Tipsheet

Some of the Lib Reactions to SCOTUS' Ruling in the Trump Ballot Case Were Gold

Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa  |  March 04, 2024 3:30 PM

Spencer had the news this morning: the liberal attempt to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot got unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. It’s not like this was a shocking development. Based on the oral arguments, even liberal justices weren’t convinced that the former president violated Section III of the Constitution that would permit his removal: 

A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him. 

Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse. 

[…]

 The high court did find that, in a more limited situation, "[s]tates may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," but "[s]tates have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency." 

That's because the states' "power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’ powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically 'delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States' ... But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates." 

The Supreme Court's decision is more bad news for anti-Trump leaders in a handful of states that have sought to prevent Trump's supporters from even having the option of voting for him. Such markedly anti-democratic actions of the leftists who often lament the end of democracy were, rightfully, struck down by the Supreme Court this week. 

The media reactions were gold. The responses ranged from funeral parlor to insanity, with former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann embodying the latter. There were also legal commentaries that had nothing to do with this case. The ladies on The View hyperventilated over whether the Supreme Court was now neo-segregationist or something. And there were swipes at Clarence Thomas again by Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who started this unconstitutional circus: 

I would be remiss in not including some folks trying to spin this 9-0ruling as really being 5-4 because their feelings are hurt, along with Olbermann going at it with people calling him out for his insanity with references that he’s so mad his face is covered in urine—I’m not joking about that one. Olbermann is taking the piss:


Recommended

So, a 'Hacker' Obtained a Copy of the Matt Gaetz Ethics Report Matt Vespa
Don’t Be Fooled By The Democrat Great Reset John Nantz