Below is my column in USA Today on the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to reject the disqualification of former president Donald Trump from the 2024 election. Some Democrats are now seeking to resume the effort through Congress to prevent voters from being able to vote for the leading candidate for the presidency.
Here is the column:
“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.” Those words from the Supreme Court in its Trump v. Anderson ruling on Monday put an end to the effort of Democratic secretaries of state to engage in ballot cleansing by removing former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election.
The court’s decision was one of the most important and impactful moments in its history.
During the first Trump impeachment in 2019, I cautioned Democrats not to toss aside constitutional standards out of their hatred for the president. I quoted from the play “A Man For All Seasons,” when Sir Thomas More is told by his son-in-law that he would “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” More responded, “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?”
As More described England, the United States also is “planted thick with laws, from coast to coast.” The nation’s highest court on Monday decided to leave them standing.
After months of activists and experts calling for the court to allow ballot cleansing by individual states, the justices refused. Figures like Harvard professor Laurence Tribe had insisted that the legal theory allowing Trump’s removal from ballots was “unassailable” and rejected opposing positions as “absurd.”
Many news outlets posted the analysis of former federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig, who also called the theory “unassailable” and denounced the arguments against disqualification as “revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical.” He predicted that the court would simply affirm the Colorado Supreme Court.
Democratic members of Congress further pushed the narrative that only judicial activists and MAGA justices would oppose disqualification. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., declared: “This is their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.”
Well, the court rejected that “unassailable” theory in a unanimous decision. While Tribe’s view was repeated with little contradiction on many networks and newspapers for months, it failed to garner a single vote from either the left or the right of the court.
Things are not going well for those seeking to remake the nation. In 2020, Harvard professor Michael Klarman warned that all of the plans to change the country were ultimately dependent on packing the court. With the 2020 election, he stated that Democrats could change the election system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.”
However, Klarman conceded that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described,” so the court itself had to be changed.
Now that the three progressive justices have joined their conservative colleagues in ruling for Trump, they apparently also will have to go. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that “the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”
The problem for many on the left is that the unanimous decision shattered the narrative repeated for months that Colorado would be reversed because the conservative justices would robotically protect Trump (despite the fact that they have repeatedly ruled against Trump and his policies). Now, by Rep. Raskin’s measure, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are no longer acting as “real Supreme Court justices.”
Supreme Court transcended ideological divisions
The fact is that the Supreme Court justices have proved, again, that they are precisely the “real Supreme Court justices” that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The court was created to be able to transcend our divisions and politics. On Monday, a court sharply divided along ideological grounds showed the nation that it could speak with one voice. In doing so, it spoke to the things that bind us to each other, including an article of faith in our Constitution that defines us all.
In the news media and in universities, there is a persistent message that the court and the Constitution are the problem. In a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically” altered to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks previously went on MSNBC to warn citizens not to become “slaves” to the Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin even called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.”
The lumberjack school of constitutional law is the rage on our campuses. Free from the obstructions of constitutional demands, activists (and a newly constituted court) could set about pursuing the devil as a nation of Ropers.
Supreme Court ruling provides moment of clarity
Despite the push of court packing and extreme interpretations of the law, most Americans continue to cling to America’s core institutions and constitutional values.
For those reasons, this opinion could be one of the most significant in the court’s history, not because of what it did but what it would not allow to be done.
It is a moment of clarity for a nation mired in rage politics. It was not just the opinion that brought that clarity but what followed the opinion.
A day after the unanimous ruling, millions of citizens will line up at polling places around the country to vote for their preferred candidates. It is their choice and privilege as citizens. They are also speaking with one voice. Not for a particular party or person, but as free people claiming their right to choose their own leaders.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on X, formerly Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Democrats ignore the Constitution and continue their crimes. Anyone get punished for their OBVIOUS Conspiracy and the USA?
Unless we start jailing and punishing(DEFUNDING) these Democrats, they will continue their fascism!
Democrats are Fascists
Republicans fund Democrats…why?
End all Federal Aid to cities, states, colleges and non-profits where anyone gets $100k
Let Democrat fund their own failure!
What part of the Constitution do Democrats ignore. I am sure you can give specific examples.
Sammy, Eviction Moratorium, Student Debt Relief, Vaccine Mandate, arresting praying protesters and not fire bomb throwers, not enforcing the border, going after political opponents. Now tell us how Trump will end democracy.
HullBobby,
Great comment!
Eviction moratorium is part of interstate commerce as is Student debt relief. The constitution does not mention immigration law and certainly does not mandate it. Going after political opponents is valid. Everything else was a state issue that is not part of the constitution.
Sammy,
Buy yourself a civics textbook. Or watch this!
A lease is a contract, and the constitution of the united states explicitly forbids government from interfering in the obligations of contract.
Nothing else was a “state issue” and the constitution p[rovides innumerable hurdles to the states as well as the federal
government.
The government should not be giving people loans – not students, not big business. It should not be guaranteeing loans.
It should not be forgiving loans. Government can not do these things without picking winners and losers.
It can not do so without distorting society in unpredictable ways.
The left seems to think that govenrment can not tell women what they can do with their body – abortion.
but can tell everyone what they must do with their body – vaccines.
The constitution gives control of our national borders to the president and empowers congress to make the laws that the president must follow, and the presidents oath of office requires him to faithfully execute those laws.
The rule of law does not require us to universally agree on what the constitution and the law SHOULD be.
It does require that we follow the law and constitution AS THEY ARE.
And that if we do not like them AS THEY ARE, that we work though the deliberately supermajoritarian process of changing them.
The rule of law subjects all of us to the constitution and duly passed laws of the country.
But it requires that those laws are passed in a process that requires super majoritarian consent.
Majorities of the house, the senate, and the president. As well as the courts confirming that the laws are constitutional.
The constitution itself requires super majorities of the house, the senate and 3/4 of all state legislatures to change.
The process of law making is HARD – because the result is the empowerment of govenrment to legitimately use force to restrict the rights of the people. That can not be done by simple majority.
When we see the executive making up law on its own. When we have prosecutors trying to force the law to fit unusual circumstances, When we have judges and even juries giving their impramatur to that reshaping of the law that did NOT go through the normal super majoritarian process – we are lawless. What we have is the rule of man, not law.
Sammy, the Commerce Clause is under Article I, you know, the Article that grants CONGRESS powers, not some idiot, brain dead tyrant president. So the Student Loan and Eviction Moratorium were both contra to the CONSTITUTION.
How would you feel if Trump decided to give landlords the right to double rents for three months due to perceived hardships of ownership? Would you be so sanguine about that EO? Would that just be a Commerce Clause issue?
Stop it, you are making a fool of yourself.
The actual 14th amendment comes immediately to mind.
As the recent decision demonstrates – neither the plait text, nor the history of the 15th amendment supports the claims of those on the left.
I would note that had their been a REAL insurrection on J6, The house fwould have impeached Trump unanimously,
The Senate would have convicted him removed him from office and barred him from seeking office unaniimously.
DOJ would then have prosecuted him and jailed him immediately.
And all this would have been done with the near unanimous support of all the people.
The vast majority of the day to day application of the law is pretty uncontroversial – and definitely not political.
When a person stands trial for murder – the normal question is whether the facts support a conviction for murder.
Not whether the law barring murder applies when being insulted on FB results in someone dying of a heart attack.
When a person is tried for murder – it is very rare for anything to be significantly political. We do not consider how jurors voted in an election as a guide to how they will decide guilt.
We do not seek to charge the Crime in the 2% of the country where the person charged will get a trial with prosecutors judges and jurors who hate them.
We do not have problems with “the rule of law” ordinarily – because we are not asking judges and juries to decide if some conduct is a crime, only whether that conduct occured.
When it is clear that as little as 10% of people do not even accept that the allegations constitute a crime.
When it is clear that positions on whether a crime even occured vary based on political viewpoint/
When the law has never been used like this before.
That is when we know that we are dealing with Roper’s trying to mow down all the tress of the law to get to the devil.
That is when we know we are dealing with the rule of man. not law.
That is when – no matter who is being accused, and no matter how we might hate them,
We must stand up for the rule of law not man.
Turley is correct – this was a momentous supreme court decision.
Those on the left should heed it carefully.
SCOTUS not merely said this was ludicrously stupid weaponized politics,
But that it MUST STOP.
Return to the rule of law, or we are headed for violence, anarchy, chaos.
John Say,
Well said.
Cry harder.
The only ones crying are leftists.
Sane, normal Democrats see the SCOTUS decision as a good ruling.
Talking to yourself Wally?? Because the only ones crying are the lying Progressives that you are part of.
Despite all the flowery crap from Truley, the court did ignore the plain language of the 14A and added the word “Only” to 14/5 that is not there. And the scathing pseudo dissent is almost unprecedented. This is going to be looked at in the same lens as Dred Scott and Plessy. And on top of that crap they still left open the core issue unresolved.
And the scathing pseudo dissent is almost
Your cup overfloweth with qualifying language.
Sammy is the Einstein that just yesterday gave us the term “scathing concurrence” . I guess Sammy is a brilliant idiot.
Without the qualifier, maybe.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
. . . “only” is implied, since section 5 addresses enforcement and refers only to Congress. Expressio unius, exclusio alterus – or something like that.
The Professor is to be congratulated for his avoidance of mentioning (for the thousandth time) that he objected to Trump’s J6 speech even while it was being delivered. This was no small accomplishment on Turley’s part, apparently aided by his dislike for Lawrence Tribe, which seems to be even greater than his dislike of Trump. It’s almost as if Captain Ahab finally realized at long last that there’s a fish he obsessively despises more than Moby Dick.
Anyway — thankfully — when all of the law professors go back to doing whatever it is that they THINK they do, we are STILL left with Trump’s clear J6 admonition that the PROTESTERS remain PEACEFUL while making their voices heard — as the FREE people that MOST of them were and still are.
So it doesn’t really matter what a bunch of biased, stale, collegiate halfwits PRETEND to think happened on January 6, 2021. These over-priced ENEMIES of the LAW are free to continue to LIE about the “insurrection” that they CLAIM occurred on J6 when relatively-peaceful protesters were LED and simultaneously ATTACKED by federal agents disguised as Trump supporters — like fake “Indians” throwing contraband overboard at the Boston Tea Party — and they can continue attempting to foment their own REAL insurrection by calling for the Supreme Court to be ignored or ruined.
Apparently, law professors now believe that pretesting is insurrection but openly and repeatedly calling for the third Branch of our government to be overthrown is not.
Fortunately the unwashed public has the wisdom to laugh at the law professors, point out the pretend Indians of the FBI, and ignore the seditious frauds that call themselves the “media.” And in the end we are left wondering whether the likes of Rupert Murdoch and a few other media moguls have learned anything. The answer to that query is probably OF COURSE NOT. So the battle for hearts and minds goes on.
Meanwhile, it appears from rumors of what’s to come that, like fhs media moguls, RINO Haley has also learned nothing, and will now be looking for further instructions and funding to carry on her SILLY fight against reality.
apparently aided by his dislike for Lawrence Tribe, which seems to be even greater than his dislike of Trump.
This is your problem. You are blinded by personalities, causing you to get the facts comically wrong.
Turley does not dislike Trump, or Tribe. He disagrees with their ideas, words, tone and tenor. Turley supports the rule of law and the Constitution. Your are so discombobulated because Turley’s support of the Constitution, in fact, neatly aligns with President, Donald J. Trump’s actions while carrying out his agenda.
LOL — sorry, Turley troll, but I’ve been reading Turley’s daily columns since YEARS before you showed up with your fake screen name and insipid “Well said” replies to some of the stupidest comments ever written in the English language — or what passes for the English language with the likes of halfwits such as you.
Turley HATES Trump and has since before Turley hooked up with convicted multiple-felon Michael Avenatti and porn queen Stormy Daniels to repeatedly bash Trump. That;s really more reply than you deserve, hired troll.
Maybe you should ask a grownup to explain the gist of my comment to you, because in the introductory paragraph of my comment I actually congratulated Turley for FINALLY getting over his compulsive, mindless, Chicago-democrat hatred of Trump — an Ahab-like delusional, compulsive hatred for the White Whale — compared with the other “lawyers” cited by Turley, who are more professional democrats and demagogues than they are professional lawyers.
And actually, there’s no evidence that Turley has finally freed his mind from being enslaved by his hatred of Trump. Rather, the available evidence is merely that Turley might — keyword “might” — have finally realized that there are bigger, more-dangerous whales in the sea than Moby Trump.
How much does Turley pay you to infest his comment section all day every day with your total garbage?
The implications is that law professors such as Laurence Tribe aren’t professors — they are just political hacks using their positions to spread an ideology and not teach the law. They are people who have gone up through the ranks in institutions that have forgotten the responsibility of ‘Institutions of Higher Learning’. They are not only dishonest to their titles but to their students. Perhaps they should be considered insurrectionists — leading an ‘insurrection of thought’. They are far more dangerous to the nation than protestors who gather without arms. They ban together with hate and can only exist with the silence of opposing thoughts. The only way to stop this is with courage to say ‘no’. I applaud Jonathan Turley and all those who still speak up and each of you who contribute with your comments. Agree or disagree, we have the ability to speak and that is a gift of our Constitution. We can’t let this be debased by people who little care for us, our nation and the future of our citizens.
Our nation was founded upon principles of freedom which were set out in the Constitution. If you do away with the Constitution, then you are doing away with America. If Luttig and others take the position that the principles under which this nation was founded are too draconian for their tastes then they can easily move to another country of their choice. Cuba might be a good destination and an ideological match for many of those on the left.
Ok. Then how do you explain SCOTUS ignoring the words of the 14A? Should the constitution be ignored when one is too chickenshit to follow it?
“. . .’ballot cleansing’ efforts . . .”
Here’s one way to know that you’re dealing with those possessed by tyrannical urges:
Disqualification from the ballot does *not* require due process of the law.
Pray tell, then: Exactly *how* is such disqualification to be decided? What is that process? Seance? Group feelings? MSM decree?
Sam, it will be determined by a panel on MSNBC.
hullbobby said: “it will be determined by a panel on MSNBC.”
Maybe this is what he had in mind:
Cast Of ‘The View’ Unanimously Overturns SCOTUS Decision
https://babylonbee.com/news/cast-of-the-view-unanimously-overturns-
scotus-decision
Arrgghh – try this
https://babylonbee.com/news/cast-of-the-view-unanimously-overturns-scotus-decision
Number6,
HA!
Yeah, that is about how our leftist friends here on the good professor’s blog see their own self importance.
Like Sammy repeating the attempted coup lie, over and over and over again. If he says it is so, then it is!
Charges? Due process? Evidence? Witnesses? Cross examination? Sammy dont need no charges!
When the illegal obama with a foreign dad applied for destroyer of nations, the opulent pedigrees said it was the decision of the POLITICAL PARTIES.
*sammie the wise knew that he was just testing me*
The court that loves to talk about original language, original intent made stuff to come to this decision.
Here is the full text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment…
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Where does it say Congress has to enable the disqualification? It does not.
It says Congress can allow an insurrectionist to hold office, if they vote, but there is nothing, nada, zip about before you can remove a person, congress has to give you permission. Nothing.
And as for Chaos? Where in the history of the 14th Amendment has there been Chaos? Nope, nada, zip, zero, until an insurrectionist came along in the form of trump. It is this court that is allowing Chaos to reign by ignoring the intent of the framers of the Constitution and its amendments. Original intent? BS, they make stuff up.
Where in the amendment does it say Congress has to first pass a law?
“. . . before you can remove a person . . .”
Who is that “you?” And by what process and objective rules does that “you” remove a person?
Trial court establishing the facts, two levels of appeals before SCOTUS, and SCOTUS ruling is a pretty good process. But you can’t do that because Trump will lose so you have to change the rules.
“Trial court establishing . . .”
Since you keep spouting “plain language,” where is the plain language in 14.3 that empowers a trial court (or a SoS) to disqualify an individual from the ballot?
Or is that phony appeal to “plain language” merely a means to satisfy a desire? (a rhetorical question)
P.S. If you try to invoke 10A, you’re stepping on a land mine.
Poor anon…
Sounds more like Denise or Giggly.
Free clue.
Read Section 5.
Also consider that no one was charged with insurrection, nor was it an insurrection.
You failed to figure out the legal necessity for there first must be an act of insurrection before one can be found guilty.
Now there are 3 ways that you can declare an insurrection.
1) Potus
2) Speaker of the House
3) Congress (2/3rds of each house)
Did any of those things happen?
Nope.
So the act of trying to keep Trump off the ballot could be considered criminal election interference if you want to be technical…
-G
Ian,
Well said.
nothing, nada, zip about before you can remove a person,
“you”. Exactly who is this “who”? Your complaint illuminates the problem SCOTUS wrestled with. Your amorphous illdefined “who” literally means ‘whoever’ for whatever. Of course, requiring a finding of insurrection, would at least provide a canvass blank as it is, to apply the paint of an insurrectionist.
Strange to me you can manage outrage of something hardly anyone thinks is an insurrection, while ignoring Biden flying into the US , 320,000 illegal aliens. no ID no papers, no nothing. And Biden was involved in employing 5 eyes allies to spy on a Presidential Campaign. Going as far to Bump, Trump campaign staff using Russian paid informants.
There is treason afoot, but it is a foot you willfully ignore. Instead focusing on a manufactured fiction
Exactly. Never forget to remind them and ram it down their throats if you want the USA to survive.
THEY ARE THE CRIMINAL DESTROYERS OF DEMOCRACY AND INSURECTIONISTS WHO STOLE THE ELECTION OF 2020 AND BRAGGED ABOUT IT, LIED ABOUT IT, AND DID IT AGAIN.
anyone go to jail for when Hillary, her people, DOJ, FBI, MEdia, etc worked with a foreign spy, a Russian and others to OVER THROW Trump as President…jailing numerous people around him?
Why are DEMOCRATS NEVER THROWN IN JAIL FOR THEIR Crimes?
50 Top Intel Officials Knowingly used their OFFICE to Officially LIE saying that the Biden Laptop of Crime was Russian? The FBI ignores EVERY SINGLE crime on the Biden Laptop of Crime
Our Federal Government PROTECT criminal Democrats and their cronies….while Jailing and Harassing Trump and his people with lies, conspiracy and hoaxes
“Where in the amendment does it say Congress has to first pass a law?”
Yeah! We don’t need no stinkin’ laws!
Anonymous, where does it say THE PRESIDENT? Odd that they left out THE PRESIDENT.
Agree hullbobby
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,”
The President and Vice President are enumerated as NOT eligible under this amendment.
Iowan2, the CO court’s action was so egregiously wrong that the Supremes didn’t even have to delve into that part of the issue.
Another cowardly Anonymous police state fascist Soviet Democrat tried this “Don’t believe your lying eyes”:
And as for Chaos? Where in the history of the 14th Amendment has there been Chaos? Nope, nada, zip, zero, until an insurrectionist came along in the form of trump.
The chaos Obama’s years of “Michael Brown was murdered! ‘Hands up don’t shoot'” riots and pillaging across the country instigated by Black Liars & Marxists.
The chaos riots of the Soviet Democrats street thugs in Pantifa and Black Liars & Marxists on Trump’s Inauguration Day.
The chaos of Soviet Democrats flooding into the Senate, within spitting distance of the sitting Senators, to block the confirmation vote for Justice Kavanaugh. No J6 Soviet type commission for blocking Senators from carrying out that Constitutional duty. And nobody went to jail… imagine that!
The chaos of over 540 separate acts of rioting, pillaging, looting, burning and occupation by force of arms by the Soviet Democrats street thugs in Pantifa and Black Liars & Marxists in The Year Of Mostly Peaceful Insurrection – which magically stopped just a few weeks before election day, almost like it was all coordinated.
The chaos of a day long riot just a few months before J6, as Soviet Democrat insurrectionists stormed the gates of the White House, throwing Molotov Cocktails at the Secret Service and Capitol Police they were battling to get inside the White House to murder Trump and his family. Soviet Democrat insurrectionists and would-be murderers who The Big Guy on the campaign trail said were “a group of courageous Americans”, while then Senator Skanky Ho said of them “they won’t stop, nor should they”.
Insurrection definition’s Big Democrat Difference: “When we do the same or worse than you, then it isn’t insurrection.”
A speed bump on our road to perdition.
Excellent, Professor Turley. Thanks for this.
The great American Sociologist, Robert Nisbet, once wrote that he noticed a peculiarity of American liberals: they insist their views are “simple”, “clear”, and “unassailable”. In other words, mere assertion lay at the root of their statements. Time has proven the truth of this observation
Exactly! They plead conclusions! Like Sovereign Citizens.
I often comment that the left argues backwards from the conclusion. ie, Jan 6 was an insurrection. Nope. No finding of an insurrection.
Iowan2,
They base their evidence of an insurrection off of a dictionary definition, which proves absolutely nothing. Some people met up in a hotel room, all five of them, as if that is a real threat of an insurrection. Some people had a few weapons, back in their hotel room miles from the Capitol building where they were useless. Or, their feelings.
For leftists, confirmation bias is the weapon of choice.
For the rest of us, it’s a logical fallacy.
“. . . warn citizens not to become ‘slaves’ to the Constitution . . .”
Instead, become slaves to the People, and to their Voice — which is us.
I join with JT in a sense of relief that it was 9-0 and shut down state-level disqualifications of federal candidates.
That said, the vague verbiage attempting to clarify how 14A(3) is supposed to work merely litters the landscape with unanswered questions:
What suffices as enabling legislation? Does it have to name Insurrections and their alleged participants? Or merely the Offices subject to advanced Disqualification? In other words, what is missing in the current Insurrection statute on the books?
Are Disqualifications to be decided by a Jury in a Federal Courthouse? By a vote of Congress? By Apellate or SCOTUS Judges?
Who can initiate an Insurrection trial? DoJ? Congress? Citizens filing a federal lawsuit?
What about timing of disqualifications re the voters? Can someone be disqualified during the period between the start of primary voting and the Inauguration? After taking office? Not nailing this question means SCOTUS’ resolve to prevent chaos isn’t all that conscientious — chaos comes in more than one flavor.
By being vague, SCOTUS is saying “Bring us another case of Insurrection in the future, and we’ll fill in a few more process details”. One can only hope another 16 decades passes before that time. Yet, the reality of constant elitist gaming for political advantage by going right up to the edge means the Justices 5 will be hearing the word “Insurrection” sooner than they would like.
In other words, what is missing in the current Insurrection statute on the books?
That would have been a start. But Jack Smith spent 3 years looking at the statute. and even Smith who was overturned 9-0 by SCOTUS decided he wanted no part of twisting that law into a shape the would snag Trump.
Professor,
Great article.
Thank you for being the voice of reason in this day and age of rage.
I think the title would make more sense if it read “a blow TO the lumberjack school” instead of “OF the lumberjack school.”
Also, I disagree that the Court ruled “for Trump.” They ruled “for the Constitution.”
Again, I do not see the issue being the “insurrection.” The issue is that Trump has never been accused, let alone convicted, of insurrection in any law court. How do you take someone off the ballot for a crime that, at least in the eyes of the law, they didn’t commit? If people truly felt that Trump had committed insurrection, why didn’t they charge him with it? They’ve certainly charged him with everything else imaginable. There is a legal procedure for these things. Accuse him of the crime, convict him in court, and then have at it. They’ve had four years to do that, so why haven’t they? Presumably they felt they wouldn’t be able to convict. In New York and DC, I’m pretty sure they could convict Trump of anything from the fall of Rome to the Murder of Roger Ackroyd successfully. However, they chose not to. Why? Perhaps because if they accused Trump of insurrection, the word insurrection would have to be defined, and people would realize that an “insurrection” on Jan 6 would have meant Trump insurrecting against himself. I would guess that most Americans never heard the word insurrection before Jan 6 and had a very hazy idea of what it was, but now, everybody defines insurrection post facto as that which they saw on TV. When the majority of Americans understand what insurrection is and isn’t, and that what they saw on TV was, in fact, a protest/riot as Professor Turley has been saying the whole time, then all the American citizens currently imprisoned and serving long sentences (Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 20 years and he wasn’t even there) would have to be released and when they are released, they will tell of beatings and other forms of torture that are currently being practiced. That’s when the already illusory moral highground reveals itself to be a catch basin for evil.
Joseph Campbell spoke often about Western society’s desperate need for myth. To take away the J6 myth from this still very young and immature nation would be like changing the Big Bad Wolf into just some guy with bad hair and mean tweets. People aren’t ready for it. When/if they become ready for it, maybe this nation can grow up and stop trying so hard to destroy itself. We have been a beacon to the world for centuries. When the beacon goes out, the world will remain in darkness. Most Trump voters were/are not madly in love with the man. We simply chose the lesser of two evils, and I, for one, was pleased with my choice. I became a diehard Trump supporter due to the relentless, unfair, and unAmerican attacks on him and his family. If they had simply left Trump alone, people like me would have gotten tired of the drama and Trump would have been a one term president. Instead, they have turned Trump into a victim of persecution in which each one of us can see him or herself. There but for the grace of God go all of us. History will judge Trump AND Biden AND the Supreme Court, and I imagine they were thinking of that judgment when they ruled on this case.
Anonymous said: “I became a diehard Trump supporter due to the relentless, unfair, and unAmerican attacks on him and his family.”
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I would hope that the above statement somewhat reflects of hyperbole. If not, I would caution you that becoming a die-hard fan of someone or something you did not particularly like, solely because forces whom you despise oppose that entity, makes you just as much an instrument of what you despise as if you agreed with those forces. Either way, you allow yourself to be manipulated in spite of your intellect.
“I think the title would make more sense if it read “a blow TO the lumberjack school” instead of “OF the lumberjack school.”
He did!
I wish Americans would stop referring to this organization as “Democrats” that boat left the dock long ago. Lately I keep hearing the Republicans are “Trumps party”. My question is if democrats no longer want the playbook (constitution) who’s party are the democrats Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Putin, Maduro?
Margot,
I have said in the past, when a party no longer represents its voters, either Republican or Democrat, it is the right of those voters to choose a party or person who does represents them. Some claim the Republican party is the party of Trump. No. The people just so happened to chose him, not the party. Sure, lots of Republicans dont like it. They also tend to be those of the party before country types. But Trump has the backing of nearly half of the country. There is nothing those Republicans can do about that.
The crazed leftist in charge of the Democrat party, have more in common with Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Putin, Maduro.
Maybe they want to be Pol Pot. Imagine how good the climate will be after they force march everyone into the countryside and do away with all modern conveniences.
Meanwhile next time one of these CCP supporting “climate activists” want to protest they should be forced to destroy their iPhone as a first step.
Maybe, the Cognitive Dissonance Party? The Denial (of Reality) Party, The Emotion Party? The Brain-Dead Zombie Party? You don’t have to have brains to destroy society. That would apply to a large number of Democrats. But there is that little problem, that at top of the Party, are people who believe none of that nonsense that so many of the base believe. So, maybe call them the Mob Party? Willing to do anything to get their way, and stay in power?
And, do you think that Laurence Tribe, or Luttig, or any of the legal Einsteins above really believed the crap they spewed? Or the Howling Heads on the TV shows and op-ed pages? Who was their audience? Who were the people they were pelting with cow patties for months on end?
It was their base, that they know to be delusional cult members, trying to ease the cognitive dissonance they are suffering from, as cherished Democrat ideal after cherished Democrat ideal turns out to be garbage.
Also see, Two Minutes Hate. Prof. Turley calls it “rage”, but isn’t that the same thing? That explains the Keith Olbermann’s and Rachel Maddow’s daily rants. Two Minute Hate does not have to be true, it just has to make you angry. And now, the Mob is even angrier.
“Two Minutes Hate is the daily period during which members of the Outer and Inner Party of Oceania must watch a film depicting Emmanuel Goldstein, the principal enemy of the state, and his followers, the Brotherhood, and loudly voice their hatred for the enemy and then their love for Big Brother.[1]
The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies: Goldstein and the enemy super-state of the moment. In re-directing the members’ subconscious feelings away from the Party’s governance of Oceania and toward non-existent external enemies, the Party minimizes thought crime and the consequent subversive behaviors of thought criminals.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate
@Floyd
Yup, the Mob. We would be very foolish to think anyone at the top on the modern left actually believes what their constituents advocate for. That makes their lawless power grabbing even *worse*. They honestly don’t care about the fallout they create. Same goes for the likes of Justice Ketanji – she is perhaps not as dumb as she presents for the party (though I could be wrong) which is equally disingenuous. Fetterman and (formerly of the left) Gabbard are the only two I can recollect who uttered a single, honest phrase in a very long time.
Democratic party is not anyone’s. It never has been. Up to recently it was the same with the Republicans. The cult like devotion that the Republican party has to Trump is unprecedented in US history. And spoiler: it never worked well in any other country that had a cult figure as their head of government.
“The cult like devotion that the Democrat party had to Obama was unprecedented in US history.”
There. Fixed it for you.
Where oh where is our Constitutional law expert Barrack Obama? Enters with $1.3M leaves with $70M, plants the seeds of division, funds our enemies and spies on political opponents. I pray that he is brought before a court one day soon.
HEAR!! HEAR!!!
Don’t forget that the climate change fear monger also has TWO oceanside mansions that he flies to on private jets.
The left hates the Constitution. The left hates, the power of States, and the left hates the sovereign power of the People.
This is not new. A few people, very few anymore, have heard of the Federalist Papers. A small portion of that pool, have heard of the Anti Federalist Papers. The point being, ratifying the Constitution was not a unanimous consensus. In fact, the Bill of Rights were added, as an incentive for the STATES to ratify the Constitution. A majority did not trust a centralized Federal Government. They feared the creation of centralized POWER.
The Colonies had prospered for 150 years, without a Centralized POWER
FDR hated the Constitution. his “solutions” violated the Constitution. FDR was the most famous of leftist that insisted only the Federal govt should control all power.
Of course deep thinker Obama, hated the constitution and conived fulltime to subvert the words and intent of our Constitution.
You forgot to mention Woodrow Wilson.
And Joe Biden, the guy that gave us the Eviction Moratorium, Student Debt Relief, Mandated Vaccine shots, the Open Border, cash payments to farmers…black farmers only, the arrest of praying pro-lifers etc etc etc etc etc.
And yet it is the Republicans who are the ones actually ignoring the constitution to help Trump.
How are the Republicans ignoring the Constitution to help Trump?
If you have been following Super Tuesday, seems the people have decided who they want as the Republican candidate.
Same goes for the Democrat party.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Court’s choice of words is worth noting. “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.” From the beginning, Trump has claimed that presidents need immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while president. Without it, he claims, there would be “chaos,” as each decision would be weighed against the politics of one’s opposition. The next big decision regarding Trump will decide the immunity issue and I hope the Court’s use of the word “chaos” suggests that it is considering the arguments offered by Trump. To date, the American tradition has been to give presidents de facto immunity for their actions in office, preferring to go the constitutional route of impeachment. The Biden administration changed that tradition and decided to misuse the nation’s judiciary to disqualify its chief opponent. This time next year, when Special Counsel Pam Bondi or Matt Whitaker is uncovering the treasonous crimes of the Biden administration, Democrats may regret that they unleashed this demon on themselves.
JJC said: “I hope the Court’s use of the word “chaos” suggests that it is considering the arguments offered by Trump.”
I agree with the decision, and with the opinion statement you refer to, as well. I only hope that some future version of the Court does not sieze upon that phrase as justification to refuse to overturn some prevalent practice that clearly violates the Constitution.
JJC, it is the Harry Reid School of Not Thinking Ahead, or dim wits playing checkers while people with forward thinking minds play chess.
Now imagine if the Republicans take the WH and the Senate and decide that ending the filibuster (the Dems idea last year) is a good idea and that adding Justices, the Dems idea last year, is also a good idea…wouldn’t that be fun? Oh, maybe also start prosecuting Dems for crimes that have been committed and doing so in red districts where the juries may be a bit ready for revenge.
Dr Turley, didn’t this ruling essentially use the same argument the AZ Supreme Court just used in its ruling about requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote? If I recall correctly, the court ruled that only in state & local elections could voters be required to show proof of citizenship if that’s what the state required, however since Congress determines rules for federal elections, AZ could NOT require proof of citizenship in those cases. So now, if a voter doesn’t show proof of citizenship, they will receive a ballot for federal candidates only.
BTW, Marc Elias, a top Democrat attorney engaged in lawfare across the country, hailed the ruling as a win.
So it seems the Democrats like the Constitution, but only when it benefits them…
dimlibs know they can only win, by cheating. The CONgress only represents their own greed. Crooked judges and DAs rise up from the swamp, to prevent the people from choosing our president. If the same crap, that happened in 2020, happens again, stuffing ballot boxes, rigging the machines, we may never have a fair and honest election, ever again.
I posted this last night:
Over 100,000 fraudulent ballots in Chicago, in 1982. A copy of the grand jury report is linked below.
https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/2016/04/Report-of-the-Special-Grand-Jury-US-District-Court-NE-Illinois-.pdf
IIRC, Biden won by about 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania. I think it was very possible to steal more votes than that, considering the long voting times, and mail-in ballots.
———–
And this, from Pennsylvania, just recently:
Myers admitted to bribing Demuro to illegally add votes for certain candidates of their mutual political party in primary elections. Some of these candidates were individuals running for judicial office whose campaigns had hired Myers, and others were candidates for various federal, state, and local elective offices that Myers favored for a variety of reasons. Myers would solicit payments from his clients in the form of cash or checks as “consulting fees,” and then use portions of these funds to pay Demuro and others to tamper with election results.
After receiving payments ranging from between $300 to $5,000 per election from Myers, Demuro would add fraudulent votes on the voting machine – also known as “ringing up” votes – for Myers’ clients and preferred candidates, thereby diluting the value of ballots cast by actual voters. At Myers’ direction, Demuro would add these fraudulent votes to the totals during Election Day, and then would later falsely certify that the voting machine results were accurate. Myers is also accused of directing Demuro to lie to investigators about the circumstances of the bribes and the ballot-stuffing scheme.
a whole lot more detail at this link:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud#:~:text=39th%20Ward%2C%2036th%20Division&text=Demuro%2C%20in%20a%20fraudulent%20scheme,federal%20and%20state%20election%20laws.
Floyd said: “Over 100,000 fraudulent ballots in Chicago, in 1982”
How many in 1960, I wonder. I’ve heard stories, but have never seen a definitive, plausible analysis.
And this:
Judge Newcomer ruled that the Democratic campaign of William G. Stinson had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia’s Second Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason — like a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city — to do so.
In many instances, according to Republicans who testified during a four-day civil trial last week, Democratic campaign workers forged absentee ballots. On many of the ballots, they used the names of people who were living in Puerto Rico or serving time in prison, and in one case, the voter had been dead for some time.
“Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery,” Judge Newcomer wrote in a decision made public today.
The district, which includes white, black and Hispanic neighborhoods, is overwhelmingly Democratic by registration. Nonetheless, campaign workers testified that widespread voter apathy had prompted them to promote a “new way to vote” to insure a victory. Door to Door for Votes
In addition to specific instances of wrongdoing, the state Republican Party, which filed the suit, contended that the door-to-door solicitation of votes by the Democrats was not permissible under the state election code, which says the Philadelphia County Board of Elections “shall deliver or mail” the ballots to a voter.
The city, whose lawyers represented the board of elections, contended that the statute was open to broad interpretation, but throughout the hearing Judge Newcomer made it clear that he did not agree.
Indeed, the two Democrats on the three-member board of elections, an elected body, testified that they were aware of the voter fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce the election law and had later tried to conceal their activities by hurriedly certifying the Democratic candidate as the winner.
Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html
Excellent, I’d have used a different word other than “cling”.
I agree. “Champion” might be better.
But make no mistake; the three Lib Ladies hate Trump and the Constitution just as much as the rest of the crazies and only voted against Colorado to prevent the red states from doing the same to Biden. They made it plain that they wanted unelected federal judges to have that power to disqualify a candidate.