SCOTUS Hands Donald Trump Big Victory

0
163
SCOTUS

SCOTUS hasn’t made it official but team Trump is declaring victory, based on analysis of how the oral arguments went. The liberal media has already conceded that “a clear majority of the Supreme Court’s nine justices” signaled, on February 8, that “they would overturn a Colorado ruling barring former President Donald Trump from the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot.

SCOTUS sides with Trump

Colorado’s Supreme Court overreached, SCOTUS suggests, when they unilaterally decided who can be president. On December 19, Colorado’s highest court declared Trump ineligible on shaky legal grounds.

The main subject of the big hearing was the Constitution’s so-called “Insurrection Clause” and whether or not it applies to Trump. Even so, there were several other issues which interested the court a whole lot more.

To warm up the show, Trump’s legal team tried to convince SCOTUS that it’s Congress, not the states, who get to enforce the controversial clause. Besides that, the provision was never intended to apply to a current or former president. Even if it did, Trump “did not engage in an insurrection.

The riot that happened wasn’t his fault and might have been engineered by the FBI. Trump’s lawyers didn’t bring up that last point but everyone knows it’s true. Except Democrats.

SCOTUS zoomed in on the congressional supremacy argument. Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t seem to need much convincing on that point. He “fretted during oral arguments that upholding the Colorado ruling would open the door to red and blue states removing politicians of opposing parties from the ballot on a whim.

Like they just tried to do. “It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.

The question to confront

Even liberal justice Elena Kagan was having a hard time finding anything in the Democrat arguments to work with. “The question you have to confront,” she prodded Colorado attorney Jason Murray, “is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.” He couldn’t seem to come up with a good answer to that.

Meanwhile, the conservative SCOTUS faction was represented by Samuel Alito. He quizzed Murray a hypothetical in which candidates for “diplomatic reasons think that it’s in the best interests of the” U.S. to send funds to a foreign nation that describes Washington as “its biggest enemy.”

All Murray could do was stand there blinking while his mouth kept opening and closing like a fish, with nothing but a gargling little squeak coming out. That was clearly a “reference to the Obama-Biden policy toward Iran.” Another awkwardly pointed question Alito stabbed Murray with was: “could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore keep that person off the ballot?” Heck no, came the reply.

Because “the Constitution’s language defining treason is precise.” His co-counsel responded to the same question from SCOTUS with meaningless rhetoric. “I think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately,” Shannon Stevenson, Colorado’s solicitor general, replied.

Out of all nine justices, Sonia Sotomayor is the only member of SCOTUS who seemed sympathetic to Colorado’s position. She took the opportunity to go on the offensive against Trump attorney Jonathan Mitchell. She seems to be buying into the conspiracy theories which say Trump will never leave office and declare himself president for life, like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.

Are you setting it up so that if some President runs for a third term, that a state can’t disqualify him from the ballot?” She probed. Don’t be ridiculous, came the response. “Of course, they can disqualify him from the ballot because that is a qualification that is categorical, it’s not defusable by Congress.