March 12, 2024
In reviewing the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot for the 2024 election, the U.S. Supreme Court did precisely what it is supposed to do: review the case and determine if the court’s ruling will stand or not, based upon the Constitution and the laws.
The majority Democrat-appointed Colorado justices — four of the seven —ruled that Trump was an insurrectionist, and therefore should be disqualified from running for President. However, three of the Democrat-appointed justices disagreed with the four. Of course, Trump has not been convicted in court of insurrection, or even formally charged with the crime.
The Colorado court has no authority to decide whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist. And neither do officials of the states, media persons or Democrat/leftist opponents of Trump. That is a legal process that has not even begun, let alone been concluded.
Democrats and other leftists claimed to be protecting our “democracy” by preventing Trump from running. Curiously, in attempting to unilaterally block him, they were trying to save our “democracy” by anti-democratic methods.
The citizens of the United States who are eligible to vote are who make the decision on who becomes president, not some individual or group with a political objection to someone.
Properly, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Colorado court, with the three liberal judges joining the conservative majority in the decision. How much stronger a decision can be made?
Legal scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley assesses this decision: “The fact is that the Supreme Court justices have proved, again, that they are precisely the ‘real Supreme Court justices’ that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The court was created to be able to transcend our divisions and politics. On Monday, a court sharply divided along ideological grounds showed the nation that it could speak with one voice. In doing so, it spoke to the things that bind us to each other, including an article of faith in our Constitution that defines us all.”
Leftists in Congress, the news media, and elsewhere were stunned and infuriated by this decision. They apparently believe that the Supreme Court’s duty is to rule on issues in a manner that suits their narrow and highly political idealistic dreams.
But the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation’s court system is designed to apply the Constitution and the laws in an unbiased and politically neutral manner.
And just imagine what might have transpired had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as the left believes it should have. Trump would have been blocked from several state ballots, and they would have been rapturous, euphoric, and thrilled. But then, other states would also be able to block candidates. Maybe President Joe Biden would be blocked. Or other Democrats. Or even all Democrats. Another sound reason in the Supreme Court’s decision.
Do those on the left not understand the structure of the United States of America? The tripartite government with executive, legislative and judicial branches that are independent of each other. And a system of checks and balances that prevents authoritarians from taking control is superior to other governmental systems. Without this system we would be as wonderful as China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others.
Or, do those on the left actually understand our system, and completely despise it and want to replace it — by hook or by crook — with a system they can control forever?
Had the U.S. Supreme Court sustained the Colorado decision, the left would be somewhat closer to “fundamentally transforming” our constitutional republic into a one-party, leftist-controlled authoritarian democracy.
This is the end that the left and the Democrat party have in mind and are working tirelessly to achieve.
Even as the left progresses toward a socialist/communist nightmare, it also imposes politically correct rules on what can be said.
The man charged with killing 22-year-old college student Laken Riley was referred to, by “progressive” President Joe Biden, as an “illegal” in his State of the Union rant. The left went crazy, criticizing Biden for that comment, even as they celebrate his dangerous and illegal policy on the open border. Biden quickly apologized for his faux pas.
But the accused, Venezuelan Jose Ibarra, did not enter the country properly, and is therefore an actual “illegal.”
In their hyper-sensitive bubble, they refer to these illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants,” or “migrants.”
What exactly is the definition of an immigrant? It is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” And what is a migrant? “A person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops.”
Both are very general terms. To immigrate to the U.S., or to be an immigrant, there is a process. And if you don’t follow the process, if you enter by crossing the Rio Grande and not coming through a port of entry, you are not an immigrant or a migrant; you are an illegal alien.
That is the correct legal term. It may not make some people feel good, but that is reality. And dealing in reality is far more important than how that may make some people feel.
No comments:
Post a Comment