THE SUPREME COURT DOES THE RIGHT THING, BUT THE COURT'S COMMIES ARE UNHAPPY
At least for now, the United States Supreme Court was presented with constitutional questions whose conclusions were so prima facie obvious as to embarrass the Court if the decision was anything less than unanimous.
The questions…
|
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |
|
BASIC QUESTION PRESENTED BY TRUMP (PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI) The Supreme Court of Colorado held that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President because he “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution of the United States—and that he did so after taking an oath “as an officer of the United States” to “support” the Constitution. The state supreme court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State should not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot or count any write-in votes cast for him. The state supreme court stayed its decision pending United States Supreme Court review. The question presented is: Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot? QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY ANDERSON (RESPONSE TO PETITIONER DONALD J. TRUMP’S PETITION) Petitioner Donald J. Trump offers a single question presented, which wrongly conflates at least seven discrete legal and factual issues in his Petition. Properly framed, the questions presented are: 1. Whether a challenge to the constitutional qualifications of a candidate for President presents a non-justiciable [Does the Court court have power to hear the case under the Constitution.] political question? THE COURT (DOCKET) Petition GRANTED. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5 2024. |
The ruling…
|
(Slip Opinion) DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL. For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. |
Of course, the progressive communist democrats on the Court (SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON) were unhappy because the broad ruling could be applied to other constitutional matters and was not restricted to this single matter.
|
“If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oath breaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. We cannot unnecessarily join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues, and we therefore concur only in the judgment. “What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” |
The plot thickens...
It is likely that some radical progressive communist democrat like Jamie “The Red” Raskin will stand before Congress when the electoral votes are to be counted and claim that Trump’s votes should be discarded because he is an insurrectionist. Thus bringing the matter back to Congress, where such a determination can be made with a majority vote. A constitutional crisis that might disenfranchise half the population if allowed to proceed.
What we learned...
Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Cavenaugh are weak Justices and cannot be relied on in the coming cases.
Bottom line…
To allow partisan state politics to interfere with a national presidential election in such a manner as to disenfranchise a significant number of voters is unconscionable.
Unfortunately, we must wait for the other shoe to drop—the Court’s ruling on Presidential immunity for official acts while in office. It is another no-brainer decision that, if decided incorrectly, would substantially weaken the presidency and serve as a deterrent for candidates seeking high office.
We still are screwed, but we must remain vigilant for signs the pendulum has stopped and/or is starting to reverse course.
A reminder for Californians: VOTE AGAINST THE LYING, LEAKING, PERJURER ADAM SCHIFF FOR CALIFORNIA SENATE.
SCHIFF DOESN’T EVEN LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
-- Steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS