Below is my column in The Messenger on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. There are now over a dozen states considering similar demands from advocates to prevent voters from being able to vote for the current leading candidate for the presidency. In California, Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis publicly called upon the Secretary of State to “explore every legal option” to follow the same path as Colorado. It is a temptation that is irresistible for Democratic politicians in a race to the bottom of our rage politics.
Here is the column:
he Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion, making history in the most chilling way possible. A divided court barred Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot.
For months, advocates have been filing without success in various states, looking for some court to sign off on a dangerous, novel theory under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. They finally found four receptive jurists on one of the bluest state supreme courts in the land.
Even on a court composed entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, Colorado’s Supreme Court split 4-3 on the question. The majority admitted that this was a case “of first impression” and that there was “sparse” authority on the question. Yet, the lack of precedent or clarity did not deter these justices from making new law to block Trump from running. Indeed, the most controlling precedent appears to be what might be called the Wilde Doctrine.
In his novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” The four Colorado justices just rid themselves of the ultimate temptation and, in so doing, put this country on one of the most dangerous paths in its history.
The court majority used a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — that was written after the Civil War to bar former Confederate members from serving in the U.S. Congress.
In December 1865 many in Washington were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s onetime vice president, waiting to take the same oath that he took before joining the Southern rebellion. Hundreds of thousands of Americans had just died after whole states seceded into their own separate nation with its own army, navy, foreign policy and currency. So Congress declared that it could bar those “who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
January 6, 2021, was many things — and all of them bad. However, it was not an insurrection. I was critical of Trump’s speech to a mob of supporters that day, and I rejected his legal claims to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Congress. However, it was a protest that became a riot, not a rebellion.
Indeed, despite the unrelenting efforts of many in the media and Congress, a post-January 6 Harvard study found that most of the rioters were motivated by support for Trump or concerns about the election’s fairness, not by a desire to rebel.
Even the Justice Department’s special counsel Jack Smith, who threw every possible charge at Trump in two indictments, did not believe he had sufficient basis to charge Trump with incitement or insurrection.
Much can be said about this decision, but restraint is not one of them. What is most striking about the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is how the majority removed all of the fail-safes to extend the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to block Trump.
There were a number of barriers facing advocates who have tried to stretch this provision to cover the January 6 riot. The four justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation possible on every one of those questions in order to support their decision.
The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment, where the four justices dismissed the free-speech implications of disqualifying presidential candidates based on political position and rhetoric.
The result is an opinion that lacks any limiting principles. It places the nation on a slippery slope where red and blue states could now engage in tit-for-tat disqualifications. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, those decisions do not need to be based on the specific comments made by figures like Trump. Instead, it ruled, courts can now include any statements made before or after a speech to establish a “true threat.”
It was inevitable that the Trump-ballot challengers would find four jurists in one state willing to follow something like the Wilde Doctrine. However, it is also important to note that a series of Democratic jurists previously refused to do so in various cases. They did so not out of any affinity to Trump but out of their affinity to the Constitution.
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. What is particularly galling is that these four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
The only good news is that this flawed theory can now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it is likely to be put to rest conclusively.
For many voters, however, the opinion will only reinforce Trump’s claims that Democrats are engaging in “lawfare” to achieve in the courts what they cannot achieve in the polls. Because of that, the opinion could not come at a worse moment. Trump is surging in opinion polls, and many Democrats are now openly saying they fear President Biden is about to be beaten in 2024. Not only is Trump beating Biden in many polls but he has a sizable lead among young voters.
For those voters, the Colorado ruling looks like a case of Biden being on the ropes when the referee just called the bout in his favor. Even if, as expected, these justices are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, many Americans will not forget what they will consider to be an effort to take away their vote. While these four justices offered their “first impression” in this dangerous opinion, the lasting impression of many voters is not likely to be good for the court or for Democrats.
In reaching this decision, these four justices admitted that “we travel in uncharted territory.” Sometimes that cannot be avoided, but in this case the Colorado Supreme Court steered off the constitutional map.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Tucker Carlson made a recent speech, I suspect it was at a worship center or church. It was kind of his apology of how he was able to reconcile the divide in our nation. While I disagree partially how he defined the opposing sides I concur along with a large part of this nation the division is not a political division or a party division but a spiritual division.
Essentially the two camps are those who recognize or reject one universal primary truth. We the people of all races and beliefs either acknowledge that we are not God, and almost all of the things we would like to control we do not have or will ever have control over them. The opposing side believes that it does have control over all of these things they believe in their own way they are their own God and have the power to act as God over their lives and apparently the lives of others. He said if you understand this then the behavior of these groups makes sense.
Unlike men or women or the transgender, if you believe you are a God you are unencumbered by the beliefs, desires, and objectiveness, of other mere mortals. You are not bound by the natural observable laws of science. You own the truth. You do not share it. No authority, statute or Constitution confines your thoughts words or actions unless you out of convenience to yourself allow it. Everything of human origin serves to serve you and your power and your authority as a God. The law is what you make it and dissent will not be tolerated. No other voice or opinion matters all must bow the knee to you because you are God. It does not matter that in the eyes of most of the world you really really suck at being a God. Your actions are seen by most, if not all, as irrational self serving. You are completely intolerant and devoid of all the positive attributes of the true God, grace, mercy, compassion and love.
Carlson observed that one thing you cannot deny, is your own ultimate appointment with death. Which is a consuming fear for the little gods, and also those who know that there is a real God who does have control over the affairs of mankind.
Well “real god” is doing a pretty sh!t job of taking care of those he “loves”
Believing in jehovah or acting like a god is not a binary either/or. Thats the stupidest shit ever.
Uh huh uh huh da dup you either believe in jehovah or you’re the devil uh yep.
Painting unlike minded people as evil is a lefty tactic.
And this “God” you speak of says you’re just as big of a POS as your “uncircumcised” neighbor. Your righteousness is as “filthy rags”, and if you are “saved” its by his grace alone, so stuff it.
Here’s an instructive history lesson:
Jesse doesn’t do “honest.” That is how Faux rolls. There was a trial on the merits.
Keep making stuff up. There are still plenty of dupes and dopes who like to believe the lies of the Left.
Four Justices of the Supreme Court of Colorado acted high-criminally to find insurrection when absolutely no insurrection occurred and no insurrection has been proven.
Concurring Justices must be impeached, convicted, and removed from office for deliberate and willful abuse of power, corruption, usurpation of power, dereliction, negligence, malicious adjudication under color of law et al.
Concurring Justices must submit to the revocation of their licenses to practice law.
Next case.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.”
“And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
– President Donald J. Trump, January 6, 2021
Facts matter — well, maybe not to you. There was a trial on the merits. The conclusion of the trial court was amply supported by admissible evidence. The Colorado Supremes merely reviewed the legal conclusion de novo, which is what they do.
Your law degree from Jack Daniels U. does not serve you well.
Your contribution is ad hominem rubbish, defining you as a garbage man.
No insurrection occurred; no insurrection was proven; no insurrection was charged.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Cambridge Dictionary
insurrection
noun [ C or U ]
us
/ˌɪn.sɚˈek.ʃən/ uk
/ˌɪn.sərˈek.ʃən/
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:
armed insurrection
What you say makes sense, but isn’t the Left entitled to define words as they choose? As Lewis Caroll put it, ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less. ‘
Hasn’t the Left successfully coopted other words? Like “progressive,” “gender,” “sex,” “democracy” ? Why shouldn’t “insurrection” be redefined to comport with the Left’s wishes?
I graduated Magnum Force from Jack Daniels U.
Anyone that believes Trump will win the presidential election in 2024 is delusional. The elites that rule the U.S. will never allow him to win. They prefer to do it legally but if necessary it will be done illegally. We can be absolutely certain that if Trump is the nominee, fraud will take place in the necessary numbers to ensure his defeat.
JFK lost the election of 1963, and RFK lost the election of 1968, right?
There were no elections in 1963 or June of 1968, you say!
You’d be wrong.
“Trump is a criminal just waiting to be sentenced.”
In this country, we usually wait until *after* a person has been indicted for, then tried and convicted of a crime (you know, in a court of law with judges and such) — *before* declaring that he is a “criminal.”
And we usually wait until after that *due process* to punish him, such as by removing him from ballots.
But if your name is Trump, then all bets are off. First we dehumanize you by smearing you as a “Nazi,” a “threat to democracy,” etc., ad nauseam. Then we can rationalize stripping you of rights, and gutting Western jurisprudence.
What we’re left with is the naked essence of the Left’s view of crime and punishment: By diktat.
Is there a pattern here? Sure: See Covid, et al.
Trump’s Call To Michigan Revealed
Pressuring 2 Republicans
Then-President Donald Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time.
On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they’d look “terrible” if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings.
The call involving Trump, McDaniel, Hartmann and Palmer occurred within 30 minutes of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting ending on Nov. 17, 2020, according to records reviewed by The News.
The recordings further demonstrated the direct involvement of Trump, as an incumbent president, with Republican officials in Michigan in a bid to undermine Biden’s win.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/21/donald-trump-recorded-pressuring-wayne-canvassers-not-to-certify-2020-vote-michigan/72004514007/
He called, but did they succumb to his entreaty? Did it change the outcome. No. So whats the crime friend?
Friend, you need to ratchet it down. Your TDS is showing.
Take a vacation, heard China is a socialist wonderland beckoning Americans with TDS. Cuba and Venezuela are nice this time of year too.
Efromme,
Exactly! Well said., Furthermore, it is not only legal but expected that a candidate who lost a close election to explore every possible avenue to challenge the results.
“did they succumb to his entreaty?”
They tried to: “Palmer and Hartmann left the canvassers meeting without signing the official statement of votes for Wayne County, and the following day, they unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their votes in favor of certification”
“So whats the crime friend?”
Conspiracy to commit a crime is illegal even if the crime fails.
Again – what’s the crime? We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Didn’t a Michigan Judge rule ballots were handled illegally? Yep
The wayne county Board of Canvassers had the power and responsibility to deny certification.
Only leftists believe the lies the media feed them
Regarding above
Posted by the little kunt known as turdrunner, who shows his cowardice by posting anonymously.
He thinks there is even one person outside of his bubble that gives a flying f*ck about some TDS fueled hit piece.
The left is truly desperate.
Remember their reaction in 2016? Wait until you see the response on Nov 6, 2024. It will be glorious to watch, even if you dont much care for Trump.
Poor Anon…
Reality is that the Dems pressured the canvassers to flip and they did.
There cannot be “pressure” where there is no power over someone.
All perfectly legal
You keep posting the same thing, it is still legal
This is so simple.
To whom was the power enumerated, to enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment?
End of story.
Oh, you need it simpler you say?
Was a state court in Colorado enumerated by Section 5, to enforce the provisions of Section 3?
Answer—-NO
Was the Colorado Supreme Court enumerated by Section 5, to enforce the provisions of Section 3?
Answer ——NO
Was the SCOTUS enumerated by Section 5, to enforce the provisions of Section 3?
Answer——NO
Who was??
The Congress.
How?
By legislation?
Did they?
Yes?
How did they?
18 USC 2383
I need it to be legally sound. As Judge Luttig observed, the provision is self-executing.
If you ignore section 5.
If its self executing (whatever the f that means) why does it take a co state court to execute it? Why does it take the co supreme court to execute it? Doesnt look too f-ing self executing to me.
Exactly right! And it’s black and wight for anyone with grade 2 reading comprehension.
Amendment 14, Section 5: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
No court, including SCOTUS, has the constitutional authority to enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment. They can opine on it, but ultimately it’s up to Congress to enforce it.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law-divisions-and-codes/fourteenth-amendment
The relevant language of the 14th Amendment is clear: “…or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,….” The fact that there’s no recent effort to enforce Section 3 doesn’t mean it’s inactive. The various Amnesty Acts after the Civil War years don’t negate the clear meaning of the Constitution in this area, and the 10th Amendment clearly preserves the rights of states to act on this section, just as many here expect the 10th Amendment to override other federal statutes they disagree with.
Section 5 you moron
Left wing nuts can not read.
The enforcement of section 3 was enumerated you twit
“14th Amendment” “10th Amendment”
Why do you ignore the 5th and 6th?
Could it be because those two Amendments thwart the Left’s desire to “get Trump?”
But they don’t.
If Trump is Hitler, what were the American Founders and Framers?
Perhaps unconstitutional?
Didn’t they write the Constitution and Immigration Law within the year of adoption?
Part and parcel, no?
______________________
To wit,
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four clear iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
Biden is decimating the electoral prospects of Democrats just like Obama did. Biden is far worse, which explains why they are once again thwarting our democracy by rigging elections.
the best hope for our nation is public
hangingshaming“However, it is Barack Obama who holds the modern record for overall losses, at least through 2014. President Obama has presided over two devastating midterms for his party. From 2008 to the present, Democrats in the Obama era have racked up net forfeitures of 11 governorships, 13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 913 state legislative seats, and 30 state legislative chambers. In the latter three categories, Obama has doubled (or more) the average two-term presidential loss from Truman through Bush.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/presidents-bad-for-their-parties-113241/#ixzz3Pqkfx2ja
The Supreme Court’s order today essentially buttresses Colorado’s decision to ban Trump from their primary ballot. Voters should know the outcome of Trump’s legal cases BEFORE they vote, not after.
This idea that Trump ‘has’ to run for president, before his cases are resolved, would be considered ridiculous in a normal America.
Steaming turd^^^^
What order are you talking about ?
The Supreme courts decision of the day was that it will not fast track the immunity appeal.
That is pretty much a death blow to the Trump criminal cases. Technically only the DC case is effected, however it is near certain that Trump will raise the same claim in GA, stopping that case, and likely in the FL case – stopping that case.
It is now REMOTELY possible that the case can get through the DC appeals court and to the supreme court and scheduled for oral arguments and decided by the end of june after which the cases against Trump will be stalled by the DOJ election rule.
But even that june date requires miracles for Smith etc. to acheive.
I would note that SCOTUS can do exactly the same thing to the CO SC case, it can Tell CO that it will not accept a direct appeal to SCOTUS and that the case must go through federal appeals courts – which will be required to continue the stay, Again not reaching the Supreme court until after the election.
Democrats have been hell bent on engaging in election lawfare to interfere in the 2024 election – probably because they are in serious trouble that is getting worse by the week. While Democrats control enough courts that atleast a few are bat schiff crazy enough to buy this obvious stupidity. For the most part the courts even left dominated courts have been reluctant to buy this garbage.
Further this tactic is damaging democrats.
Ordinary people may not grasp the nuances of the legal issues. But they know election interferance when they see it.
They also know that whatever J6 was – it was not an insurrection. We saw an insurrection two months ago in Israel.
When you massively exagerate everything – eventually people catch on.
We are now told Trump is worse than Hitler as if it ia a major new revalation something democrats have never been willing to say before – not about Trump not about any presidential candiate.
Yet, in every single presidential election in my lifetime the republican candidate has been compared to Hilter and Nazi’s, and Trump has been subject to that nonsense for nearly 8 years.
What has changed ? Trump is no more Hitler today than 2015. He may not be the great american savior that he envisions himself as.
Bidn has likely been the worst US president in history – but 3 years in – despite the damage – the country has survived,
and in the unlikely event he is re-elected – we will survive another 4 years of Biden.
The country will survive 4 years of Harris or Newsom or Clinton or ….
We will be worse off than woe would be with a better choice, but we will survive.
Peter Thiels claim that we passed peak woke in 2020 appears to be true,
The collapse of the woke left can not come too soon. But even if it does not – we will survive.
We will just be less well off than we would have been with sane governance.
The country can tolerate an enormous amount of failure.
Trump is far from the great president he imagines himself as.
But he was and likely will remain the best president of the 21st century – that is just an extraordinarily low bar.
Regardless, the point is that the american people are reasonably good at seeing things as they are.
Trump recently said he was one indictment away from a landslide. Polls will soon show if the CO SC idiocy has pushed his lead over Biden further.
Frankly if no other state played this stupid game, If Republicans did not counter. if the CO SC got away with being the only stupid state,
The next effect would likely still be pro Trump.
This is unlikely to motivate democrat voters – People do not rush to the polls to support court decisions that mean they do not need to vote.
But they tend to rush to the polls to express anger at decisions they do not like.
Democrats gained atleast some advantage – possibly enough to save their bacon in 2022 from the Dobbs decision.
Are they stupid enough to beleive that the CO SC decsion will not have the same kind of impact ?
Trump was not going to win in DO no matter what. Though we MIGHT discover that has changed in the next polls.
Removing or trying to remove Trump from the ballot might make republicans everywhere despondent. More likely it will make them angry.
It also may make undecided voters angry. Colorado could see a surge in angry republican and independent voters. The entire nation probably will see a small surge in voters angry with democrats.
“What order are you talking about ?”
The order the Supreme Court released today, duh.
And no, it’s not “pretty much a death blow to the Trump criminal cases.”
“SCOTUS can do exactly the same thing to the CO SC case, it can Tell CO that it will not accept a direct appeal to SCOTUS and that the case must go through federal appeals courts”
That’s not how it works with state Supreme Court rulings. They don’t ever move to a federal appeals court if they’re appealed. Why don’t you know this?
As for your many opinions, everyone’s got them, and discussing yours is not worth my time.
“That’s not how it works with state Supreme Court rulings. They don’t ever move to a federal appeals court if they’re appealed. Why don’t you know this?”
I do not “know this” because it is not True.
Thousands of cases are appealed to the supreme court each year. Most are ignored. Some are reversed and remanded without hearing.
Some like the Smith appeal are briefed and rejected. A tiny few go through full briefings and oral argument.
Smith’s appeal was considered, brief and rejected. It may return to the supreme court – but not until after all actions with the DC court of appeals are exhausted.
It was remotely possible that SCOTUS would let Smith jump the queue, but it would have been highly unusual.
Of course the case is highly unusual – despite claims by democrats that it is not.
Regardless, If the 3 judge appelate panel entirely rejected Trump’s claims tomorow, And an en banc appeal and a SCOTUS appeal were also rejected – that would still drag this well into the election.
Dreams of trying Trump prior to the election are done.
Trump’s next likely more is an immunity appeal in GA. That will stall Willis regardless of how the appeal goes.
SCOTUS has made crystal clear that they are not going to short circuit Due process and join the “Get Trump” crowd.
Frankly I doubt that any of these cases will EVER go forward. I doubt there will be a SCOTUS opinion on immunity
Whether you can admit it to yourself or not – this is all purely an effort at election rigging – and one that has backfired badly.
If Trump wins – Smith will be fired. The FL case will be unable to proceed, the GA case will be unable to proceed. the DC case will be unable to proceed. DOJ will likely quietly drop them eventually.
In the unlikely event Biden wins – Biden will likely “magnanimously” pardon everyone. including himself.
No one will care after the election. Because this whole mess has been about the election all along.
The CO SC decision is way too transparent in that regard.
“I do not “know this” because it is not True.”
FFS, John, work on your concentration and your reading comprehension. What I said was “That’s not how it works with state Supreme Court rulings [here: the CO case]. They don’t ever move to a federal appeals court if they’re appealed. Why don’t you know this?”
If a STATE (not federal) law case moves from a STATE (not federal) district court to a STATE (not federal) Supreme Court, the ONLY court it can then be appealed to is the Supreme Court of the United States. At that point, SCOTUS cannot “do exactly the same thing to the CO SC case [as in U.S. v Trump], Tell CO that it will not accept a direct appeal to SCOTUS and that the case must go through federal appeals courts” because the CO Supreme Court is not a federal court. It cannot be sent to a federal appeals court because it was not a federal case. SCOTUS’s only choices are to grant cert or not.
You then switch to a federal case involving Smith, which is entirely irrelevant to what occurs with the CO case. Neither the quote from you that I was discussing (“SCOTUS can do exactly the same thing to the CO SC case, Tell CO that it will not accept a direct appeal to SCOTUS and that the case must go through federal appeals courts”) nor my response to it (“That’s not how it works with state Supreme Court rulings. They don’t ever move to a federal appeals court if they’re appealed.”) were about Smith’s federal (not state) cases. Both the quote from you and my response to it were about the CO state Supreme Court case, and I’m not going to chase your attempt to change the topic to Smith.
Either you can admit that you were wrong when you wrote “SCOTUS can do exactly the same thing to the CO SC case, Tell CO that it will not accept a direct appeal to SCOTUS and that the case must go through federal appeals courts” or you can’t. But your reaction doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.
I ignore most of your comments, though I didn’t ignore the first part of your December 22, 2023 at 6:52 PM comment. Your largely off-topic response and unwillingness to admit you were wrong are among the reasons I ignore most. And now I’ll return to ignoring you.
Everyone does have opinions. All opinions are not equal.
You are free to discount mine – and yet you responded making lie toi your claim they are not worth your time.
The more reasonable conclusion is they are beyond your ability to debate.
John Say,
Well said.
In a normal America Due Process exists!
Like Hillary?
Obviously “due process” means nothing to you, Boris.
Taking appeals into account, there is no way to know the final effect of any of these prosecutions within 10.5 months. And the people who support Trump, which is now almost a majority, do not take any of the prosecutions seriously.
So scotus tells Jack Smith to pound sand and follow due process – the average amount of time a federal prosecution takes is 26months. from indictment to final verdict. Trump does not need special consideration. He just needs ordinary due process to dispose of this pile of garbage.
Regardless SCOTUS has accepted the 1512(c) cases, That means there are atleast 4 vote to dump them. DC courts and the DC appeals court is a muddy split on this that was so bad DOJ quit charging 1512(c) – though that did not stop Smith.
SCOTUS reversing the 1512C cases not only screws up hundreds of J6 convictions, but entirely obliterates the “insurrection” argument.
Every lawyer should read the full text of the Colorado Supreme Court decision and then decide on the quality of the written opinion. No wonder three democratic justices could not in good conscience sign the opinion. The analysis is shamefully inadequate and patently biased. Simply put, the “court” (meaning four biased democratic appointed justices) relied on supposition without supporting evidence, gross examples of hearsay evidence, unsupportable legal conclusions, and sheer irrational thought to reach its decision. I agree with Professor Turley that our U.S. Supreme Court should issue a unanimous quick decision overturning the decision. Should this decision become the law of the land, every state supreme court will become empowered with the ability to disqualify a national candidate for office by relying on “state law” qualifications and disqualications.
It’s not a legal decision; it’s a stump speech likely dictated by the DNC.