The Democrats have done some dumb things in the past seven years, but nothing quite as dumb as trying to throw Trump off the ballot for “Insurrection,” a crime he’s never been charged with. Even the loosest definition of “aid and comfort to insurrectionists” doesn’t fly because none of the Jan 6ers have been charged with “insurrection.”
The SCOTUS took up the immunity ruling, I believe, as a way to balance this opinion, to give the Democrats a win. They didn’t see it that way because they’ve gone collectively insane, but that was the plan.
The Biden administration and their useful idiots say Trump is a "danger to Democracy". And the Dems try to remedy that by removing him from the ballot to erase the very democratic process they claim Trump endangers. This is the logic of the left in a nutshell. Where is the legacy media in all this? Well, they have their heads so far up the left's a** they no longer see the sunshine.
Watched it, really good video and seems right on. I would still maintain that the leaders go with "whatever works," but the video has the ring of truth for the large masses.
🤣😂🤣 “swayed”? Do you mean “purchased“all six conservative members and I use that term very loosely are in violation of their oath of office. They should be impeached removed. According to the constitution. At least two if not three of them come blatantly guilty of massive bribe actions. Two of them guilty of perjury at their appointment hearings. And I seditionist. And insurrectionist to be specific. Multiple rapists. It’s just not a good look and it’s never even coincidentally touched legitimacy
No it’s called following the constitution. You didn’t study this back in Russia. You should’ve before you showed up here and started saying stupid shit.
Actually, the announcement over the weekend that SCOTUS would handing down a decision on Monday was a surprise to many. Normally - there's more notice. I don't think the the decision was a surprised to anyone - except maybe the Kool-Aid drinkers on the left.
No, we all knew it would be some whack job affront against the ideal that is America and a blatant rebuff of the constitution. Look at the court. All six conservative members have violated their oath of office. At least three guilty of serious bribery actions. Two confirmed perjury during Appointment process. And I’m sure that’s just scratching the surface. I’m sure the argument could be made that one of them is guilty of if not actively participating in a conspiracy against the United States aiding and abetting it
Let's wait until SCOTUS decides the immunity question. On the one hand, if they decide that presidents do not have immunity for official actions, the ensuing lawfare will explode, with each side suing the presidents for anything and everything. On the other hand, if they decide that presidents DO have immunity for official actions in office, the Marxist-democrats will likely start rioting and burning again a la 2020.
Nope, if they decide there is no immunity the Dems will sue away but the GOP will do nothing. If they actually had balls we wouldn't be in the situation. Most of them are just as corrupt as the Dems, they just don't hold the power right now. Back when they did we had the W administration. Remember that?
I tend to agree. The Rs are, for the most part, clueless worms. Give them all three branches and they will fight amongst themselves, backstab and vacillate. All I can say in their defense is that they suck less than the Marxist-democrats.
The question is what is "official actions?" Even Dershowitz keeps getting messed up on this. The 2nd Cir Judge gave an outrageous hypothetical...if a President orders an "assassination" of an opponent. The lawyer's answer should have been, "How could that ever be an 'official action?' " But if the judge insisted on an answer, you say, "No, the president cannot be criminally liable IF the action actually is an 'official action.' But if a president takes an action, asserts that it is an 'official action' and people disagree, then there needs to be some time of determination that the action was not an 'official action.' And this would be via impeachment. After all, if the president orders a Seal Team 6 sniper to take a shot at an armed subject threatening a hostage, and if the armed subject happens to be a presidential opposition candidate, the order to take the shot would be an official act and would not be criminal."
Good points. The judge hit the lawyer with a typical 'gotcha' question designed to imply that Trump had issued a criminal, unlawful order. I do think the attorney could have provided a better answer. But there wasn't any easy way to respond to such a loaded, politically inspired question.
Good for you. I wish the word 'democracy' would be stricken from our political dialogue. Come on man, [FJB] we do not have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic, a totally different species of government. Federalism. Representative republic if you prefer, but not now, not ever, a democracy. Look what 'democracy' did for the Greeks.
The Marxist-democrats use the word daily, ad nauseam, as a scare tactic. They are protecting "our democracy" by telling us who we can vote for in elections.
Their separate entities entirely. We are a representative democracy using a constitutional republic architecture of its inception. The semantics of this particular topic don’t mean shit. Take your disingenuous irrelevant gibberish elsewhere
"Their"? I guess you never mastered contractions in 7th grade English. So now we know, aside from being a troll, you have no command of the English language. "Semantics"? Your post is so full of shit it is as meaningless as you are. And, yes, you are irrelevant to any thinking American.
Has anybody else noticed how this story has *yet* to appear on the LinkedIn news feed? The editors over there are normally so quick to push these types of stories into the social conversation, but not today apparently.
EDIT: 6+ hours later and the news *still* hasn't appeared on LinkedIn. We have stories about "tech's gender gap" and "Whole Foods testing a petite store", but a unanimous SC decision hasn't made the cut. Because it's inconvenient.
LinkedIn was caught off guard. The headline was all ready, but counted on at least 1 SCOTUS going the other way. Which would have allowed the ‘White Nationalist’ narrative to ensue. 9-0 though and not a plan B at the ready.
The reaction on Left today has been basically, ‘well at least the Republicans can’t do the same (States remove from ballot) to Biden’. So sad.
My faith is restored for the moment. Even those Justices whom I view as woke, like "I'm not a biologist" Ketanji Brown Jackson, had enough respect for the law to rule properly.
Now we'll hear calls from Rachel Maddow to dump the court and replace it with Larry, Moe and Curly.
That's correct. But that dissension was minor compared to the overall decision. As Coney Barret herself said: "Our differences on the court today are far less important than our unanimity. All nine judges agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."
Thanks, Sasha. It’s an extra benefit of your newsletter that you remind me of the old time wire services that would be first with the news. Clickety click….
When the sitting president calls half the population traitors and threats to well, everything, it is no surprise this kind of obviously illegal move follows. The 9-0 is doubly sweet.
The President's statement about needing F-15's might be intended for his base. A large group of the “elites” have abandoned America in search of greater wealth, sending jobs overseas, bringing in replacement workers from third world countries and creating financial disaster in the heartland. (They were shocked when Trump was elected, the only candidate willing to be on the side of the majority of Americans.) They may well be frightened of the great body of Americans so affected, and actually be fearful of the potential consequences. Telling them that there is nothing to worry about, the rubes don't have F-15s, is a way of showing that they will be protected from their action's consequences.
A federal crime "Insurrection" was promulgated in the mid 90s. That is not relevant to what the meaning of "insurrection" was in 1868. Congress has no authority to define the meaning of critical terms employed in the Constitution. And "conviction" too is, as far as I can see, not relevant to the 14th amendment.
I am disappointed, though not surprised, that the meaning of "insurrection" *in 1868*, which is by far the most important issue (in the old sense of that word), was not addressed in the decision. (I did not hear it come up in the oral arguments.)
I am also highly suspicious about how soon the word "insurrection" was, wrongly but conveniently, applied to the mass trespassing event that occurred on Jan 6. It's almost as if the decision to use that word was made, by the orchestraters, well in advance ...
The exploitation of events (not only J6) by Dems to spin their bs and poison minds is beyond belief. These people are insane, left-brain dominated, and need help fast.
Faster than they are likely to get it! They have in effect adopted a non-spiritual religion, which provides them with meaning to their pathetic (incel) lives and (false) hopes for a better future.
Their beliefs are absolutely appalling and extremely dangerous. The primary creator of Far Leftism in its current form, Kimberle Crenshaw, is such a contemptible pseudo-intellectual that she looks at "unfalsifiable" and sees "irrefutable". Go the back of the class. But in our sick world, she has instead gone to the head of the class. Wonderful.
And was it even mass trespassing to walk into a building that the Capitol police removed the barriers and opened the locked doors and ushered people in?
I am not up on the law on that. It would be nice to think that, if the police did not object, there was no trespassing. It would also be nice to think that arguments to that effect, if valid, would have resulted in not guilty verdicts. It would be nice ...
The SCOTUS decision addressed that apparent conflict by acknowledging the ambiguity. Recall that presidential choice was at one time not by popular vote, with legislators in the several states choosing Electors. Only in modern times do Electors (who you are actually voting for) appear on ballots with their committed candidate's name. So by disqualifying every proposed committed Elector for a particular candidate, the same result could be obtained.
But late in the decision SCOTUS called this out as also invalid, albeit with less compelling citations. I'm still reading the decision and will look up the cites. It's interesting how quickly this decision was drafted, researched, circulated and approved unanimously.
I think immunity will be easier in some ways, since there are so many examples of Presidents having committed acts that would be seen as criminal in the context of their role as commander in chief of the military. Ex: We know of cases where as recently as the Obama presidency upon orders American citizens abroad and engaging in rebellious terror activities were ordered killed without what might be reasonably considered "due process." The remedy of impeachment and conviction really has to be the determinant to avoid paralysis of the Executive.
This comes as no surprise. Constitutional Amendments are FEDERAL and state and local courts have no authority to rule on them. Rulings have to come from Federal courts and even then their authority in a matter of this nature is questionable. The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by Radical Republicans immediately after the Civil War to keep Southern Democrats, former Confederates, from holding office. Former Confederates were being elected to office (before the Radicals instituted Reconstruction and kept them from voting while pushing freed slaves to vote for Republicans. BTW, blacks in the North weren't allowed to vote until 1870.) As a matter of fact, former Confederates WERE allowed to hold office and take seats in Congress once the Radicals lost power. General Joe Wheeler, a former Confederate cavalry commander, became a general in the United States Army during the Spanish-American War.
Something is not right with the 14th—it is being exploited by Dems to attempt to give the fed govt dictatorial powers over states. This attempt destabilizes the checks and balances of the constitutional republic set up by the founders. How can what is happening to Trump with these four indictments be legit? SCOTUS has pretty much sat on its hands during all this chaos caused by Dem lawyers and enablers. Look at their decision to tell TX to remove their border barriers. Surely the executive doesn’t have unlimited power over the border. No limits at all means anything goes. What a mess. Glad for this ruling but it’s the least they can do. They watched while the 2020 election was rendered a total mess, refusing to rule when asked.
The 14th Amendment was not right in the first place. Its sole purpose was to give more political power to Republicans. Lincoln theorized that the Articles of Confederation established the United States as a "perpetual union" and used that theory to negate the 10th Amendment. The Federal government gained all power as a result of the Union victory in the War Between the States. The irony is that the 1860s Republicans are now the Democrats and vice versa.
Do you have more info on how Lincoln’s “perpetual union” theory would negate the 10th amendment? A perpetual union would mean that the states couldn’t secede but would it negate all their powers completely? I would like more information on the 14th but I don’t know where to find it. Yes, it’s ironic that the Democrats are now using the 14th against the Republicans. The whirligig of time brings in its revenges.
There are a lot of places where you can find info about Lincoln's theories. He advocated perpetual union without recognizing that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and does not address such an issue. There was opposition to the theory even before the Constitution was proposed and adopted. Before the Civil War, the government was a government of STATES by a Constitution that stipulated that anything not spelled out in the Constitution was the right of the states. Thanks to Lincoln and the Radical Republicans, we now have a single government that shits all over the states, as Biden has been trying to do on the Texas border. (Immigration is not addressed by the Constitution.) It took me a long time to understand it, but I know realize the Civil War was fought over the rights of states, which includes the right to withdraw from a "union" of which they no longer feel a part. It's well known that the reason the US didn't try Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders is because they feared the courts would rule that the states had a right to secede.
The 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments which were proposed and pushed through without the votes of most Southerners. The 13th and 14th were made a condition for readmission to the Union (Lincoln claimed they never left.) The 15th was also part of it. Incidentally, the 15th gave voting rights to blacks in the North who had been prohibited from voting. The 13th abolished slavery, the 14th was to give rights to freed slaves - but they added a bunch of other things, including the "insurrection" clause while the 15th established a right to vote (ironically, Radical Republican governments in the South had already given slaves the right to vote while disenfranchising former Confederates.)
Very interesting. Thanks. I agree the states probably have a right to leave the union or thought they did when they joined. Reminds me of Brexit—where the right to leave, while acknowledged, turned out to be a torturous process.
If you look at what took place in the 1850s-1870s you'll see that the US government was taken over by socialists and communists who wanted to establish a single state. It came from Europe. The founders of the Republican Party were mostly socialists although they are mostly thought of as abolitionists. Horace Greely is the primary founder and he was a nut case who believed some weird things. Communists came over from Germany after the failed 1848 revolutions in Europe and some of them joined the Republican Party. One of Grant's cabinet members was a communist.
As for secession, it was advocated several times before the Civil War (which I think of as the War Between the States since it wasn't really a civil war. The Southern states didn't want to control the government, they wanted to leave and form their own confederacy.) The New England states threatened to secede over the War of 1812. Some of the Founders, particularly Madison, advocated revolution rather than secession. Some of the Midwestern States wanted to secede due to opposition to Lincoln (who was originally elected with 32% of the vote.) Whether or not a state has the right to secede has never been established, Lincoln sent Federal troops to force the South back into the Union - and caused the deaths of close to 3/4's of a million men as a result. This country has been (screwed) up for a long time, it didn't just happen.
Agree with most of your concepts. However, SCOTUS did not order Texas to remove any barriers; they told Texas that the Feds, Border Control, could cut razor wire and move barriers. They did not say Texas could not replace such barriers. BTW, the 5th Circuit of Appeals has overridden the federal judge in Texas that said our SB4 could not go into effect this Friday. Unless there is an emergency decision from SCOTUS on SB4, Texas will begin detaining, arresting and confining incoming illegal aliens.
Ok, I see your point—SCOTUS gave feds the green light to cut and remove the barriers that TX had put in place. This was not a good decision in that it de facto denied Texas their right to control their own border. I am unhappy with Amy Coney Barrett’s rulings. Her recent remarks about lowering the temperature seem out of place. Fair and clear rulings are what we need. How does NOT ruling on Congress’ role in the 14th lower the temperature? Does the Executive branch need more power?
Yes, Barrett has made some disappointing votes and comments. Hard to tell how the justices will respond to a case in many instances. Overall though, I would rather have J Barrett than a J Garland.
If a 9-0 decision doesn’t humble them nothing will. Unhinged doesn’t describe what we are seeing. It’s becoming an even bigger problem that they don’t have the slightest bit of self-awareness of their actions because they are all stricken with the same mind virus.
The pathetic losers over at CNN are saying this was actually a 5 to 4 majority because there were multiple separate opinions that disagreed on many issues. I guess they don't understand how this works. All of them did vote to keep him on the ballot but did not agree on all the reasons. That's still a 9 to 0 majority. CNN claimed that different opinions leading to the same decision are the same thing as dissenting opinions. Not even close. In fact, it is quite common to have multiple opinions in Supreme Court decisions. Just more evidence that the left think we are all morons. Or maybe they know that their audience are gullible morons. 🤔
The entire MO for the leftists is to eliminate opposition. Their preferred method of doing this in political contests is to have their opposition removed from the ballot. This was the way Barack 0bama was elected to the Illinois Senate, then the US Senate, and his campaign even tried to have Sen McCain thrown off the presidential ballot in 2008 by claiming he was not a natural-born citizen because of being born in the Panama Canal Zone.
You can’t provide a single piece of evidence for your claim aside from trying to remove Trump which had nothing to do with Democrats by the way. I had to do with the constitution but the people who brought it up or not Democrats. You’re so bad at this agitprop stuff. I hope it’s just a side gig or you’re gonna be one hungry motherfucker
That’s pathetic, Bruh. You’re just making shit up. Literally just pulling shit out your ass.
Whoever controls your little sock puppet silicone ship she’s realize there’s not room in a dumb people here. It’s a readers writers platform. You’re wasting your fucking time with your Putin cocksleeve agitprop gibberish.
KB makes sense. Hudson E Baldwin III responds with an incoherent string of insults and epithets that do absolutely nothing to convince readers that he has a point at all. This is how my friends and I thought we won arguments when we were seven.
You've already run out of off-the-shelf out-dated adjectives that haven''t shocked or offended anybody since 1950. Even your insults are boring. Give it up. Can't you hear the audience laughing at you?
If Presidents have no immunity, Obama can be potentially prosecuted for murder for drone-killing an American citizen, teenaged Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in 2011. Are they really going to open that can of worms?
I disagree that SCOTUS is going to hand Democrats a win on the immunity issue.
My bet is that a majority of the Supreme Court is going to rule that the president of the United States does have immunity for official acts. The court will remand the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the "official acts" question. The court will also recognize that the president has very broad discretion in determining for himself what is an official act. (I'm not dismissing the possibility that the court will conclude that the president's exercise of its discretion in this regard is not reviewable by the courts, but that precise issue wasn't included in what the court said it was going to decide here.)
If, on remand back to the trial court, Trump is again denied immunity, he will be able to appeal the case again before the case can go to trial. In effect, the Supreme Court will be kicking the case to after the election. That will soften the blow politically, although not entirely.
On the merits, the Supreme Court will not see the immunity issue as absurd, as mainstream media pundits proclaim with accompanying derision and disdain. The supreme court will likely see the current lawfare and understand how destructive it is to "our democracy." No president can function effectively and with the best interests of the public in mind with the threat of future prosecution lurking ominously behind every executive decision.
Democrats are deluding themselves if they think that the lawfare against Trump is a one-off in this regard. I suspect a majority of justices on the supreme court will see and appreciate that. Without immunity, there will be no shortage of executive actions that will be available for later criminal prosecution when the opposing party next takes the presidency.
And a president will not be able to protect himself by refraining from sending SEAL Team Six into the Capitol to arrest his opponents (anti-Trumpers too-clever-by-half rhetorical bête noire in the immunity case). A hostile DOJ will always be able to come up with something, plausible or implausible to charge the ex-president.
We don't reject immunity because it might exempt the president from later prosecution for brazen and heinous crimes, however absurdly postulated; we require it because it protects the president from charges that are punitive, frivolous and/or vexatious. Presidential Immunity is necessary for the proper functioning of the executive branch of government. Immunity, at its core, is not about protecting the man; it's about protecting the system.
One can argue that Trump was engaged in official acts because what is the president supposed to do if he sincerely believes and has a reason to believe an election has been tampered with illegally?
Yes, but I think you're overthinking it. He was making a political speech to his constituents. That's within the scope of his duties and prerogatives under the Constitution.
So the people that stole the election in 2016 the first coup, which was successful, failed in a violent and possibly member of government endangering blatant coup d’état in 2020 are all about election interference in 2024? That’s a pretty fucked up optic, Bruh
I want to hope that the unanimity of the decision will persuade some of the less hysterical to take a step back. Unlikely as it might be, I still have to have hope in my fellow citizens.
This is the problem of compromise as the Overton window keeps getting expanded. There is no reason to balance any opinion. Doing to only encourages even more outrageous attacks on our rights and liberties.
This ruling is just one of many signs that the Democrats are out of options to block Trump, who now will represent a cosmic force (he was born under a Sagittarius Full Moon that will be triggered by the Sagittarius Moon on Election Day) due to their efforts to destroy him.
No major collective change happens without an eclipse. On April 8 there is a super powerful eclipse known as The Great American Eclipse. The path crosses last year’s American Eclipse path at the Texan border. Donald Trump’s surprise win as POTUS was under the first Great American Eclipse in August 2017.
The double eclipse over America (2023-2024) is exposing all the bad actors threatening the US Constitution. The harder they try to block Trump, the more they are exposed. This is just as it should be under this extremely rare cosmic event reflecting the crossroads that will revive or destroy the concept of America.
Fox News' Shannon Bream breaks down the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of former President Trump. Fox News contributors Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley react.
Relevant to the situation here in USA are these remarks from UK:
“The Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption, Lord Walney said that “there is a gap in the government’s understanding of damage that the anti-democratic far-Left can do.”
“They are now at the forefront of the threat to our democratic institutions – by manipulating protest movements, hijacking them with extreme illegitimate protest methods – this is one of the hallmarks of a number of far-Left groups,” he said.
His review called for political leaders in Westminster to refuse to engage with radical left-wing organisations that use intimidation to get their way, saying “if you resort to these tactics, it’s not going to work… You can’t on the one hand be encircling and menacing someone’s office, and then be invited in for a cup of tea and a chat. We need to do more to protect our democratic decision-making.”
The second headline from Business Insider, is a joke and typical of their brand of propaganda. OMG: “surprise Monday ruling….” What a bunch of State Run Media hacks!
This is such a bullshit narrative you have to break the law to be prosecuted or indicted in theory anyway. And he’s broken laws. This is not warfare then it’s prosecuting criminals. Fuck you and your Putin cocksucking narrative
When was the last time you saw a Democrat truly happy about ANYTHING? Are there any emotions other than rage and hatred in their toolbox? Even when they had the White House (barely), Senate (more barely) and House (again, barely) 2021-23, all you hear is anger and hatred directed at anyone to the right of Stalin..............
Before you even go there you’re not worth anything for you can’t edit a reply on this particular part of the platform and I don’t give a fuck. Grammar cop is the refuge and losers liars and sock puppets
Democrats will not stop or give up. They are like a scorned spouse, who, 10 years after the divorce, still bores the crap out of everyone she knows plotting against her betrayer.
Your opening paragraph is pathetic disingenuous bovine fecal matter. The court carefully and purposely avoided the insurrection question and base the decision on a technicality of states enforcing federal legislative mandates. Which is bullshit anyway. They’re fine when states have gun laws that don’t meat federal legislative mandates. They’re perfectly OK with leading state governments intrude on women’s healthcare.
I just have one question. How the fuck do you sleep at night?
The Democrats have done some dumb things in the past seven years, but nothing quite as dumb as trying to throw Trump off the ballot for “Insurrection,” a crime he’s never been charged with. Even the loosest definition of “aid and comfort to insurrectionists” doesn’t fly because none of the Jan 6ers have been charged with “insurrection.”
Too bad the Colorado case was brought by four Republicans and two Independents. And also, the Court did not deny that Trump took part in insurrection. You have written some dumb things in the past year, but nothing quite as dumb as the above.
Uncle Joe needs to fire his cabinet Secretary at the Department of Dirty Tricks!
/sarc/ off
When your default setting is to resort to Bolshevik tactics, don’t be too surprised when the cigar blows up in your face. The country is not ‘with’ the Bolsheviks (neo-Marxists)!
Maybe Jena Griswold should have pulled a Fani Willis-Nathan Wade and met with WH Counsel and billed WH (i.e. YOU, the citizen) for consultation on how best to exclude Trump from the Colorado ballot.
As they wink at states to continue with their election shenanigans because they won’t be listening to any litigation that comes up their way down the line. It’s encouraging but the big players are still up to something. It feels a bit like “let’s give them a little taste of victory but then we’ll really put the hammer down and crush them”. I’ll really be surprised if Trump can pull off a victory maybe even more so than in 2016. Even if he wins, we will all be put through hell again.
This ruling announced under a Sagittarius Moon ... the same placement as on Election Day. Truth, justice & freedom. It is a slam dunk for Trump from here on out.
Oh, don’t be too sure. The radical left may be forced to drop their lawfare and move on to the next scenario. Whatever it is, they are NOT done. This is a group who would rather get us into WW3, than let Trump back in office. If they can’t cheat their way out of a Trump win, they will try to find some way to either stop the elections entirely (just like Zelensky did) or take out Trump permanently.
SCOTUS rules exactly as predicted--read Insurrection: SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment on danbutterfield.substack.com.
Oddly, new article out on danbutterfield.substack.com Atlanta Superior Court Judge will rule against disqualifying Fani Willis--Stolen: Fani Willis--Gets Win, Sort Of.
Judge McAfee will not disqualify Willis--but since he's the judge of record in the RICO when the defense requests a change of venue he will grant the motion--ending the RICO case.
Article 2 gives legislators in the states plenary power to determine who may be an Elector (chusing, I think, is the term) which, by inference, seems to give them the power to disenfranchise candidates. Amendment 12 didn't really change this. So a textual reading might have been a loss for Trump. It'll be interesting to read the opinion.
I just want to know who your benefactor sugar daddy is. I mean you’re not making a living spewing that bullshit. Does the GOP pay you directly or do you take Rubles. You’re the kind of girl that would double date with Lauren Boebert.
Now, only a pussy that likes to be grabbed it would contend there was no insurrection. And that those three words are rather clear and concise anybody that participated can NOT “hold any office”
The Biden administration and their useful idiots say Trump is a "danger to Democracy". And the Dems try to remedy that by removing him from the ballot to erase the very democratic process they claim Trump endangers. This is the logic of the left in a nutshell. Where is the legacy media in all this? Well, they have their heads so far up the left's a** they no longer see the sunshine.
Their logic is "whatever works."
I have a different opinion of why 1/3 of Americans support Obama/Biden and the destruction of the USA:
https://youtu.be/1IyzgMxuXOE?si=L3rZc6Fpc74Egvs3
Watched it, really good video and seems right on. I would still maintain that the leaders go with "whatever works," but the video has the ring of truth for the large masses.
Unfortunately, it's not just the media. With the kanga courts he's been in lately, SCOTUS could have just as easily gone the other way.
They were unanimous. They couldn't have less easily gone the other way.
I hear you. But don't believe SCOTUS can't be swayed. If nit now, someday it will happen.
🤣😂🤣 “swayed”? Do you mean “purchased“all six conservative members and I use that term very loosely are in violation of their oath of office. They should be impeached removed. According to the constitution. At least two if not three of them come blatantly guilty of massive bribe actions. Two of them guilty of perjury at their appointment hearings. And I seditionist. And insurrectionist to be specific. Multiple rapists. It’s just not a good look and it’s never even coincidentally touched legitimacy
Totally agree. The one thing absolutely certain in our nutty politics is that the pendulum inevitably swings back.
Kick it where the sun don't shine.
.... and no longer able to breath from a lack of oxygen. They are suffering from the Mars Syndrome - too much methane
No it’s called following the constitution. You didn’t study this back in Russia. You should’ve before you showed up here and started saying stupid shit.
9-0, that's what you call a major bitch slapping and WELL DESERVED
Remember, Democrats are the true threat to Democracy in America.
"bench" slapping
Love the AP title: "in a *surprise* Monday ruling..." There was nothing surprising about it, except for people who live their lives in a total bubble.
Actually, the announcement over the weekend that SCOTUS would handing down a decision on Monday was a surprise to many. Normally - there's more notice. I don't think the the decision was a surprised to anyone - except maybe the Kool-Aid drinkers on the left.
Obvious agitprop fake account tool is no one to take your political science advice from. I’ll pass
No, we all knew it would be some whack job affront against the ideal that is America and a blatant rebuff of the constitution. Look at the court. All six conservative members have violated their oath of office. At least three guilty of serious bribery actions. Two confirmed perjury during Appointment process. And I’m sure that’s just scratching the surface. I’m sure the argument could be made that one of them is guilty of if not actively participating in a conspiracy against the United States aiding and abetting it
Whoa, dude…
Dude - you’d better get back on your meds. Unfortunately, no meds can cure your TDS.
Contradict your narrative with truth and you get all sorts of ad hominem bullshitty….
All this lawfare pisses me off so bad I can't see straight. Glad to see the Supe's weigh in 9-0. We live in interesting times.
Let's wait until SCOTUS decides the immunity question. On the one hand, if they decide that presidents do not have immunity for official actions, the ensuing lawfare will explode, with each side suing the presidents for anything and everything. On the other hand, if they decide that presidents DO have immunity for official actions in office, the Marxist-democrats will likely start rioting and burning again a la 2020.
Nope, if they decide there is no immunity the Dems will sue away but the GOP will do nothing. If they actually had balls we wouldn't be in the situation. Most of them are just as corrupt as the Dems, they just don't hold the power right now. Back when they did we had the W administration. Remember that?
I tend to agree. The Rs are, for the most part, clueless worms. Give them all three branches and they will fight amongst themselves, backstab and vacillate. All I can say in their defense is that they suck less than the Marxist-democrats.
You've got it. The job of R is to make life easy for D.
I hope you are right, but I think Jennifer is probably accurate. Republicans are pretty much useless.
The question is what is "official actions?" Even Dershowitz keeps getting messed up on this. The 2nd Cir Judge gave an outrageous hypothetical...if a President orders an "assassination" of an opponent. The lawyer's answer should have been, "How could that ever be an 'official action?' " But if the judge insisted on an answer, you say, "No, the president cannot be criminally liable IF the action actually is an 'official action.' But if a president takes an action, asserts that it is an 'official action' and people disagree, then there needs to be some time of determination that the action was not an 'official action.' And this would be via impeachment. After all, if the president orders a Seal Team 6 sniper to take a shot at an armed subject threatening a hostage, and if the armed subject happens to be a presidential opposition candidate, the order to take the shot would be an official act and would not be criminal."
Good points. The judge hit the lawyer with a typical 'gotcha' question designed to imply that Trump had issued a criminal, unlawful order. I do think the attorney could have provided a better answer. But there wasn't any easy way to respond to such a loaded, politically inspired question.
It was a classic "how long since you stopped beating your wife?" type of question.
Yep, like asking "When did you stop smoking crack?"
The lawyer should have responded to the judge, "How could that ever be an 'official action?' "
The Supreme Court framed the question correctly when it described the matter as involving a "purported" official action.
So our Constitutional Republic can live another day..
But still very much on life support and hanging by a thread.
Good for you. I wish the word 'democracy' would be stricken from our political dialogue. Come on man, [FJB] we do not have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic, a totally different species of government. Federalism. Representative republic if you prefer, but not now, not ever, a democracy. Look what 'democracy' did for the Greeks.
Thank You kindly.
I’d like to have people confirm a word search experiment in the founding documents.
1. Download the text of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution into a searchable text file.
2. Then search for the word ‘Democracy’ – its not in there.
3. Try it yourself and see what you find.
The Marxist-democrats use the word daily, ad nauseam, as a scare tactic. They are protecting "our democracy" by telling us who we can vote for in elections.
You’re a real piece of work. You have no sense of context
Their separate entities entirely. We are a representative democracy using a constitutional republic architecture of its inception. The semantics of this particular topic don’t mean shit. Take your disingenuous irrelevant gibberish elsewhere
"Their"? I guess you never mastered contractions in 7th grade English. So now we know, aside from being a troll, you have no command of the English language. "Semantics"? Your post is so full of shit it is as meaningless as you are. And, yes, you are irrelevant to any thinking American.
Good. Now states should act to prevent these fringe lunatics, like Jena Griswold, from having any role in the election process.
The outcome was obvious, and it's refreshing the Court acted in a unanimous manner.
Has anybody else noticed how this story has *yet* to appear on the LinkedIn news feed? The editors over there are normally so quick to push these types of stories into the social conversation, but not today apparently.
EDIT: 6+ hours later and the news *still* hasn't appeared on LinkedIn. We have stories about "tech's gender gap" and "Whole Foods testing a petite store", but a unanimous SC decision hasn't made the cut. Because it's inconvenient.
LinkedIn was caught off guard. The headline was all ready, but counted on at least 1 SCOTUS going the other way. Which would have allowed the ‘White Nationalist’ narrative to ensue. 9-0 though and not a plan B at the ready.
The reaction on Left today has been basically, ‘well at least the Republicans can’t do the same (States remove from ballot) to Biden’. So sad.
BTW, where are the trolls today?
Not on Fox News, the enemy of the volks, it is being discussed repeatedly.
Could Griswold and the SOS in Maine be impeached for insurrection? If they were Republicans, they could........
Problem is that there is no punishment for the perps. I will take a defensive victory but that is not the way you win wars.
My faith is restored for the moment. Even those Justices whom I view as woke, like "I'm not a biologist" Ketanji Brown Jackson, had enough respect for the law to rule properly.
Now we'll hear calls from Rachel Maddow to dump the court and replace it with Larry, Moe and Curly.
Gives me a little hope that we aren't completely lost.
Larry, Moe and Curly are already on the 9th Circuit and there is no promotion from there
KJB dissented, along with Kagan and Sotomayor. Even Barrett disagreed with the 'unnecessary'
decision overall. They only agreed with the judgement, not the whole bag SCOTUS so ordered.
That's correct. But that dissension was minor compared to the overall decision. As Coney Barret herself said: "Our differences on the court today are far less important than our unanimity. All nine judges agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."
Yes, I got that. It is the judgement against Colorado's political stunt that counts.
and Snow Flake Hunter
Hell why not even Zelensky.
Or Judge Judy Pelosi..
Keep going. We've almost got a full court.
Kamalamadingdong...
Going directly to MSNBC to watch the hysterics.
LOL! You are brave Jon!
OH MAN, I missed it!! How was it on the weepability scale? Not quite up to November 8, 2017 (my favorite TV show ever) I'll bet........
Thanks, Sasha. It’s an extra benefit of your newsletter that you remind me of the old time wire services that would be first with the news. Clickety click….
When the sitting president calls half the population traitors and threats to well, everything, it is no surprise this kind of obviously illegal move follows. The 9-0 is doubly sweet.
The President's statement about needing F-15's might be intended for his base. A large group of the “elites” have abandoned America in search of greater wealth, sending jobs overseas, bringing in replacement workers from third world countries and creating financial disaster in the heartland. (They were shocked when Trump was elected, the only candidate willing to be on the side of the majority of Americans.) They may well be frightened of the great body of Americans so affected, and actually be fearful of the potential consequences. Telling them that there is nothing to worry about, the rubes don't have F-15s, is a way of showing that they will be protected from their action's consequences.
A federal crime "Insurrection" was promulgated in the mid 90s. That is not relevant to what the meaning of "insurrection" was in 1868. Congress has no authority to define the meaning of critical terms employed in the Constitution. And "conviction" too is, as far as I can see, not relevant to the 14th amendment.
I am disappointed, though not surprised, that the meaning of "insurrection" *in 1868*, which is by far the most important issue (in the old sense of that word), was not addressed in the decision. (I did not hear it come up in the oral arguments.)
I am also highly suspicious about how soon the word "insurrection" was, wrongly but conveniently, applied to the mass trespassing event that occurred on Jan 6. It's almost as if the decision to use that word was made, by the orchestraters, well in advance ...
The exploitation of events (not only J6) by Dems to spin their bs and poison minds is beyond belief. These people are insane, left-brain dominated, and need help fast.
They are beyond help. The only thing they’ll understand is total unmitigated defeat, and even then, they’ll be thrashing and wailing!
Faster than they are likely to get it! They have in effect adopted a non-spiritual religion, which provides them with meaning to their pathetic (incel) lives and (false) hopes for a better future.
Their beliefs are absolutely appalling and extremely dangerous. The primary creator of Far Leftism in its current form, Kimberle Crenshaw, is such a contemptible pseudo-intellectual that she looks at "unfalsifiable" and sees "irrefutable". Go the back of the class. But in our sick world, she has instead gone to the head of the class. Wonderful.
And was it even mass trespassing to walk into a building that the Capitol police removed the barriers and opened the locked doors and ushered people in?
I am not up on the law on that. It would be nice to think that, if the police did not object, there was no trespassing. It would also be nice to think that arguments to that effect, if valid, would have resulted in not guilty verdicts. It would be nice ...
Duh....
The SCOTUS decision addressed that apparent conflict by acknowledging the ambiguity. Recall that presidential choice was at one time not by popular vote, with legislators in the several states choosing Electors. Only in modern times do Electors (who you are actually voting for) appear on ballots with their committed candidate's name. So by disqualifying every proposed committed Elector for a particular candidate, the same result could be obtained.
But late in the decision SCOTUS called this out as also invalid, albeit with less compelling citations. I'm still reading the decision and will look up the cites. It's interesting how quickly this decision was drafted, researched, circulated and approved unanimously.
I think immunity will be easier in some ways, since there are so many examples of Presidents having committed acts that would be seen as criminal in the context of their role as commander in chief of the military. Ex: We know of cases where as recently as the Obama presidency upon orders American citizens abroad and engaging in rebellious terror activities were ordered killed without what might be reasonably considered "due process." The remedy of impeachment and conviction really has to be the determinant to avoid paralysis of the Executive.
Let freedom ring!
Such theatre! Who needs Hollywood?
Will MSNBC claim that Sotomayor was bullied and harassed by the SCOTUS patriarchy?
Was Putin mind control that Tucker smuggled in.
Probably. Or maybe they'll reveal that she had a minor stroke, didn't sleep the previous night, or went on a bender. Sky's the limit.
They'll just sic ProPublica on her travel habits.
This comes as no surprise. Constitutional Amendments are FEDERAL and state and local courts have no authority to rule on them. Rulings have to come from Federal courts and even then their authority in a matter of this nature is questionable. The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by Radical Republicans immediately after the Civil War to keep Southern Democrats, former Confederates, from holding office. Former Confederates were being elected to office (before the Radicals instituted Reconstruction and kept them from voting while pushing freed slaves to vote for Republicans. BTW, blacks in the North weren't allowed to vote until 1870.) As a matter of fact, former Confederates WERE allowed to hold office and take seats in Congress once the Radicals lost power. General Joe Wheeler, a former Confederate cavalry commander, became a general in the United States Army during the Spanish-American War.
Something is not right with the 14th—it is being exploited by Dems to attempt to give the fed govt dictatorial powers over states. This attempt destabilizes the checks and balances of the constitutional republic set up by the founders. How can what is happening to Trump with these four indictments be legit? SCOTUS has pretty much sat on its hands during all this chaos caused by Dem lawyers and enablers. Look at their decision to tell TX to remove their border barriers. Surely the executive doesn’t have unlimited power over the border. No limits at all means anything goes. What a mess. Glad for this ruling but it’s the least they can do. They watched while the 2020 election was rendered a total mess, refusing to rule when asked.
The 14th Amendment was not right in the first place. Its sole purpose was to give more political power to Republicans. Lincoln theorized that the Articles of Confederation established the United States as a "perpetual union" and used that theory to negate the 10th Amendment. The Federal government gained all power as a result of the Union victory in the War Between the States. The irony is that the 1860s Republicans are now the Democrats and vice versa.
Do you have more info on how Lincoln’s “perpetual union” theory would negate the 10th amendment? A perpetual union would mean that the states couldn’t secede but would it negate all their powers completely? I would like more information on the 14th but I don’t know where to find it. Yes, it’s ironic that the Democrats are now using the 14th against the Republicans. The whirligig of time brings in its revenges.
Raw power trumps words.
There are a lot of places where you can find info about Lincoln's theories. He advocated perpetual union without recognizing that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and does not address such an issue. There was opposition to the theory even before the Constitution was proposed and adopted. Before the Civil War, the government was a government of STATES by a Constitution that stipulated that anything not spelled out in the Constitution was the right of the states. Thanks to Lincoln and the Radical Republicans, we now have a single government that shits all over the states, as Biden has been trying to do on the Texas border. (Immigration is not addressed by the Constitution.) It took me a long time to understand it, but I know realize the Civil War was fought over the rights of states, which includes the right to withdraw from a "union" of which they no longer feel a part. It's well known that the reason the US didn't try Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders is because they feared the courts would rule that the states had a right to secede.
The 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments which were proposed and pushed through without the votes of most Southerners. The 13th and 14th were made a condition for readmission to the Union (Lincoln claimed they never left.) The 15th was also part of it. Incidentally, the 15th gave voting rights to blacks in the North who had been prohibited from voting. The 13th abolished slavery, the 14th was to give rights to freed slaves - but they added a bunch of other things, including the "insurrection" clause while the 15th established a right to vote (ironically, Radical Republican governments in the South had already given slaves the right to vote while disenfranchising former Confederates.)
Very interesting. Thanks. I agree the states probably have a right to leave the union or thought they did when they joined. Reminds me of Brexit—where the right to leave, while acknowledged, turned out to be a torturous process.
If you look at what took place in the 1850s-1870s you'll see that the US government was taken over by socialists and communists who wanted to establish a single state. It came from Europe. The founders of the Republican Party were mostly socialists although they are mostly thought of as abolitionists. Horace Greely is the primary founder and he was a nut case who believed some weird things. Communists came over from Germany after the failed 1848 revolutions in Europe and some of them joined the Republican Party. One of Grant's cabinet members was a communist.
As for secession, it was advocated several times before the Civil War (which I think of as the War Between the States since it wasn't really a civil war. The Southern states didn't want to control the government, they wanted to leave and form their own confederacy.) The New England states threatened to secede over the War of 1812. Some of the Founders, particularly Madison, advocated revolution rather than secession. Some of the Midwestern States wanted to secede due to opposition to Lincoln (who was originally elected with 32% of the vote.) Whether or not a state has the right to secede has never been established, Lincoln sent Federal troops to force the South back into the Union - and caused the deaths of close to 3/4's of a million men as a result. This country has been (screwed) up for a long time, it didn't just happen.
Agree with most of your concepts. However, SCOTUS did not order Texas to remove any barriers; they told Texas that the Feds, Border Control, could cut razor wire and move barriers. They did not say Texas could not replace such barriers. BTW, the 5th Circuit of Appeals has overridden the federal judge in Texas that said our SB4 could not go into effect this Friday. Unless there is an emergency decision from SCOTUS on SB4, Texas will begin detaining, arresting and confining incoming illegal aliens.
Ok, I see your point—SCOTUS gave feds the green light to cut and remove the barriers that TX had put in place. This was not a good decision in that it de facto denied Texas their right to control their own border. I am unhappy with Amy Coney Barrett’s rulings. Her recent remarks about lowering the temperature seem out of place. Fair and clear rulings are what we need. How does NOT ruling on Congress’ role in the 14th lower the temperature? Does the Executive branch need more power?
Yes, Barrett has made some disappointing votes and comments. Hard to tell how the justices will respond to a case in many instances. Overall though, I would rather have J Barrett than a J Garland.
If a 9-0 decision doesn’t humble them nothing will. Unhinged doesn’t describe what we are seeing. It’s becoming an even bigger problem that they don’t have the slightest bit of self-awareness of their actions because they are all stricken with the same mind virus.
A question hovers over the election: is there anything the Dem Borg won't do to stop Trump?
I fear the answer is no and that worries me.
It worries me, too. Will DJT go down in history books in same breath as JFK.
The pathetic losers over at CNN are saying this was actually a 5 to 4 majority because there were multiple separate opinions that disagreed on many issues. I guess they don't understand how this works. All of them did vote to keep him on the ballot but did not agree on all the reasons. That's still a 9 to 0 majority. CNN claimed that different opinions leading to the same decision are the same thing as dissenting opinions. Not even close. In fact, it is quite common to have multiple opinions in Supreme Court decisions. Just more evidence that the left think we are all morons. Or maybe they know that their audience are gullible morons. 🤔
It's the latter. When one KNOWS that the overwhelming majority of their viewers are gullible morons, there is nothing to do but feed the idiocy.
The entire MO for the leftists is to eliminate opposition. Their preferred method of doing this in political contests is to have their opposition removed from the ballot. This was the way Barack 0bama was elected to the Illinois Senate, then the US Senate, and his campaign even tried to have Sen McCain thrown off the presidential ballot in 2008 by claiming he was not a natural-born citizen because of being born in the Panama Canal Zone.
You can’t provide a single piece of evidence for your claim aside from trying to remove Trump which had nothing to do with Democrats by the way. I had to do with the constitution but the people who brought it up or not Democrats. You’re so bad at this agitprop stuff. I hope it’s just a side gig or you’re gonna be one hungry motherfucker
That’s pathetic, Bruh. You’re just making shit up. Literally just pulling shit out your ass.
Whoever controls your little sock puppet silicone ship she’s realize there’s not room in a dumb people here. It’s a readers writers platform. You’re wasting your fucking time with your Putin cocksleeve agitprop gibberish.
KB makes sense. Hudson E Baldwin III responds with an incoherent string of insults and epithets that do absolutely nothing to convince readers that he has a point at all. This is how my friends and I thought we won arguments when we were seven.
Apparently Hudson E Baldwin IIIIIIIIIIIIII is not capable of research or independent thought. GREAT vocab, though!!
I actually work while I’m using iPhone dictation to post. Grammar cop is the refuge of losers liars and sock puppets.
You really don’t know how transparent you are as a fossil fuel GOP Putin cocksleeve agitprop tool do you?
You've already run out of off-the-shelf out-dated adjectives that haven''t shocked or offended anybody since 1950. Even your insults are boring. Give it up. Can't you hear the audience laughing at you?
I owe you an apology. I forgot to block your fake ass
Be my guest. I win.
And you haven’t even broach the topic. I don’t engage with cyber botbois
Hudson, can Trump appear on the Colorado ballot? How about in Maine & Illinois?
Of course I did. There’s no point in an exchange with a fake ass silicone chip agitprop tool
If Presidents have no immunity, Obama can be potentially prosecuted for murder for drone-killing an American citizen, teenaged Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in 2011. Are they really going to open that can of worms?
Fast and Furious would be better.
I disagree that SCOTUS is going to hand Democrats a win on the immunity issue.
My bet is that a majority of the Supreme Court is going to rule that the president of the United States does have immunity for official acts. The court will remand the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the "official acts" question. The court will also recognize that the president has very broad discretion in determining for himself what is an official act. (I'm not dismissing the possibility that the court will conclude that the president's exercise of its discretion in this regard is not reviewable by the courts, but that precise issue wasn't included in what the court said it was going to decide here.)
If, on remand back to the trial court, Trump is again denied immunity, he will be able to appeal the case again before the case can go to trial. In effect, the Supreme Court will be kicking the case to after the election. That will soften the blow politically, although not entirely.
On the merits, the Supreme Court will not see the immunity issue as absurd, as mainstream media pundits proclaim with accompanying derision and disdain. The supreme court will likely see the current lawfare and understand how destructive it is to "our democracy." No president can function effectively and with the best interests of the public in mind with the threat of future prosecution lurking ominously behind every executive decision.
Democrats are deluding themselves if they think that the lawfare against Trump is a one-off in this regard. I suspect a majority of justices on the supreme court will see and appreciate that. Without immunity, there will be no shortage of executive actions that will be available for later criminal prosecution when the opposing party next takes the presidency.
And a president will not be able to protect himself by refraining from sending SEAL Team Six into the Capitol to arrest his opponents (anti-Trumpers too-clever-by-half rhetorical bête noire in the immunity case). A hostile DOJ will always be able to come up with something, plausible or implausible to charge the ex-president.
We don't reject immunity because it might exempt the president from later prosecution for brazen and heinous crimes, however absurdly postulated; we require it because it protects the president from charges that are punitive, frivolous and/or vexatious. Presidential Immunity is necessary for the proper functioning of the executive branch of government. Immunity, at its core, is not about protecting the man; it's about protecting the system.
tl;dr
One can argue that Trump was engaged in official acts because what is the president supposed to do if he sincerely believes and has a reason to believe an election has been tampered with illegally?
Yes, but I think you're overthinking it. He was making a political speech to his constituents. That's within the scope of his duties and prerogatives under the Constitution.
Yes, I agree the speech as well as the larger plan that Pence didn’t go along with were both official acts.
So the people that stole the election in 2016 the first coup, which was successful, failed in a violent and possibly member of government endangering blatant coup d’état in 2020 are all about election interference in 2024? That’s a pretty fucked up optic, Bruh
I want to hope that the unanimity of the decision will persuade some of the less hysterical to take a step back. Unlikely as it might be, I still have to have hope in my fellow citizens.
This country is an embarrassment.
This is the problem of compromise as the Overton window keeps getting expanded. There is no reason to balance any opinion. Doing to only encourages even more outrageous attacks on our rights and liberties.
This ruling is just one of many signs that the Democrats are out of options to block Trump, who now will represent a cosmic force (he was born under a Sagittarius Full Moon that will be triggered by the Sagittarius Moon on Election Day) due to their efforts to destroy him.
No major collective change happens without an eclipse. On April 8 there is a super powerful eclipse known as The Great American Eclipse. The path crosses last year’s American Eclipse path at the Texan border. Donald Trump’s surprise win as POTUS was under the first Great American Eclipse in August 2017.
The double eclipse over America (2023-2024) is exposing all the bad actors threatening the US Constitution. The harder they try to block Trump, the more they are exposed. This is just as it should be under this extremely rare cosmic event reflecting the crossroads that will revive or destroy the concept of America.
https://open.substack.com/pub/shivalisapaul/p/solar-eclipse-ring-of-fire?r=luwio&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
There's so much going on that it took me a moment to catch my bearings on this. Thanks for reporting Sasha.
Supreme Court overturns Trump Colorado ballot ban in unanimous ruling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAdy5LNHloA
Mar 4, 2024 #FoxNews
Fox News' Shannon Bream breaks down the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of former President Trump. Fox News contributors Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley react.
Big Victory: Supreme Court Delays Anti-Trump Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy_aJpR06Yo
Mar 4, 2024
Judicial Watch President @TomFitton discusses the Supreme Court's decision to take up Trump's case and more! WATCH NOW!
How I love liberal tears!!! Keep'em coming.....
thank god Justice isn't dead
Justice may not be dead, but by God, it’s on life support!
How often do you see liberals and conservatives agree on anything?
But they did this time by the actions of the Supreme Court.
It clearly demonstrates how silly and idiotic the concept of taking Trump off the ballot was in the first place.
But the left will continue to march and try to pull any legal or illegal acts to get rid of Trump.
Just waiting for the next one.
Relevant to the situation here in USA are these remarks from UK:
“The Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption, Lord Walney said that “there is a gap in the government’s understanding of damage that the anti-democratic far-Left can do.”
“They are now at the forefront of the threat to our democratic institutions – by manipulating protest movements, hijacking them with extreme illegitimate protest methods – this is one of the hallmarks of a number of far-Left groups,” he said.
His review called for political leaders in Westminster to refuse to engage with radical left-wing organisations that use intimidation to get their way, saying “if you resort to these tactics, it’s not going to work… You can’t on the one hand be encircling and menacing someone’s office, and then be invited in for a cup of tea and a chat. We need to do more to protect our democratic decision-making.”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/03/03/islamist-hate-preachers-to-be-banned-from-entering-britain-amid-increasing-extremism
The second headline from Business Insider, is a joke and typical of their brand of propaganda. OMG: “surprise Monday ruling….” What a bunch of State Run Media hacks!
This is such a bullshit narrative you have to break the law to be prosecuted or indicted in theory anyway. And he’s broken laws. This is not warfare then it’s prosecuting criminals. Fuck you and your Putin cocksucking narrative
When was the last time you saw a Democrat truly happy about ANYTHING? Are there any emotions other than rage and hatred in their toolbox? Even when they had the White House (barely), Senate (more barely) and House (again, barely) 2021-23, all you hear is anger and hatred directed at anyone to the right of Stalin..............
Before you even go there you’re not worth anything for you can’t edit a reply on this particular part of the platform and I don’t give a fuck. Grammar cop is the refuge and losers liars and sock puppets
Yeah we’re rather upset about the third world shit whole thing.
Democrats will not stop or give up. They are like a scorned spouse, who, 10 years after the divorce, still bores the crap out of everyone she knows plotting against her betrayer.
😂. You should write more. That’s a great line.
Your opening paragraph is pathetic disingenuous bovine fecal matter. The court carefully and purposely avoided the insurrection question and base the decision on a technicality of states enforcing federal legislative mandates. Which is bullshit anyway. They’re fine when states have gun laws that don’t meat federal legislative mandates. They’re perfectly OK with leading state governments intrude on women’s healthcare.
I just have one question. How the fuck do you sleep at night?
The Democrats have done some dumb things in the past seven years, but nothing quite as dumb as trying to throw Trump off the ballot for “Insurrection,” a crime he’s never been charged with. Even the loosest definition of “aid and comfort to insurrectionists” doesn’t fly because none of the Jan 6ers have been charged with “insurrection.”
Too bad the Colorado case was brought by four Republicans and two Independents. And also, the Court did not deny that Trump took part in insurrection. You have written some dumb things in the past year, but nothing quite as dumb as the above.
With that, the left's equivalent of another Children's Crusade is over. Let's hope nobody got hurt.
The democrats didn’t need the objective truth if this was feasible or not. They only needed the poetic truth.
* see Shelby Steele’s definition of Poetic Truth in his documentary titled “The Killing of Michael Brown.”
Uncle Joe needs to fire his cabinet Secretary at the Department of Dirty Tricks!
/sarc/ off
When your default setting is to resort to Bolshevik tactics, don’t be too surprised when the cigar blows up in your face. The country is not ‘with’ the Bolsheviks (neo-Marxists)!
Maybe Jena Griswold should have pulled a Fani Willis-Nathan Wade and met with WH Counsel and billed WH (i.e. YOU, the citizen) for consultation on how best to exclude Trump from the Colorado ballot.
As they wink at states to continue with their election shenanigans because they won’t be listening to any litigation that comes up their way down the line. It’s encouraging but the big players are still up to something. It feels a bit like “let’s give them a little taste of victory but then we’ll really put the hammer down and crush them”. I’ll really be surprised if Trump can pull off a victory maybe even more so than in 2016. Even if he wins, we will all be put through hell again.
This ruling announced under a Sagittarius Moon ... the same placement as on Election Day. Truth, justice & freedom. It is a slam dunk for Trump from here on out.
Oh, don’t be too sure. The radical left may be forced to drop their lawfare and move on to the next scenario. Whatever it is, they are NOT done. This is a group who would rather get us into WW3, than let Trump back in office. If they can’t cheat their way out of a Trump win, they will try to find some way to either stop the elections entirely (just like Zelensky did) or take out Trump permanently.
Hm they could mandate a drug only to Republicans. It would cause painless death. Refusing to take it would be punishable by painful death
That’s why we have the Second Amendment!
Right, what IS MSNBC gonna say about the 3 Wokesters on the SupremeCourt who voted with conservatives? Just not LEFT enough, need to be replaced?
A lot of the MSM don’t mention that it was a unanimous decision. Lol.
They will call them Uncle Tom’s
Almost word-for-word Keith Olbermann's statement. Prescient you are, Texyz!!
SCOTUS rules exactly as predicted--read Insurrection: SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment on danbutterfield.substack.com.
Oddly, new article out on danbutterfield.substack.com Atlanta Superior Court Judge will rule against disqualifying Fani Willis--Stolen: Fani Willis--Gets Win, Sort Of.
Judge McAfee will not disqualify Willis--but since he's the judge of record in the RICO when the defense requests a change of venue he will grant the motion--ending the RICO case.
Article 2 gives legislators in the states plenary power to determine who may be an Elector (chusing, I think, is the term) which, by inference, seems to give them the power to disenfranchise candidates. Amendment 12 didn't really change this. So a textual reading might have been a loss for Trump. It'll be interesting to read the opinion.
The key word in your comment is ELECTOR. Legislators have the right to determine how Electors are chosen, not candidates.
https://ifunny.co/picture/looks-like-trump-s-back-on-the-ballot-boys-vbs0K2aGB?s=cl
I just want to know who your benefactor sugar daddy is. I mean you’re not making a living spewing that bullshit. Does the GOP pay you directly or do you take Rubles. You’re the kind of girl that would double date with Lauren Boebert.
Yeah and you know the Earth is flat and we didn’t go to the moon
Now, only a pussy that likes to be grabbed it would contend there was no insurrection. And that those three words are rather clear and concise anybody that participated can NOT “hold any office”