As I expected and predicted, the Supreme Court will probably decide the Trump/Colorado case in favor of Trump. I doubt the decision will be unanimous. On the liberal side, Justice Sotomayor was outspoken in her questions to Trump’s lawyer (Jonathan Mitchell who was arguing his sixth Supreme Court case). Justice Kagan’s questions, too, suggest to me that she will come down against Trump.
Thank you for the explanation. Personally, I am shocked and angry that our partisan hack of a Secretary of State is trying to determine who we can vote for.
Sotomayer seems confused much of the time and even gets the name of Jefferson Davis wrong. She thinks he was named "Jefferson Davies". Is it possible that she's led her entire life not getting that right?
Thanks’ for taking one for the team, Glenn. I'm allergic to listening to lawyers mainly because there is a built-in tendency for them to try to befuddle, bemuse, complicate, and confound simple issues for their own profit and for the benefit of their client. That tactic works on occasion. This decision should be unanimous, but the leftist activists have made it crystal clear that they have time on their hands and they know where the Justices live and where they dine out.
I read somewhere that even former Confederates were eventually allowed to run for political offices at every level. I'm not a lawyer but the entire Get Trump debacle smacks of a of bill of attainder-like process in that the multi-year effort to destroy him is unprecedented. Even the Radical Republicans, after they lost in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, didn't continue to go after him the way the lefties have endlessly been at Trump.
Trump was tried by the House, and found not guilty by the Senate of insurrection. The 14th Amendment should only hold for those convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor. Let the voters make that decision.
It may well be the Court's, and particularly CJ Roberts' desire for comity and a sense of historical responsibility that wins the day for Trump. The genius leftards who came up with this hare-brained scheme to remove Trump from the ballots in several of the states wherein they hold sway simply got high on their own supply, to coin a phrase. They thought that, since"everybody they knew" (hat-tip, Pauline Kael) agreed that Trump was a racist Nazi insurrectionist who wanted to destroy our (not a) democarcy, they would have no trouble getting their way. They parsed the 14th Amendment so favorably to their position that it would inevitably be rejected when reviewed by a less overtly partisan court, viz., The Supremes. Or so I fervently hope and pray.
“They will come to a fair decision in a fair way…” That’s a charming & quaint notion you have there, Glenn. Perhaps a hoped for triumph of hope over experience? It’s almost as if you’re new and innocent to the ways of American politics, most definitely including the judiciary.
All great points, Glenn. As I mentioned a couple of months ago, I hoped it will be a unanimous decision and still believe it will be in favor of Trump. I was not impressed with Trump's attorney, even if he has argued before the Supreme Court multiple times. The Supreme's are definitely looking for an off-ramp to not have to decide in Colorado's favor. I believe the Supreme's will refuse to hear the immunity case. This will allow for all the voters to decide for themselves, based on a jury of Trump's peers, his innocence or guilt of the January 6th case. It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme's two cases regarding Trump are concluded on or before the end of February.
Thank you for the explanation. Personally, I am shocked and angry that our partisan hack of a Secretary of State is trying to determine who we can vote for.
Sotomayer seems confused much of the time and even gets the name of Jefferson Davis wrong. She thinks he was named "Jefferson Davies". Is it possible that she's led her entire life not getting that right?
Thanks’ for taking one for the team, Glenn. I'm allergic to listening to lawyers mainly because there is a built-in tendency for them to try to befuddle, bemuse, complicate, and confound simple issues for their own profit and for the benefit of their client. That tactic works on occasion. This decision should be unanimous, but the leftist activists have made it crystal clear that they have time on their hands and they know where the Justices live and where they dine out.
The vote of the liberal justices is almost always predetermined and they vote as a unified block.
Ideology trumps the argument.
I read somewhere that even former Confederates were eventually allowed to run for political offices at every level. I'm not a lawyer but the entire Get Trump debacle smacks of a of bill of attainder-like process in that the multi-year effort to destroy him is unprecedented. Even the Radical Republicans, after they lost in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, didn't continue to go after him the way the lefties have endlessly been at Trump.
Trump was tried by the House, and found not guilty by the Senate of insurrection. The 14th Amendment should only hold for those convicted of a high crime or misdemeanor. Let the voters make that decision.
Just curious about how it can be a fair decision fairly arrived at, if Trump loses. The whole business is a farce and all of America knows it.
It may well be the Court's, and particularly CJ Roberts' desire for comity and a sense of historical responsibility that wins the day for Trump. The genius leftards who came up with this hare-brained scheme to remove Trump from the ballots in several of the states wherein they hold sway simply got high on their own supply, to coin a phrase. They thought that, since"everybody they knew" (hat-tip, Pauline Kael) agreed that Trump was a racist Nazi insurrectionist who wanted to destroy our (not a) democarcy, they would have no trouble getting their way. They parsed the 14th Amendment so favorably to their position that it would inevitably be rejected when reviewed by a less overtly partisan court, viz., The Supremes. Or so I fervently hope and pray.
“They will come to a fair decision in a fair way…” That’s a charming & quaint notion you have there, Glenn. Perhaps a hoped for triumph of hope over experience? It’s almost as if you’re new and innocent to the ways of American politics, most definitely including the judiciary.
All great points, Glenn. As I mentioned a couple of months ago, I hoped it will be a unanimous decision and still believe it will be in favor of Trump. I was not impressed with Trump's attorney, even if he has argued before the Supreme Court multiple times. The Supreme's are definitely looking for an off-ramp to not have to decide in Colorado's favor. I believe the Supreme's will refuse to hear the immunity case. This will allow for all the voters to decide for themselves, based on a jury of Trump's peers, his innocence or guilt of the January 6th case. It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme's two cases regarding Trump are concluded on or before the end of February.