The unanimous decision by SCOTUS that U.S. States can not exclude former President Trump from running for office in 2024 caused progressives to lose their minds. Some even called for the court to be “dissolved.”
The “Insurrection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment allows only Congress to remove a federal political candidate from the election ballot, SCOTUS said in a landmark decision on Monday. Arriving just before Super Tuesday, the decision reversed a December 4-3 Colorado state Supreme Court decision that barred Trump from running for office.
“I am unhappy at the court’s ruling robbing states of the right to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment for political candidates,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D-CO) said in a post on X. It should be legal for Colorado to exclude candidates who have broken the oath from the ballot.
Then, Griswold appeared on MSNBC and bemoaned the fact that people would elect the president.
“I do think that U.S. States should have the authority to prohibit insurrectionists under our U.S. Constitution. Finally, this ruling left open the possibility that Congress may intervene and enact authorization laws. However, we are aware that Congress is a body that seldom works. Thus, in the end, it will be up to the people to preserve democracy in Nov., the speaker stated.
More insane responses appeared.
Former political analyst and sportscaster Keith Olbermann demanded that SCOTUS be “dissolved” and attacked even progressive judges. He made the following post on X: Justice Souter has abandoned the democratic process. Members of this group, such as Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan, have demonstrated a lack of proficiency in reading comprehension. Additionally, the “court” has demonstrated its collective corruption and illegitimacy.
Although all of the justices supported the ruling, Harry Sisson, a prominent Gen Z Dem., only criticized Justice Thomas for it:
“Clarence Thomas, an advocate of insurrection, decided that Donald Trump, an insurrectionist, is eligible to run for office again in 2024. That ought to be the headline.
Journalists from the progressive side attacked the decision as well.
In a program, CNN’s Dana Bash referred to it as “unfortunate for America.”
Ian Milhiser, a senior journalist for Vox, wrote on X:
“It’s absurd to think that only a constitution can effectively restrain an oppressive regime!”
Additionally, rather than releasing the ruling last week, CNN legal expert Norm Eisen chastised the Supreme Court for doing it just before the all-important Super Tuesday, “putting wind in Donald’s sails.”
The Supreme Court didn’t “explicitly reject,” as he and other liberals contended, that Trump was “a insurrectionist.”
Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold is currently on MSNBC crying about SCOTUS. She is not taking the 9-0 Trump ruling well. https://t.co/qA8m6CGxXl pic.twitter.com/0zmeVxUUld
— Charles R Downs (@TheCharlesDowns) March 4, 2024
He contended, “In a way, they have left the decision of what to do about Trump’s allegedly illegal conduct open for the authorities and the American people.”
A number of legal experts discounted Eisen’s claim.
The case before the US Supreme Court is Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719.
Author: Blake Ambrose
