Posted on 12/21/2023 8:18:19 PM PST by SeekAndFind
People (including our own Ed Morrissey) have been saying this since the decision appeared Tuesday but I’m still a bit surprised to see the Washington Post‘s editorial board making the same case. After laying out the basis of the Colorado decision under the 14th Amendment, the board points out “the law is not so clear.” The board argues that section 3 of the Amendment should probably apply to the president (which is what the Colorado Supreme Court found) but says that doesn’t really matter unless you’ve also concluded that President Trump did in fact commit insurrection in connection with Jan. 6. And on that point, the Colorado court is way out on a limb.
The armed mob that forcibly entered the Capitol with the purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power, they say, was surely carrying out an insurrection. By fomenting myths of election fraud; by urging supporters at least 12 times to travel to D.C.; by exhorting them to “take back our country” when they arrived; by ignoring pleas to tell them to leave; Mr. Trump “engaged,” they say, in that insurrection, too.
As Justice Samour points out in his dissent, however, what’s missing from the majority’s analysis is due process of law. Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it. Tellingly, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith has brought an aggressive case against the former president for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding and more — but not for violating the federal law against insurrection. The penalties for that, by the way, include disqualification from “any office under the United States.”
As the board warns, once you start down the road where any court can disqualify any candidate without due process, it won’t be just the progressive left jumping on this bandwagon.
Disqualifying a candidate based on an accusation, albeit one blessed by a state court judge as in the Colorado case — but not an actual conviction — is dangerous. What’s to stop a Republican politician from seeking to bar his Democratic opponent because the opponent attended Black Lives Matter protests, claiming that those protests, some of them nominally in service of abolishing the police, qualify as insurrection?
The answer of course is nothing whatsoever. All we need is a state supreme court made up of Republican appointees who can decide by a bare majority that, for instance, Kamala Harris gave aid to an insurrection by raising bail money for arrested BLM supporters who were burning down police precincts.
Now it may be true that Harris is a bit of a dunce and that the bail fund was used to spring people I’d rather sat in jail for a while, but it’s a long way from there to tossing her off the ballot in Texas or Florida. The editorial concludes, “In the absence of clarity, a body of unelected officials should be reluctant to prevent the country’s citizens from choosing an elected official to lead them. The Supreme Court, hopefully, understands that.”
I think that’s understating it a bit. Based on their own argument I think you could put it this way: In the absence of due process, a body of unelected officials should absolutely not be involved in preventing citizens from choosing an elected official.
In addition to the editorial from the board, the Post also published a similar take from columnist Ruth Marcus about the same time yesterday.
The three dissenting justices each wrote separately. The most interesting came from Justice Carlos Samour Jr., who said barring Trump from the ballot without legislation from Congress implementing Section 3 violates Trump’s due process rights, especially because Trump has not been charged with insurrection.
“More broadly, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section Three disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis,” Samour wrote. “Surely, this enlargement of state power is antithetical to the framers’ intent.”…
…there is no world in which the justices are going to empower states to throw Trump off their ballots. Given that, the court should keep in mind: This is a moment it should aspire to be the unanimous court of Brown v. Board of Education, not the splintered, party-line body of Bush v. Gore.
On that last point, I agree. Now would be a nice time to see a 9-0 decision knocking the Colorado Supreme Court flat on their bums. Kurt Schlichter summed up the ideal result.
The ideal result – for the country – would be a devastating repudiation of this disgraceful CO ruling by a 9-0 SCOTUS, with the unequivocal and forceful reversal opinion written by Justice Sotomayor.
Hey, a patriot can dream, right?@hughhewitt @JonathanTurley
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 20, 2023
Some lib organizations will see that this Colorado nonsense ultimately helps Trump and start arguing against it.
What are we to do if the USSC rules that the selection of electors is a States’ Rights issue and punts on making a decision?
(I don’t believe that the present Court will do it, but there is that sometimes pesky Amendment #10 in the Bill of Rights.)
How about we toss Kolorado?
“What are we to do if the USSC rules that the selection of electors is a States’ Rights issue and punts on making a decision?”
4th Box...
The state legislature did not do this. Only the court.
That is really the concern from the board. But I don't doubt the board would have a problem if it could only work one way.
California is mulling the idea. What we see is Leftism is trying to essentially cancel the elections by having only one party one candidate. This is the end of Democracy in the US. And just a note. not a Trump fan. But in using the 14th amendment Joe and the Democrats are now actively involved in a coup or an insurrection.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Nope,
We need more of these decisions from the ‘honorable’ democrats running our corrupt & expensive law system.(sarcasm)
Don’t worry, House, Senate, and State Republicans are all over these liberal bogus lawsuits like white on rice.(sarcasm)
Ditching these “do nothing” Republican bums after November 5, 2024 will give me great pleasure.
What little credibility courts had is gone.
Woke ruined the judiciary just like it did Bud Light.
Everyone knows this Lawfare including the CO nonsense is simply Marxist political theater.
This Constitutional Republic is fraying fast and about to snap.
WaPo is mostly worried that repubicans could pull this exact same stunt against democrats ...
Too late, WaPo. SCOTUS will overturn the ruling but the whole world sees what you DemonRats are doing.
Or judges in a state deem that Biden is guilty of "bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors" and therefore Biden is "disqualified to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States", and therefore unable to be on the ballot?
Yeah, imagine that can of worms certain parties don't want opened....
This is another myth by the left that has taken hold.
SCOTUS ruled 7-2 to stop the partial Florida recounts of Dade, Broward, and West Palm Beach counties on 14th amendment equal protection grounds.
It was only the 5-4 ruling that Florida did not have sufficient time to recount the entire state before the certification deadline passed that was along party lines.
It was the 7-2 ruling that stopped the steal in Florida, and that was not a " splintered, party-line" decision.
-PJ
Some lib organizations will see that this Colorado nonsense ultimately helps Trump and start arguing against it.
**************
At this time, the little democrats that post on liberal message boards are either extremely cocky or extremely worried about 2024.
Hmmmm....I wonder why the majority of those little weasels want to keep the 45th President off of our ballots?
Our they acting confident? (LMAO)
Yeah, imagine that can of worms certain parties don’t want opened....
***************
I love where we’re headed.
The pussies on our side, aren’t going to be able to hide out, clutching their pearls any longer. They either learn about teamwork, political warfare, mutual trust, band of brothers, etc, or they can “hit the road.”
“Get tough or pound sand” is my motto going into 2024.
I never thought I’d be agreeing with the WaPo on anything, but here we are.
This is precisely what will happen and nobody should be surprised by this since this court did the same thing in 2020 when it wrongfully declared Texas had no standing against Pennsylvania.
What exactly was the “armed mob” armed with pray tell??? Flags???
Flag staffs?
In 1860, Lincoln wasn’t printed on Southern states’ ballots.
Northern states elected Lincoln as President.
Look how that turned out the following year...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.