Jonathan Turley Rips Apart the Colorado Decision Booting Trump Off the Ballot
The folks trying to push the 14th Amendment agenda to get former President Donald Trump booted off ballots finally met with success on Tuesday with the Colorado Supreme Court decision holding he couldn't be on that state's presidential primary ballot.
The court, with judges all appointed by Democratic governors, was immediately shredded, including by the candidates opposing Trump. Vivek Ramaswamy said he would withdraw his name. Even Chris Christie busted it as denying the people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. The Trump campaign blasted the undemocratic nature of the move.
READ MORE:
Even Chris Christie Is Casting the Stink Eye on Court Keeping Trump off Ballot
Ramaswamy Vows to Withdraw From CO Primary If Trump Isn’t on the Ballot
Trump Team Blasts Political and 'Deeply Undemocratic' Colorado Decision
They want to take Trump off the ballot for "insurrection" over Jan. 6, yet it is truly they who are, right in front of our faces, interfering in the election and suppressing the right of people to vote.
Now, George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley is weighing in, noting this decision comes from "one of the bluest state supreme courts in the land." Even then, the Court was still split, four to three. It was a case of first impression, meaning there was no case having dealt with this before, so there's no black-letter law to rely upon.
Yet, the lack of precedent or clarity did not deter these justices from making new law to block Trump from running. Indeed, the most controlling precedent appears to be what might be called the Wilde Doctrine.
In his novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” The four Colorado justices just ridded themselves of the ultimate temptation and, in so doing, put this country on one of the most dangerous paths in its history.
The purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — was to bar Confederates.
Turley said Jan. 6 was many things, "However, it was not an insurrection." He said, "It was a protest that became a riot, not a rebellion." He noted how Special Counsel Jack Smith didn't believe he had the basis to pursue such a charge of incitement or insurrection.
In such a case, you usually would have a narrow interpretation, but Turley believes they "removed all the fail-safes" to stretch this to fit Trump and block him.
There were a number of barriers facing advocates who have tried to stretch this provision to cover the January 6 riot. The four justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation possible on every one of those questions in order to support their decision.
The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment, where the four justices dismissed the free-speech implications of disqualifying presidential candidates based on political position and rhetoric.
The result is an opinion that lacks any limiting principles. It places the nation on a slippery slope where red and blue states could now engage in tit-for-tat disqualifications. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, those decisions do not need to be based on the specific comments made by figures like Trump. Instead, it ruled, courts can now include any statements made before or after a speech to establish a "true threat.”
So not only have they extended this provision far beyond what it was ever intended to cover, but they're stepping all over the First Amendment in the process and have now opened the door to the use of it to take out other candidates in the future in tit-for-tat removals. It poses a serious danger to the very nature of our elections and our Republic.
The Democrats are constantly talking about threats to Democracy. Yet, here is a real threat to democracy.
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. What is particularly galling is that these four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
The only good news is that this flawed theory can now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it is likely to be put to rest conclusively.
Turley notes how this comes at a time when Democrats are openly concerned about Biden's chances and Trump is beating him handily in polls, including with the young.
For those voters, the Colorado ruling looks like a case of Biden being on the ropes when the referee just called the bout in his favor. Even if, as expected, these justices are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, many Americans will not forget what they will consider to be an effort to take away their vote. While these four justices offered their "first impression" in this dangerous opinion, the lasting impression of many voters is not likely to be good for the court or for Democrats.
But Democrats don't care about burning down the house; they care about power and control, and everything must fall if it stands in their way. And they wonder why Trump is so soundly beating Biden in the polls. The voters already know what's on the ballot here and how Biden must not win.
Post a Comment