The US Supreme Court (Motto "Wait, there are two political parties???" ) reversed the Colorado Supreme Court today and held that only that bastion of efficiency and decency and political moderation admired by the rest of the world - The US Congress - can remove President Trump from the ballot for being an insurrectionist and trying to overthrow the Presidential election results that were jiggered by Venezuelan Hackers in 2020.
So much for "States rights" and returning the power to the States. That's all well and good unless your Republican rearend is gored by a Democratic Ox- then it's "well just hoooold on a second there cowboy...the states don't have any idea how to run things. Y'all need Congressional oversight on these matters."
Here's the opinion and the (not) funny part is how a Trump judge tries to tell everyone that all nine members of the Court agreed, and the three judges with a brain huddled in a corner for comfort replied that the decision was not as unanimous as it might first appear.
Trump by Anonymous PbHV4H on Scribd
14 comments:
It's a ridiculous opinion. They conclude that only Congress can remove Trump from the ballot and in support cite the fact that Congress has the power to rehabilitate an insurrectionist as proof of their conclusion. Never mind the fact that if Congress has the ability to rehabilitate an insurrectionist it presumes that the insurrectionist has lost his rights based on the decision of another body. Otherwise, why would the drafters have said that Congress has the right to rehabilitate (as opposed to saying that Congress has the right to remove).
Indeed, the greatest joke of all is that this court has been working to undermine the 14th amendment at every turn, but now claims that Colorado's ruling "would invert the Fourteenth Amendment's rebalancing of federal and state power."
What a clown show. Seriously, the conservative justices should just wear clown makeup on the bench for the rest of their careers.
I concur with the above. Thanks
3:53pm. Are you saying the entire court is filled with clowns? Opinion is unanimous!
9-0
Finally figured out who Rumpole is. Seung Min Kim. Hates America.
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1764668061653569968
Trump should be in jail but, I agree with the opinion. Next, trust me, Texas and Florida would ban Joe Biden and Nicki from the ballot. It has gotten that bad. The law has always favored the decision being made by voters. Next month, they will Trump he has no immunity. Still, about half of the country will vote for that monster.
@8:58 - the three liberal justices haven't made their career arguing for states' rights. You see, their position that the states don't have this power is consistent with what they have historically said - i.e., that the 14th amendment abrogated states' rights. This isn't about the result, it's about the process - it's about HOW we get from A to B. For what it's worth, I think that understanding this point is largely what separates Trump voters from the rest. The ends don't justify the means.
Meanwhile, when it's convenient to their desired result, the clown justices on the right abandoned their supposed judicial philosophy to get the result they wanted. States' rights be damned. The effectively concluded that the ends DO justify the means (spoiler, they don't).
Also, it's not as unanimous as you seem to thing. 5 justices said that only congress can remove an insurrectionist from the ballot. 4 justices (including Justice Barrett) refused to go that far. The 5 who went the farthest in favor of congressional power at the expense of states' rights are all conservative justices who profess an originalist, states' rights, balls and strikes judicial philosophy but who have shown their colors as unabashed partisan clowns.
#ClownMakeUp4Life #RobertsClown #AlitoClown #ThomasClown #GorsuchClown #KavanaughClown #IronicUseOfHashtags
It is simple, really. We live under two sovereigns. The United States decides who runs in federal elections. The individual states decide who runs in state elections. Nine Justices agreed with that. The rule used to be that once the case was decided, the Judge put the pen down. But, that's not the way fascists do judging.
The five right wing assholes can't stick to being judges, they have to make a bunch of stupid political decisions supporting their activist political positions. And, since they have no philosophy other than exercising power, they got it wrong.
The interesting one is Coney Barrett. It would be funny if she starts listening to the Holy Spirit and winds up a liberal. It's a lifetime job, and folks change.
@Kissimmee Kid, I (3:53pm) mostly agree with you. Where things get tricky is, if as you say, "We live under two sovereigns. The United States decides who runs in federal elections. The individual states decide who runs in state elections," then how do you explain the Electoral College? Recall that each STATE appoints its electors to the Electoral College. The presidential election is ultimately 50 state elections for state electors and then an electoral college election. Otherwise, Bush and Trump would never have been elected president since they both lost their respective popular votes.
Tuesday March 05, 2024 4:50:00 AM--- Wanna know who Rumpole is? He is a grumpy old meanie.
KARMA
Did anyone really think the Supreme Court was going to rule any other way? Please, the fix was in. It will be until Trump "somehow" wins the election. Sadly our democracy is dead. The cult of Trump has killed it because white people are afraid of the "others".
Dear Tuesday, March 05, 2024 1:40:00 PM;
Blame Rhode Island, and the Providence Plantations. They saw that the big states would steamroll them, and came up with the Electoral College to protect their sovereignty.
Kid
Kid:
But that's the point. The states have sovereignty for the purpose of elections. The presidential election is not just one election - it is 50 elections runs by 50 states. Or at least it was until, irony of ironies, the conservative justices changed that with this opinion.
Alright, the Supreme Court thinks the 14th Amendment was intended to lose the U.S. Civil War. Their brilliant idea might work if there was one insurrectionist. But not if there was a widespread movement, supported by almost half the people/states. Like in the Civil War. And like now. Seems like in times of National Crisis, this gang is slightly less helpful than suspension of habeas corpus.
Post a Comment