taking ballots from an illegal center. That is known as BALLOT TRAFFICKING.

          They were BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is illegal in all 50 states.

          “And True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone ”

          So, according to the article, Philadelphia was the exception, and the other places proved the film’s argument. There was further evidence in Philadelphia. Cameras at ballot boxes are not the only cameras available. But that provides the question, where were the cameras and what happened to the film? It sounds like there was even more unlawful activity going on in Philadelphia.

          I don’t think I need to debunk more of this article. Everyone needs to see the film for themselves. ATS will continue to deceive and lie, but he can’t do that to people armed with the truth.

  12. The clear text of 14A says that one who participates in an insurrection is not eligible for any office. Trump engaged in an illegal two month long attempted coup. That most defiantly is an insurrection. Trump is ineligible for office. All the arguments to the contrary involve dancing around the clear meaning of the words.

    1. Only in your deranged TDS mind there was an attempted coup or an insurrection.

      1. What else was it? Trump lost the election. He engaged in an illegal effort to install himself as an unelected President. He tried to nullify the election. That is a coup.

        1. Trump won the election, you criminals stole it. Just as your demonic party said it would, and bragged it did afterwards.

          Defending the truth and exposing the criminals is not an insurrection or a coup.

          1. To steal the election, it would have taken thousands of people from the local, state and federal level (including appointed members of Trump’s administration) to all be in secret cooperation. Hundreds of very partisan Republicans have scoured the entire country looking for evidence of this and nothing was found. Any “evidence” they did find was quickly debunked (such as 2000 Mules).

            Trump was historically unpopular, all prediction indicators showed a Trump loss, and all polls showed Trump behind.

    2. The far-right loves originalism and textualism when it serves it’s goals, not so much when it goes against their goals.

      1. Likewise for you. Thus it is all of our duty to keep originalism and textualism active and at the fore when either side tries to flush it down the toilet.

    3. “The clear text . . .”

      Try using the word “clear” 5 or 6 more times. Maybe then people will swallow your arbitrary assertions.

      1. It is clear that you can not clearly see what others can clearly see and that is the clear meaning of the word clear.

        1. Your repeated use of the word, “clear” is a gross display of not only how wrong you are but how desperate you are to push your leftist narrative.
          I have noted how you leftists appear to be getting more and more desperate as of late as to not only your repeated and failure to push the insurrection narrative but the various word salad and mental gymnastics when Ian, John Say and others point out your failures to understand the law and Constitution.

    4. whereas Al Gore only engaged in a one month long attempted coup. And no is trying to put him in jail! So, that extra month makes all the difference.

  13. JT said,… “Politicians on both sides of the aisle have criticized the decision by Maine’s secretary of state and urged that the courts overturn it.”

    It is also true that Politicians on both sides of the aisle have support the decision by Maine’s secretary of state.

    Why not admit the truth JT?

      1. Your correct, I stand corrected, the Republican Party no longer exists. It was taken over in 2016 by Libertarians and Constitution party members that got tired of loosing elections. They joined up to support the fascist trump and succeeded in transforming the Republican Party into a fascist racist misogynist trump party. So you are correct.

        But I will say there are a great many former Republican Party members that agree there was in insurrection, trump was part of it, and should be barred from office.

        But go ahead, put him on the ballot, he will loose because he is a looser. He never got a majority of popular vote, will get even fewer votes next time. His chosen candidates more often loose than win. Go ahead put the looser on the ballot, when he looses next time will he concede? Doubtful.

    1. The 14A is clear. Trump is not eligible for office. It is the Rs that are ignoring the law.

      1. 14A does not apply to the office. It contols who can be an Officer. (hint the President is not an officer of the United States)

        1. That is reading a loophole into the 14A that is not there. Historical evidence and other language in the Constitution demonstrates that the President is an officer.

          1. The Congress with 2/3rds vote can remove such a disability.

            “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

            14th direct text

            https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

            Pray tell demonic genius, when does Congress exercise it’s authority ? Before or after some rogue hothead demoncrats in whatever States remove the right to vote for the candidate of the People ?

            How brain dead are you people ? When should or does Congress act, considering the direct text of the Constitution ? You want to tell me how that plays out ? What’s your theory ?

            1. Congress alone can remove the disability, but Congress is not needed to impose the disability.

        2. The President holds an Office, therefore, he is an officer. Plus, if the reasoning of 14c is to keep militant renegades from gaining official power (subversive capture), then why would you make an exception for the highest executive officer? That defies common sense.

          1. Because the People decide if the person is actually guilty of insurrection. NOT judges, NOT congress critters. THE PEOPLE

            Its a huge jury trial. Judging the facts and judging the law. OUR entire criminal justice system is anchored in the citizen Jury.
            The Drafters of 14th amendment carried this core principle through to the amendment. All BUT the President are chosen by small local voting blocks or appointed by officers of the Government or approved by the Senate.

            Note the amendment states, I paraphrase, this applies to Representative, Senators, Electors of the President and Vice President, and officers of the United States.

            The drafters specifically exempted the President, needed to enumerated Representatives, Senators.
            The Drafters understood, in the lexicon of the Constitution. That” Officer “of the United States NEVER refereed to the elected legislature or President. They are not officers of the United States Government . . . . They are the Government.

  16. The concerning thing about Maine, and one that sets a very dangerous precedent, is that the Secretary of State has unilaterally decided to remove a candidate for a crime he has not even been accused of in a court of law. If candidates can be removed simply because of imaginary crimes, where will this end?

    There is a good reason Trump has not been accused of insurrection in a court. If he were, he would have the opportunity to defend himself, and subjects would arise such as “What is an insurrection?” (an armed or violent takeover of a government). “Who was Trump insurrecting against?” himself, since he was still in the WH and the GOP controlled the Senate. “How were a few hundred unarmed Grandma’s intending to take over their own government?” By taking selfies and using the restroom since Mayor Bowser had closed all public restrooms on Jan 5 and 6.

    None of it makes any sense at all. Even if you ignore the growing mountain of evidence that J6 was a setup by the FBI and others, as Professor Turley seems determined to do, you still cannot call it an insurrection.

    The dexterity of the left in taking control of words and twisting them into whatever they want them to mean (see: “vaccine,” “woman,” “Insurrection”) is at the root of many of the evils of our society. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but when you start calling the exercise of first amendment rights an “insurrection,” then there’s a problem. A big problem. And calling the problem a solution does not change the facts.

    1. Anonymous, your comment is too good for you to remain as anonymous. By remaining anonymous you get confused with the usual idiots that want to hide their identity, please create a name.

      1. HullBobby,
        Well said.
        Your comment, commenting on THAT Anonymous comments being so good is the only reason I read THAT Anonymous’s comment.
        And it was a good comment.
        Bill Barr stated something along the same lines on The Free Press the other day.

        1. Upstate,
          Your comment to Hullbobby, acknowledging his comment, regarding a great comment by an anonymous contributor, still won’t get me to read any anonymous comment. To do so reminds me of a stage during my Chief Petty Officer initiation ceremony. It involved a trough, some truly nasty slop (including vomit) and my soon-to-be anchors. I was told that if I went into the trough head first searching for my anchors (reading anonymous comments) and found them (this anonymous), that would be the end of my initiation process. Since this was in the beginning of a lengthy process, I took the risk and of course lost.

          There is tremendous value in a unique ID to me. We have our regulars. I will read about 10 of them and ignore about 7. I will ignore all of them if they are a reply to or from an anonymous contributor. Sometimes we’ll get a comment from an ID I haven’t seen before. I’ll read them and perhaps even reply to them. It’s an efficient use of my time and it certainly makes this blog far more valuable to me.

    2. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is primarily about preventing “highly disloyal” Americans (not necessarily criminal) from ever obtaining governing authority ever again (but only if they have betrayed their previous oath of office loyalty oath like Trump did by giving aid & comfort to insurrectionists).

      Section 3 is only valid if such an official betrayed their oath of office loyalty oath! Trump swore a loyalty oath to follow the constitutional rule of law. Trump instead chose to subvert the U.S. Constitution and constitutional due process.

      Section 3 is about banning the most disloyal Americans from holding power in the future. Not a crime, like Trump’s 91 felony indictments.

      1. Section 5

        The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

        *please point to the legislation that enforces 14*

    3. “The dexterity of . . .”

      Well said.

      “. . . where will this end?”

      See the French Revolution.

    4. “The concerning thing about Maine, and one that sets a very dangerous precedent, is that the Secretary of State has unilaterally decided to remove a candidate for a crime he has not even been accused of in a court of law.”

      First, he wasn’t removed for a crime, but for a disqualifying act. 14A s3 is a civil law. Second, there is no “dangerous precedent.” ME law makes the SoS the first person to make the determination, and then it moves to the ME courts. Trump has already appealed the SoS’s determination.

      “How were a few hundred unarmed Grandma’s intending to take over their own government?”

      Most were men. And a number of them were armed. As you could find for yourself simply by searching on “firearm” and “weapon” in the searchable database, https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases The broke into the Capitol and caused the evacuation of Congress. There is no “growing mountain of evidence that J6 was a setup by the FBI and others.” You’re deluded.

      1. if Trump got a parking ticket in DC, he would probably be deigned an insurrectionist.

  17. The Supreme Court needs to make a sound ruling, hopefully 9 to zip, against Colorado, Maine and every other left wing radical legal attempt to apply the 14th amendment. I can see a 8 to1 or 7 to 2, depending on if the radical lunatics of the DEMs get to the Dem Justices.

  18. We need more than a unanimous decison – we need on with some meaning.

    There are several technical grounds the court could evade this.

    We actually have a situation much like Bush V. Gore only worse.

    Many on the left think the Bush V. Gore decision was wrong. They are correct that it was weak.
    The core problem is just exactly what Roberts said in his testimony – it decided nothing.

    The core issue in 2000 as now is exactly the same – what is the state courts role in federal elections.
    This BTW was also the issue in the recent ISL case – moore, where SCOTUS fumbled.

    Those on the left think that SCOTUS decided the election in 2000, But exactly the same would have been true of the State courts decision was left to stand in 2000, and the same would be true now if CO was left to stand.

    We MUST follow the law FIRST and Foremost. In FL in 2000 the state courts refused to follow the law.
    We do not have to like the law – if the law is wrong and the courts follow the law, the people through the legislature can change the law.

    But when courts ignore the state law as they did in 2000 or make up the law as they want – which we saw all over the place in 2020, or we are seeing now in Colorado, That is when we have the courts deciding elections.

    I do not like A14S3 – it was a bad idea, and the behavior of those who wrote is after words – invoking it only 5 times and successfully only 3 and then ignoring it hundreds possibly thousands of times. was the right choice – on that CO SCOTUS was too stupid to grasp.

    Regardless, we have the 14th amendment and we are stuck with it as it is written.

    I would greatly prefer that SCOTUS did NOT decide that the president is not covered by the 14th amendment. While I think that is true based on the text, it is a small and pendantic decision that will not make a strong enough statement – because frankly this is beyond the 14th amendment.

    The message the courts SHOULD have sent in 2000, the one they should have sent in 2020, and the one they need to send now, is that it is not the business of courts to decide elections. Only the law, and then as narrowly as possible.

    In FL in 2000 the FL courts had no business waiving FL or federal law on state certification to allow a protracted recount to continue.
    Gore had avenues after the SC decision – just as Trump did in 2020. He could have appealed to congress.

    Or the FL courts could have allowed the recount to continue – though only if there was a state wide recount, but allowed FL to certify.
    If the recount had found a different result AFTER certification – Gore could have challenged certification – in the courts or in congress – as Trump did.

    With respect to the recent CO decision – I think the strongest decision that SCOTUS can make is that the 14th amendment is NOT self executing.
    14S5 requires congress to pass laws, it did at the time, they are no longer in effect, That makes A14S3 a constitutional dead letter until Congress decides to revive it.

    Can the courts decide whether there was an insurrection or not – without a trial ? NO. But congress can.
    This is a political question and it belongs with congress. Which also is what the framers of the 14th seemed to conclude.

    The text also bars Holding office – not running for office. Again Congress can decide as they did in 1876, and as Trump asked in 2020, and as Gore could have asked in 2000 whether to accept the election results. Whether the elected person shall be allowed to hold office.

    Our congress is messed up and makes political decisions badly. Regardless, political choices belong to the legislature – not the courts.

    To be clear – I do not beleive that sending political questions to congress or legislatures is going to fix the broken problems with this country right now. But it will move towards fixing our politically broken courts.

    1. John Say, your comment is on point but you ignore that in ME the activist appointed lady is not even acting as a court, she is acting all on her own.

      1. ME law makes the SoS the person who first responds to challenges. Then it moves to the courts. If you think the ME law is unconstitutional, say why. Otherwise, all you have is your dislike of it.

    2. I agree with much of what John Say has written about the 2000 election. The Florida Supreme Court didn’t follow the law, they made it up to reach the conclusion they wanted. Their decision would not have granted Gore the election, the completed recount would have had to have Gore take the lead which did not happen though it might have. The SCOTUS decision to block Florida had a basis in the law which doesn’t mean it wasn’t partisan as well. I never viewed Bush as illegitimate though we will never know if he would have won had the partial or even a full recount been completed.

      I disagree with your assumption that the people have redress through their legislators. In Florida, the people passed a Constitutional Amendment restoring the voting rights of non-violent felons yet the legislature overrode that. The people established the Sunshine Law yet DeSantis and the legislature decided he is exempt (retroactively) when it comes to his travel records and more. The legislature passed a relatively reasonable redistricting map and the governor threw it out and imposed his own. There is no pretense that the people matter in Florida though in 2000 it wasn’t as clear.

      The president should not be exempt from the 14th Amendment, that is exactly the same thing as saying one man is above the law as is the so-called presidential immunity. There should be a finding of guilt before applying it to remove someone from the ballot and for that reason Colorado and Maine’s efforts will fail. The legal process with all its delays that have kept the courts from reaching a finding is ridiculous. SCOTUS has a role in drawing this out which suggests an agenda.

      Turley is concerned that SCOTUS will look partisan, that ship sailed long ago after Shelby, Dobbs, and Citizen’s United. Deciding this case in favor of Trump won’t make them look and more partisan than they do and after a brief media cycle will disappear.

      1. The president should not be exempt from the 14th Amendment, that is exactly the same thing as saying one man is above the law as is the so-called presidential immunity

        Our Nations Criminal Justice system is anchored in the power of the citizen Jury.

        For the 14th Amendment, all the citizens of the United States, sit in judgement of the facts and the law. IF the citizens vote for the President (Electors). Then the Citizens have delivered their ruling.

        1. The Electoral College is not the mechanism to overturn the Constitution. The 14th Amendment is eithe in the Constitution or it isn’t. The provision to exclude people based on age, certain type of citizenship, and whether they have engaged in insurrection exists and can’t be ignored. Trump is not exempt.

          On the other hand, until he’s found guilty of insurrection, he shouldn’t be removed from the ballot. If you don’t think that provision should exist, have at it with a new Amendment. Unless you want to suspend the Constitution at your convenience like Trump has stated in a different context.

          1. enigma — Except that 14A does not specify ‘found guilty” but rather just the fact of insurrection. The same way as the age qualification.

            1. If you don’t have a measure to establish the fact of insurrection, everyone will be accused. Being found guilty is a standard, if you have another I’d be happy to consider it. Mant people “felt” Obama wasn’t qualified because they thought he was born elsewhere and his birth certificate was forged. Their thoughts weren’t enough to keep him off the ballot. I think Trump is guilty and was part of the plot to overturn the election. The war room featuring his pals who were communicating with his staff wasn’t an accident. Yet it should be proven before we start throwing people off ballots based on opinions.

              1. enigma — Surely the Colorado court delt with this in their 133 page opinion.

            2. “Except that 14A does not specify ‘found guilty” but rather just the fact of insurrection. The same way as the age qualification.”

              You and countless others are dropping the context. That was war time; this is not. Age qualification is determined by looking at a piece of paper. A crime (and potential punishment) is not.

              But even after war time, such a “fact” (let alone conviction and punishment) is established by a *criminal* trial. Thus the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.

  19. America’s model of government is a “Constitutional Democratic Republic” not a “pure democracy”. Our government represents the voters within the legal boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. It’s perfectly proper for courts to intervene when politics operates outside constitutional lines – even in presidential elections.

    The Judicial Branch courts draw the constitutional out-of-bounds.

    If eligibility laws under the U.S. Constitution are meaningless, teenagers could run for president. Foreign born persons could run for president.

    Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama could also run in 2024 – it would be “undemocratic” to deny voters this choice, if the Constitution’s eligibility laws are meaningless.

    James Madison was strongly opposed to “pure democracy” calling it the “tyranny of the majority”. Courts absolutely have a role in every election when those constitutional lines are crossed.

    1. It is the role of courts to confine government to the constraints within the constitution and the law.
      It is not the tole of courts to make law.

      The CO decision makes law.
      There are innumerable ways it is ludicrously stupid.

      The self executing claim is wrong both as a matter of normal constutional interpretation and the actual text.
      A14S5 reguires congress to pass laws to make A14S3 take effect. NOT self executing.
      Absent such laws – no state, no court has the power to even try to decide what A14S3 means.
      Congress passed such laws in the past. they are gone now.
      That should not suprise as no one sought to enforce A14S3 against the hundreds possibly thousands of people it would have applied to who held office – including on the US Supreme court after the war.

      Turley noted the teribbly pedantic, but constitutionally correct argument that A14S3 does not apply to the president.

      The text also does not apply to running for office it applies to holding office.
      The 14th amendment does not permit anyone from running for office.
      It empowers congress the power to refuse to allow them to take office.

      If Trump wins in 2024 and congress decides in 2025 that Trump participated in an insurrection, it can choose not to allow him to hold office.
      In which case the GOP VP becomes president. I doubt congress will do that.

      But that is also a message regarding the other idiotic J6 prosecutions – Congress has the power to accept or reject the outcomes of elections – for pretty much any reason they please. Doing so is something they should take extreme care with – they did so in 1876. They did so in 1800.
      They could have done so in 2020. Arguably they could have done so in 2000.
      Congress would be wise not to do so except under the most extraordinary circumstances.
      But that is where these decision belong.

      Another option is the text of the 14th amendment.
      To the extent that courts can apply the text, they MUST do so narrowly. That is again a high priority rule of statutory construction.
      It may not require a conviction to bar someone for insurrection – but it requires an actual insurrection.The CO courts finding that there was an insurrection is constitutionally overbroad. This is probably the strongest grounds.

      One thing that YOU and democrats should consider is when you open the ratsnest of allowing courts overboard interpretations of the language of the constitution or the law – what is good for the goose is good for the gander. What is occuring at the souther border right now is arguably an invasion. Using the broad langauge the CO courts used to conclude there was an insurrection – Biden has aided and abetted the enemies of the US on multiple occasions.
      We should not remove Trump from the ballot based on overly broad claims that he participated in an insurrection.
      We should not remove Biden from the ballot based on overly broad claims of his participation in an insurrection as well as providing aid to U enemies.

      Both claims are absurd.

      Turley points out the free speech issues here.
      A decision against CO on free speech grounds would either obliterate or severely narrow Smiths DC case and Willis’s case.

      accepting for the sake of argument the dangerous and stupid claim there was an insurrection, you either need evidence Trump participated in it in some way Beyond his remarks at the elipse which no one has found – even democrats impeaching Trump did not find evidence of actual participation insurrection – regardless of their rhetroric. If the claims against Trump focus on his remarks at the ellipse or other public exhortations – then to get past the first amendment the courts must find that Trumps remarks met the constitutional standard for incitement.
      And it is inarguable they did not.

      A first amendment decision would severely limit the DC and GA prosecutions as well.

      Arguably the first amendment decision is the best one available to SCOTUS.

      It is SCOTUS’s job to decide what constitutes first amendment protected speech and what does not.
      And there is more than a century of precident that Trump’s speech is protected.
      Constitutional rights will ALWAYS trump 14th amendment government powers.

      1. 14AS5 gives Congress the power enforce 14A, but does not require it for the 14A to go into effect. It is an absurd idea that Congress can nullify parts of the Constitution by failing to pass a law, or by passing a law that contradicts the Constitution.

        14AS3 is clear that Trump is not eligible for office.

        1. Sammy is saying that the 14th A, AS WRITTEN, is null and void since it gives Congress specific power??? So in Sammy’s little brain 14S3 good, 14S5 bad.

          1. HullBobby,
            Sammy is so consumed by his TDS he twists things to make them fit his fevered delusions, see things that are not there and make statements as if they mean anything.

        2. The power is given to Congress, not some colorado kook or some maine mothballhead.

          https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

          ” Section 4
          The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
          *THE LINCOLN NORTH SHALL BE PAID*
          But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
          *THE CONFEDERATE SOUTH SHALL NOT BE PAID ONE DIME*

          ” Section 5

          The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

          *THE CONGRESS, BOTH HOUSES, WILL WRITE UP THE LAWS CONCERNING 14*

          *SO WHERE ARE THE LAWS CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN*

          “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

          *ONCE AGAIN, CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY, AND UNLESS THEY WROTE LAWS TO PUT THE AUTHORITY SOMEWHERE ELSE, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY ANYWHERE ELSE*

        3. Sammy – The bar in section 3 can be “in effect” without being an enforceable law. It is simply a legal nullity at this point because the Congress did not choose to enforce it. After a passage of years, all of the Confederates died away and there was no reason to try to enforce it. It is a vestigial organ of the Constitution.

    2. Article II of the constitution says that a person who is not old enough or born in the US is not eligable to be president.

      The 14th amendment says shall not hold office.

      Ineligibility bars you from the ballot.

      Holding office is NOT an eligability constraint that is obvious both fromt eh Shall hold text and from the text allowing congress to remove the disability. This is a determination that congress must make after election and prior to taking office.
      That is not only the plain text, but it is also the historical application fo the 14th amendment – 5 people were challenged on 14th amendment grounds – when they were to take office in congress. 3 were barred by congress, 2 were not. Hundreds more were completely ignored by congress. I am not aware of a single instance ever where the 14th amendment was used to exclude someone from the ballot.

      I would note that we do have an instance were a presidential candidate was removed from the ballot in the past.
      Lincoln was removed from 10 southern states in 1860.

      Is that the precident you want to rely on ?

  20. The Colorado case isn’t moot, since the state can still remove Trump from the ballot, either in the primary or in the general. If it takes the case, I think the Court will hold that Section 3 does not apply to the President, or that states cannot apply Section 3 absent an enabling federal law or a federal conviction for insurrection or rebellion.

    The Maine case could be resolved by the Maine courts on the grounds that, under the Maine statute at issue, the Secretary of State had no authority to consider the 14th Amendment. That is one of several arguments Trump makes in his complaint.

    1. One of the reasons that SCOTUS needs a strong slapdown of this nonsense is speciifically becausr there are SO MANY reasons these decisions are wrong.

      CO does not have 14th amendment enabling legislation,
      The congressional enabling legislation went away long ago.
      The 14th amendment can not abrogate the 1st amendment and clear was not intended to.

      Possibly the biggest of all – fundimentally this constitutes making law.

      We can not have private parties suing states to get courts to decide things like whether an insurrection occured or whether Trump participated.

      I am not entirely convinced that Trump must be convicted of insurrection for the A14S3 to apply.
      At the same time – a courts conclusion in a private lawsuit is NOT sufficient.

      This is not a matter that courts can act unilaterally.

      1. John Say,
        The CO SC “ruling” puts us on the path of chaos where any state can issue a “ruling” that this person, or that person cannot be on the ballot.

    2. That is a clear and concise comment Daniel. Well done.

      Without a unanimous ruling from SCOTUS, other states will use that as an opening to disenfranchise millions of voters, all in the name of saving our democracy.

      1. OLLY,
        “Without a unanimous ruling from SCOTUS, other states will use that as an opening to disenfranchise millions of voters, all in the name of saving our democracy.”
        And getting us that much closer to civil war they are pushing us closer and closer.

        1. And getting us that much closer to civil war they are pushing us closer and closer.

          Upstate, the Regime is still in control of the levers of power. They will be itching for an excuse to declare a national emergency to grease the skids for states to “modify” their electoral process to save steal our democracy.

    3. Trump argues lots of things, but that doesn’t make them true. ME law gives the SoS that authority: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec337.html
      What part of that law do you find unconstitutional?

      Historically, states did “apply Section 3 absent an enabling federal law or a federal conviction for insurrection or rebellion.” The most recent example is the disqualification of Couy Griffin in 2022: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/D101CV202200473-griffin.pdf

      1. Oh, so the nutballs pushing the very same lie about J6 “historically” (in other words, yesterday, on the very same issue, not historically)
        pushed their own power above the text of the Constitution and the clear mandate that Congress shall pass legislation controlling the power of the 14th.

        Why you people have to lie to try to spin a point and then post 49 pages you never read or even outlined as proof of your twisted mischaracterizations, make it so easy to oppose you, HISTORICALLY.

    4. The state removing Trump from the ballot could be viewed as a separate action, certainly in the general (See, the MN / WI cases).

Comments are closed.