Posted on 02/10/2024 4:23:45 PM PST by CFW
The lead attorney representing Colorado before the Supreme Court Thursday, arguing to remove Donald Trump from this year’s presidential ballots, admitted under questioning that his rationale could be applied to preemptively invalidate the outcome of an election.
As Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Klukowski explained after the oral arguments, CO’s lawyer Jared Murray was ill-prepared for myriad objections to the state’s legal case, even from liberal justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson. One moment highlighted by Klukowski reveals the “danger” of Murray’s reasoning — that even a few days before a national election, a state legislature could bar a candidate deemed an “insurrectionist” from winning the state’s electors in the Electoral College, even if they prevail in the people’s vote.
Read the full transcript of this exchange [emphasis added]:
"JUSTICE ALITO: I don’t know how much we can infer from the fact that we haven’t seen anything like this before and therefore conclude that we’re — we’re not going to see something in the future. From the time of the impeachment of President Johnson until the impeachment of President Clinton more than 100 years later, there were no impeachments of presidents. And in fairly short order, over the last couple of decades, we’ve had three. So I don’t know how much you can infer from that.
MR. MURRAY: Certainly, but if this Court affirms, this Court can write an opinion that emphasizes how extraordinary insurrection against the Constitution is and how rare that is because it requires an assault, not just on the application of law, but on constitutionally mandated functions themselves, like we saw on January 6th, a coordinated attempt to — to disrupt a function mandated by the Twelfth Amendment and essential to constitutional transfer of presidential power."
....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
STOP CALLING IT AN “INSURRECTION”!!!
What purpose does that serve but to confirm that the election was rigged.
Are they that arrogant to think that we wouldn’t think this.
As for standards of ethics or whatever the justification, if it weren’t for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all. They are hypocrites.
Amazing how few persons think that they should have the power to control the votes of MILLIONS of others.
Bring back tar and feathering.
Just saying.
If states can void a candidate, ALL states can void a candidate, including the red states.
Fair enough. But I would suggest draw and quartering instead...
Well, in that case, I guess Trump won’t be on the Maryland ballot.
Still glad I moved to Florida.
Don’t state legislatures already have the right to determine how a state’s Electors are chosen? Baring a state law to the contrary and long-standing custom, are states even required to hold elections for Electors?
In the election of 1860, Electors for Lincoln weren’t even on the southern states’ ballots. Of course that didn’t work out all that well for them.
It wasn’t an *insurrection*.
That’s right.
Another interesting exchange, which I can’t find right now, is when a Justice asked what would happen if it started being a “tit-for-tat” with red states taking democrat candidates off their state’s ballots.
The attorney responded something along the lines of: “That wouldn’t happen since the institutions and the courts would stop it”.
So, he was honest in saying that he expected the Courts to rule one way in the instance of Trump being taken off the ballot, but in another way if it was a Democrat. The absolute hubris and assurance of the left that the rules should work only for them and the courts and bureaucracy would come to their defense, is amazing.
Colorado admits its leadership is composed of 50-IQ Morlocks voted in by imbeciles.
What arrogance!!!!
“a fanatic is a person who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” - Churchill. Mindlessly following the cause du jour is a hallmark of leftists. That this hobbyhorse could wreck the republic is of no moment to them because they’re fanatics
“If states can void a candidate, ALL states can void a candidate, including the red states.”
but democrats as degusting as they are, they play for keeps...very few if any GOP do.....
So if the red state legislatures ban the democratic candidate and the blue state legislatures ban the repulican candidate....which is what this all leads to, who wins? In a way we are just back to the electoral system but determined by state legislatures and governors I guess.....
Alabama barred LBJ from the 1964 general election ballot.
Colorado should get a lawyer who went to law school
I bet when the SCOTUS says Colorado can’t ban Trump that they do it anyway.
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.