Published December 20, 2023
- A Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump violated the insurrectionist clause of the 14th Amendment for his role in January 6 in a 4-3 decision
- Turley, a professor of law and Fox News legal analyst, believes the ruling endangers American democracy
- ‘I mean, this country is a powder keg, and this court is just throwing matches at it. And I think that it’s a real mistake. But I think that they’re wrong on the law’
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley slammed the Colorado Supreme Court for its ruling that removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot.
‘Well, this court just handed partisans on both sides the ultimate tool to try to shortcut elections, and it’s very, very dangerous,’ Turley said on Fox News moments after the decision.
‘I mean, this country is a powder keg, and this court is just throwing matches at it. And I think that it’s a real mistake. But I think that they’re wrong on the law,’ Turley added.
The court ruled Trump violated the insurrectionist clause of the 14th Amendment for his role in January 6 in a 4-3 decision from Democratic-appointed justices.
Turley, a professor of law and Fox News legal analyst, added he believes the ruling endangers American democracy.
Turley, speaking to Fox’s Laura Ingraham, also disagrees with the court’s premise on January 6.
‘You know, January 6 was many things, most of it not good. In my view it was not an insurrection. It was a riot,’ he said.
He said while he understands those in violation of the law that day should face consequences, the ruling against Trump goes a step too far.
‘That doesn’t mean that the people responsible for that day shouldn’t be held accountable. But to call this an insurrection, for the purposes of disqualification, would create a slippery slope for every state in the Union.’
Turley concluded by saying that this gets in the way of free and fair elections just ahead of the start of primary season.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.dailymail.co.uk
RELATED: ‘If you can’t win, cheat’: Trump world responds to Colorado’s ballot boot
‘Mass censorship. Intelligence coups. Imprisoning dissidents. Election interference’
President Donald J. Trump delivers an update on the COVID-19 Coronavirus vaccine development Operation Warp Speed, Friday, Nov. 13, 2020, in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Official White House photo by Tia Dufour)
Published December 20, 2023
Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys, family and campaign blasted the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday that bars him from the state’s presidential ballot.
The court decided that Trump was disqualified under provisions of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in a 4-3 ruling Tuesday. “Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.
Chueng criticized the left-leaning group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics which brought the suit to keep Trump off the Colorado ballot before going on to criticize others who he blamed for trying to keep Colorado residents from voting for Trump. “Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American voters from throwing them out of office next November,” Chueng said. “The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”
https://x.com/EricTrump/status/1737252819428667885?s=20
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.wnd.com
RELATED: The Problem with the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Is That It’s Wrong
Published December 20, 2023
Since the Colorado supreme court issued its bombshell ruling last night — a ruling that, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would keep Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado in both the primary and the general election — I’ve seen a lot of people argue that the core problem with the judgment is that it is “undemocratic.” This, no doubt, is an attractive argument to make politically. But it is an incorrect argument — or, at least, it’s an incomplete argument constitutionally. The problem with the Colorado supreme court’s decision is that it’s incorrect. Everything else flows from that.
This isn’t nitpicking. By design, there are many provisions within our Constitution that limit what the public is able to vote for, and sometimes even for whom. Without amending the Constitution, a transient majority of Americans cannot elect a president for a third term, hold midterm elections more than once every two years, abolish elections completely, restrict the freedom of speech, deny the accused their right to a trial, seat Article III judges without the acquiescence of the U.S. Senate, impose taxes without congressional approval, and so on. We have a process for doing things in the United States, and the Constitution sits at the peak of that process. If the Constitution says something, then that something obtains until the Constitution doesn’t say it any more. If, as the Colorado supreme court seems to believe, Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution really does bar Donald Trump from political office, then Donald Trump must be barred from political office, and, unless one’s goal is to reject the very idea of constitutional government, complaining about that fact is fruitless.
It is true, of course, that some of the provisions in our Constitution prevent the democratic process from delivering exactly what voters want. But to describe this as “undemocratic” is a little misleading, given that the Constitution itself was ratified and amended by the people. This, above all else, is why originalism is so crucial. America is a democratic republic, in which the people get to vote for their politicians and their laws, and if those politicians and laws can be thwarted at will by unelected judges, then . . . well, America isn’t much of a democratic republic, is it? Unless — and this unless is utterly imperative — those unelected judges are invoking other laws that were democratically passed and have not been democratically repealed. Then, you have democracy pitted against democracy. From time to time, I am asked why I believe that Roe v. Wade was unjustly “undemocratic” when I don’t believe that, say, Brandenburg v. Ohio was. Surely, the implication runs, if I’m worried about the courts thwarting the public’s will, I should be worried about it in every case? But this does not follow. The reason that Roe was undemocratic and Brandenburg was not is that Roe was a lie and Brandenburg was not. Or, to put it another way: In Roe, unelected judges inserted law into the Constitution, whereas in Brandenburg, unelected judges upheld law that had been placed there by a supermajority of the people.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.nationalreview.com
