Court will ignore Constitution to keep Trump on ballot

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Erwin Chemerinsky / Los Angeles Times

Two seemingly contradictory impressions emerged from almost three hours of oral argument last week before the Supreme Court: The case for Donald Trump’s eligibility to be president again was quite weak, but the Supreme Court is likely to rule in his favor.

Based on the questions raised by the justices, it’s hard to imagine five of them agreeing with Colorado’s decision to prohibit Trump from running for president as an insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment.

The issue before the court is whether Trump is disqualified from the presidency by Section 3 of the amendment, which provides that no officeholder who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the country “shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.”

The oral argument focused primarily on three questions. First, does Section 3 require a statute passed by Congress to be enforced? Several of the justices indicated support for the view that the provision is not “self-executing” and can’t be enforced without a federal law. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, said the “original public meaning” was that a statute is necessary to apply the section.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-court-will-ignore-constitution-to-keep-trump-on-ballot/

[Mr.Bee]

1. So That Means

it would be absolutely OKAY if a Democratic president had instructed mobs to 'march to the Capitol and I'm going to be right there with you because if you don't fight we won't have a country anymore!'
Oh, okay...

[Fullduplexxx]

2. But the dems wont

[Midnight Writer]

4. Absolutely. Republicans rely on Democrats following laws and obeying rules

while they tirelessly push at every legal and civil wall trying to topple them.

[JT45242]

3. The argument should have been very simple with evidence coming from mostly republican sources

Start with

1. The people like McConnell calling it an insurrection and an attempt to disrupt government when it happened.

2. Enter the text of the congressional medal resolution that passed the Senate 100-0 and only had insurrectionists R in the house vote against that specifically stated that the Capital police stood up to an insurrection on Jan 6. If you are looking for Congress to declare it an insurrection, it already happened.

3. The January 6 report.

4. Colorado's ruling after a trial

etc, etc.

This is not just one state, I do not understand why they did not do this and especially to show that it was only a power grab for the Rethug Senate amicus brief contradicting themselves