Fed-up progressive justices are calling out the majority’s agenda

Over the past few days, there has been a large amount of analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision. Trump vs. Anderson, In that case, the judge ruled that Colorado could not make a claim. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment This is to keep Donald Trump out of the vote.

It is a difficult task, but I commend the three progressives on the court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.with some well chosen words In their agreement, they proved they had discovered the real agenda of the far-right majority hiding behind the public pretense of non-partisanship.

yes, certainly All nine judges handed down the verdict unanimously. Colorado cannot exclude Trump from its presidential primary, but the Colorado Supreme Court said it could under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section states that insurrectionists who break their oath may be barred from holding public office.

However, the conservative majority of the Five Justices, avoided saying Trump is not an insurrectionist, so he cannot be removed. Perhaps it’s because they know he is one, by any reasonable definition, so even they couldn’t go there.

So they concocted a rationale that Congress would need to pass another law to enforce Article III.three progressive judges I was quick to point out that that was nonsense.there is nothing in the wording of Article 3 that requires additional legislation; And nothing else in the 14th Amendment requires the passing of additional laws to enforce it.

They also say that by creating additional hurdles to enforcing Article III, the ultra-conservative majority “seeks to distance all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to the federal offices they hold.” I also wrote

I’ve seen the report simply state that the judge said the conservative position would effectively protect insurrectionists. But the word “attempt” has many meanings. According to some legal experts.

In other words, progressive judges aren’t just saying it works.They have far-right judges saying, Deliberately It seeks to engineer an outcome that protects alleged insurrectionists and allows them to continue holding federal office.

Of course, the best-known insurrectionists currently alive are Donald Trump and members of the MAGA crowd who tried to overturn the 2020 election.

In other words, by choosing the word “attempt,” progressive justices are letting us know that they understand and are criticizing the majority’s partisan agenda.

This is concerning, especially since the courts have already chosen to file a lawsuit claiming President Trump’s complete immunity from prosecution for all crimes. two lower courts There has already been a ruling against Trump.. The court did not have to take up the case.

And there was no need for that. Schedule your case in April, even kicking the can down the road. The conservative majority must hope to win the election by understanding that the strategy in any case against President Trump is to delay, delay, delay.

I hope these red flags are false alarms. But it’s very annoying to see them.

On the other hand, there are some hard facts that we must face. One is that it’s time to stop pretending that the Supreme Court is the bipartisan institution it once was. The current majority is occupied by the far right.

The other is that, like it or not, courts will continue to play an important role in highly contentious and close presidential elections. It is not inconceivable that, in an unwelcome repeat, it could even be asked to decide that election. Bush vs. Gore.

And finally, every court, every prosecutor, now, post-Super Tuesday, other republican candidates – Will prevent Trump from becoming the Republican presidential nominee.

The good news is that voters can prevent Trump from running for the nation’s highest office. Now that Trump is certain to win a spot on the ballot, it looks like he’ll get that chance.

Mr. Svante Myrick american people.