Jonathan Turley on Colorado Supreme Court vs. President Trump
Jonathan Turley has two articles out today on the Colorado Supreme Court vs. President Trump case.
The articles are not identical, but there is substantial overlap. I think Turley's article in the New York Post was written second, and builds upon the first article in The Messenger.
If you have time to read both, great. If not, I'd recommend the New York Post article. And if that whets your appetite, The Messenger article can be skimmed for the differences.
I don't agree with some of Turley's opinions, but we reach the same conclusions. The articles are a good refresher course in the U.S. Constitution. To the extent it was ever taught worth a darn in the government indoctrination camps (“schools”). For some, it may be the course you wish you had in High School. Or law school, for that matter.
___________________________________________
To keep things simple, some excerpts from the New York Post article:
The Colorado decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot will be overturned because it is wrong on the history and the language of the 14th Amendment.
Dead wrong.
The question is whether the US Supreme Court will speak with one voice, including the three liberal justices.
As with the three Democratic state justices who refused to sign off on the Colorado opinion, these federal justices can now bring a moment of unity not just for the court but the country in rejecting this shockingly anti-democratic theory.
[Snip]
The majority on the Colorado Supreme Court adopted sweeping interpretations of every element of the decision to find that Trump not only incited an insurrection, but can be disqualified under this provision.
It does not matter that Trump has never been charged with even incitement or that he called for his supporters to go to the Capitol to protest “peacefully.”
In finding that Trump led an actual insurrection, the four justices used speeches going back to 2016 to show an effort to rebel before Trump was ever president.
[Snip]
It is the ballot cleansing that is usually associated with authoritarian countries like Iran, where voters are protected from “unworthy” candidates.
[Snip]
The court could help unify this country in a way that may be unparalleled in its history.
It can show that justices who hold vastly different ideological views can be unified on core principles.
It can remind us that, as citizens, the Constitution is ultimately not a covenant with the government but with each other.
It is a leap of faith that, as a free people, we can decide our shared destiny and protect our shared identity.
The moment has come for nine justices to speak in one voice.
An American voice that transcends the personalities and divisions of our time.
It is a voice that speaks not to what divides us but what defines us as a people.
___________________________________________
New York Post:
SCOTUS should rule unanimously that Constitution matters more than defeating Trump at any cost
________________
The Messenger:
Yielding to Temptation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Blocks Democracy to Bar Trump on the 2024 Ballot