SCOTUS hears oral arguments on the Colorado Trump-off-the-ballot case
Everything I’ve read about it sounds as though SCOTUS will rule that Colorado can’t make the decision to exclude Trump, which is certainly the obviously correct decision. But you never know with courts. However, see this, this, this, this, and this. In that last piece, Ace even speculates that the SCOTUS vote against what Colorado is trying to do might even be unanimous. And he quotes Jonathan Turley as writing this:
The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.
Then again, if the liberal justices do vote against the ballot exclusion, it might be because they realize it’s such an overreach by the left that it might turn off moderate voters from voting for the Democrats.
And it may even lead to red state judges removing Dem presidential candidates from the ballets for whatever reason. Allowing this to stand would set a horrible, dangerous precedent that may even result in a literal civil war.
Biden allowing the invasion comes to mind as a reason to keep him off the ballot. Reminding the court of this thru the failed impeachment attempt was likely more a coincidence, but could be called a 3d chess move.
Mayorkas should be impeached for his failure.
If only because Dem presidential candidates can’t dance, would suffice.
Related:
“Supreme Court justices indicate they’ll keep Trump on 2024 ballot in landmark case”—
https://nypost.com/2024/02/08/news/supreme-court-arguments-begin-in-landmark-case-seeking-to-kick-trump-off-ballot-over-capitol-attack/
So it is official. Biden is not mentally there. Getting off the hook on the stolen classified docs, even though stolen when he was half
mentally competent.
Perhaps the high court being somewhat smarter than the local idiots understand that if Trump can be barred based on an accusation then the entire donkey party can be barred on the accusation it is nothing but a criminal conspiracy that exists on money laundering and election fraud.
The question I didn’t hear:
Has former President Trump been convicted of committing an insurrection?
The answer is, “NO!”
Then Colorado’s argument for keeping him off the ballot has no basis in fact. Case closed. The rest is just puffery.
As I said in Open Thread:
I’m inclined to see the Supremes coming down hard on this case, for substantive reasons I’m sure, but deep down this is a threat to the Supremes’ power.
It’s one thing for the Supremes to decide on insurrection or who becomes POTUS. But not some pipsqueaks in Colorado.
Ever since John Roberts weaseled his dishonest way to pass ObamaCare because he was concerned, not about the merits, but the meta-issues of the Court’s image as an institution, I see the Supremes largely as a political entity concerned with its own power and agenda.
From that vantage the Colorado case is an Insurrection!
The Court doesn’t like to overturn major acts of Congress. That could provoke public outrage and congressional or presidential actions against the Court. The idea could be that it’s up to Congress and ultimately the voters to fix faulty federal legislation. It’s similar with overturning reported election results — only courts are even more hesitant to do that.
Is this case just about the Colorado presidential primary? Is keeping Trump’s name off the general election ballots in November a separate question?
The Court doesn’t like to overturn major acts of Congress.
Abraxas:
I get that.
But in the case of Obamacare, Roberts wrote what I consider a dishonest opinion in order to protect Obamacare and spare the Court charges of politicization.
Which given the Court’s supreme mandate, if you will, to rule on issues of constitutionality, amounts to yielding to politicization.
J.J. on February 8, 2024 at 5:49 pm said:
“The question I didn’t hear:
Has former President Trump been convicted of committing an insurrection?
The answer is, “NO!” ”
The other question I did not hear was “is the President an Officer of the United States”? and again, the answer is NO! He is the President who nominates said officers, but he is not himself subject to the criteria of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for removal from office. He also does not take an oath to “support” the Constitution [Article VI] but instead to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…” [Article II, Section 1 (last paragraph)].
It is clear that if he is to be removed from office, he is already subject to removal via impeachment and conviction should the Congress become so inclined. Of course in doing so, they are going against the previous national will of the people who elected him (via the electoral college process).
Even the new Polish government seems utterly inspired by “Biden”‘s (together with the E.U.’s) “methodology”….
“Polish Police State? Cops Stop Conservative MPs Entering Parliament”—
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/polish-police-state-cops-stop-conservative-mps-entering-parliament/
H/T Blazingcatfur blog.
Might one wonder who’s calling the shots here?
File under: Sorosive