Spencer had the news this morning: the liberal attempt to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot got unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. It’s not like this was a shocking development. Based on the oral arguments, even liberal justices weren’t convinced that the former president violated Section III of the Constitution that would permit his removal:
The number of commentators, even those that
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) March 4, 2024
are putatively legal experts, that either got this SCOTUS decision wrong or knew they were lying is a national embarrassment.
And the fact this was 9-0 was a kick in the teeth to the pack-the-court, delegitimize SCOTUS crowd.
A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
[…]
The high court did find that, in a more limited situation, "[s]tates may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," but "[s]tates have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."
That's because the states' "power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’ powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically 'delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States' ... But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates."
Recommended
The Supreme Court's decision is more bad news for anti-Trump leaders in a handful of states that have sought to prevent Trump's supporters from even having the option of voting for him. Such markedly anti-democratic actions of the leftists who often lament the end of democracy were, rightfully, struck down by the Supreme Court this week.
The media reactions were gold. The responses ranged from funeral parlor to insanity, with former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann embodying the latter. There were also legal commentaries that had nothing to do with this case. The ladies on The View hyperventilated over whether the Supreme Court was now neo-segregationist or something. And there were swipes at Clarence Thomas again by Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who started this unconstitutional circus:
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) March 4, 2024
Someone resuscitate Keith Olbermann. pic.twitter.com/iwB8nlKJcH
— Mia Cathell (@MiaCathell) March 4, 2024
CNN has a more funereal tone than even on Election Night in 2016.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 4, 2024
Dana Bash's voice is quivering, on the verge of tears, discussing the fact that Donald Trump will be able to remain on the ballot and thus American voters -- not DC elites -- will choose the next President.😢 https://t.co/hMCJLvfED9
🚨WATCH: CNN tries to hold it together after 9-0 Supreme Court decision on the Trump Colorado ballot case:
— News Nomad 🗞 (@The_Nomad_News) March 4, 2024
“Unfortunately for America, the court isn’t necessarily wrong that this is the way the Framers wanted it to be.” 🤭 pic.twitter.com/dPbwTgLUH8
Whoopi claims the current Supreme Court closely resembles the pro-segregationist court she grew up with: "When it was all men voting for all men, we ended up with the grand wizard, we ended up with all kinds of people on the bench."
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 4, 2024
Whoopi doesn't even know what her point is. pic.twitter.com/smZEMEuHGb
That is not what it ruled, for fuck's sake. https://t.co/aiSz0UXfZZ
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) March 4, 2024
How embarrassing @seungminkim. Do better. https://t.co/3Hm7kAmn1Z
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) March 4, 2024
This does not come close to explaining the court's reasoning, but it is typical of too much of American journalism these days. https://t.co/nyA5pi0tld
— Brit Hume (@brithume) March 4, 2024
Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold is NOT having a good day after SCOTUS said she couldn't remove Trump from her state's ballot:
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024
“My...reaction is disappointment. I do believe that states should be able, under our institution, to bar oathbreaking… pic.twitter.com/CAtSaa36nJ
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D), suffering a near total breakdown:
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024
“[I]t’s as clear as day what Donald Trump did: He incited that violent mob to rush on to the Capitol to try to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power. And his attacks and his allies’… pic.twitter.com/UjYra9odCw
Pretty dangerous stuff from Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D):
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024
“Look, this upcoming election has, will have a big impact on our fundamental freedoms. The idea that women should have control over our own bodies. The idea that our democracy should remain in tact. And… pic.twitter.com/jrzBdT8uzC
More lunacy from Colorado's Jena Griswold, lashing out at Clarence Thomas and bashing the Court’s -- while offering fake platitudes we should be respect them.
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024
MSNBC’s Katy Tur: “Do you think this Court is partisan?”
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswolf (D): “I think this… pic.twitter.com/LzVtQalKek
it was 9-0, bruv https://t.co/HDQ66ou2pm
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) March 4, 2024
MSNBC’s @DonnaFEdwards: “Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a Court that’s had this many opportunities to interfere in the election” pic.twitter.com/GcabhUpkKh
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 4, 2024
I would be remiss in not including some folks trying to spin this 9-0ruling as really being 5-4 because their feelings are hurt, along with Olbermann going at it with people calling him out for his insanity with references that he’s so mad his face is covered in urine—I’m not joking about that one. Olbermann is taking the piss:
It's 9-0 that Colorado can't disqualify Trump.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) March 4, 2024
But only five justices hold that the *only* way to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders/officeseekers is through a statute enacted by Congress. The other four wouldn't (and don't) reach that question.
So 5-4 on breadth.
Stop the spin.
— Harrison Fields (@HarrisonWFields) March 4, 2024
It’s 9-0.
Y’all lost. Trump will remain on the ballot!
A MASSIVE win for our Constitutional Republic. https://t.co/mUZqKQinv2
Why on earth would they ever do that? No need to reach a factual inquiry when Colorado got the law so obviously and terribly wrong that they lost 9-0? https://t.co/MMIuhlEaHa
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) March 4, 2024
Those aren't tears, Fascist. They're urine. I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it.
— Keith Olbermann⌚️ (@KeithOlbermann) March 4, 2024
Keith, this comeback doesn’t make any sense, it implies you’re pissing on yourself.
— Good Tweetman (@Goodtweet_man) March 4, 2024
Did you just say that your face is covered in piss?
— Damin Toell (@damintoell) March 4, 2024
Join the conversation as a VIP Member