Let’s get rid of the legal jargon. The Supreme Court did the only thing it could do yesterday and issued a unanimous decision.
The justices rejected the idea that the Colorado court, made up entirely of Democratic appointees, could simply remove Donald Trump from the ballot. On the surface, the idea is ridiculous, absurd, and anti-democratic, and the court has explicitly prohibited other states from attempting such a stunt.
On Sunday’s “Media Buzz,” I complained about the fact that the justices are taking so long and said that the justices must be honing their opinions and trying to reach consensus. Ta. That turned out to be true.
In an unsigned opinion, all nine justices wrote, “Nothing in the Constitution requires us to endure such disruption, no matter when or when it arrives.” , and will continue until Inauguration Day, and perhaps even beyond Inauguration Day.”
Public perception of Fani Willis case is ‘very important’: Susan Felecio
Supporters of former President Donald Trump protest in front of the Alt Lee Adams Sr. U.S. Courthouse on August 10, 2023 in Fort Pierce, Florida. (Eva Marie Uzcategui/AFP via Getty Images)
The ruling, which court officials say moved at breakneck speed, came in the final days before Colorado voters head to the polls like other Super Tuesday states.
A lot of the exchange had to do with the 14th Amendment, but let’s set that aside for a moment.
When the Colorado court first issued its ruling, a veritable army of MSNBC anchors, correspondents, and legal analysts in particular cheered the move, saying Trump was finally being held accountable for inciting the Capitol riot. He said that he was going to be arrested.
Many anti-Trump advocates wanted more states to remove the former president from their ballots — Maine’s Democratic secretary of state did so, and late in the game, an Illinois judge followed suit.
Liberal commentators urge Biden to withdraw, promote treaty scenario
That means they all took a hard line, and now Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson have been rejected. That should tell us something: Who is not more in step with this country?
President Trump stood in front of cameras at Mar-a-Lago and said the ruling was a step toward national unity.
“They worked a long time. They worked hard. And frankly, they worked very quickly into something that will be talked about about 100 years from now, and 200 years from now. We worked on it. It’s very important.”
Mr. Trump then pivoted to another case the Supreme Court had just decided: an allegation of complete unity for actions taken during his presidency. Legal experts say there’s a good chance SCOTUS will rule against him in that case, but no one knows, but the verdict will be split between two high-stakes cases. He says it will happen.
Trump quickly delivered his biggest blows, attacking prosecutors like Jack Smith, Letitia James and Fani Willis, and criticizing the judges who hear some of his cases.
A New York Times reporter said Mario Nicolais, a lawyer for the Colorado side, said the party had “abandoned its responsibility to our democracy…We hope today’s court’s dastardly actions do not lead to tomorrow’s bloodshed.” He reportedly said that. That’s pretty kind, isn’t it?
Recall that while Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson found common ground with Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas, critics still sneered.
Supreme Court (LR) Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Mr. Samuel A. Alito Jr. , Elena Kagan, and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (U.S. Supreme Court Collection, via Getty Images)
Anti-Trump CNN anchor Jim Acosta said his opponent has “played the justice system like a violin in some ways over the last few years. He has thrown the kitchen sink into the wheels of the American justice system.” he said.
Jason Savage, director of the Maine Republican Party, told the Times that his goal was to replace Democratic Secretary of State Shena Bellows, who ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to vote in Maine. was trying to change the presidential election based on her opinions.”
The trigger for the entire battle was Colorado dusting off Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, an obscure and little-used legal provision passed after the Civil War. The targets were former Confederate officials and soldiers who had rebelled against the state.
The media considers Trump the candidate, even though Haley links him to Putin.
The dissent by some of the justices goes beyond the scope of the unsigned opinion, and the court’s three liberal members said in a concurring opinion that the conservative majority “protects the court and President Trump from future disputes.” Trying to isolate them is going too far.”
“In sensitive cases that require judicial restraint, the judiciary will abandon its course.”
Supreme Court building in Washington DC (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Conflicting views include whether only Congress has the power to use Article III and whether the president is considered an official of the United States.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the liberals, saying the majority “should not have raised the complex question of whether federal law is the only means of enforcing Title III…” Ta.
“Now is not the time to loudly amplify disagreements…Especially in this situation, writing in court should lower the national temperature, not raise it.”
By all accounts, this was a huge victory for Donald Trump and for those who believe that voters, not partisan state officials, should choose the president.
