70 Comments

The SCOTUS Justices were asking questions that sounded as if their understanding of the Constitution and Amendments are about as good as a 10th grader that read Cliff Notes for a complete history of the United States.

The whole idea that voters should decide so they aren’t disenfranchised, so SCOTUS can stay out of politics. That’s not what Section 3 states. The court sure didn’t have a problem disenfranchising the people in 2000 that voted for Gore. That was pure politics.

The idea that Congress needs to pass a law is not what Section 3 states. The word “shall”, used twice in Section 3 is self enacting, no further legislation is needed. “Shall” is the keyword. When used in any amendment, law, or regulation it’s self enforcing, no other legislation is required.

The suggestion that tRump supporters might turn violent if tRump is removed from ballots should have no bearing at all. They’re going to turn violent when he loses in November. They’re going to turn violent to rig the election. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on law, not worry about hurt feelings.

The suggestion that each state is going to go willy-nilly on disqualifying candidates or each state can decide on tRump being on the ballot. Wrong. SCOTUS gets final say. What applies to Colorado, if tRump loses on decision, applies to all states. There has to be actual cause to challenge and take someone off the ballot. They’re worried about this tying up the courts, it could happen now anyway.

And what’s going to happen when they issue the decision in tRump’s favor? tRump going to yell (all caps): “See, no insurrection!” “Complete vindication!” “Release the hostages”

These fools on the SC have no idea how much they are going to feed the monster.

My opinion of the SCOTUS sinks lower every day when I think it can’t get any lower. It’s lower than my opinion of Congress.

Expand full comment

There was an amicus brief filed by a group of historians that laid out the history quite well. They also killed all of Trump's arguments. Was this not mentioned?

Expand full comment

At the start, at least one of the lawyers should have challenged the array.

"Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, called for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from weighing in on whether former President Donald Trump can be removed from states’ 2024 ballots for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol." https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/02/07/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-ballot-access#:~:text=Since%20the%20attack%20on%20the,committee%20investigating%20the%20Capitol%20attack.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html

Expand full comment

I don’t understand the thrall that tRump supporters are under other than that he is all their hate, fascism, racism, misogynistic ideology wrapped in one useful idiot package. Back in the 80’s -90’s when tRump was in the headlines about his infidelities and casinos, etc. it was clear what a POS he was. Then his comments after 9/11 regarding his building being the “tallest building in New York “ after the towers went down sealed the deal for me. But one political party is all in with this wannabe dictator/ mob boss and support his agenda to dismantle our democracy for the oligarchy. I despise this traitor and all his supporters to be blunt. The “both sides “ BS is slowly eroding the clarity of the present danger of fascist takeover of our country. Wake the FU Americans.

Expand full comment

Robert Hubbell captured the essence of the entire fiasco yesterday with the title of his commentary: “A pre-determined result in search of a rationale.”

It was shameful for the court, attorneys, and citizenry.

Expand full comment

Furthermore, "Congress has ALREADY disqualified Trump from the ballot" "The congressional votes regarding Trump should satisfy those who say we should "let the voters decide" rather than applying the Constitution and removing Trump from the ballot; the voters already decided. Our elected representatives convened, heard from both sides and voted that January 6 was an insurrection and that Donald Trump not only engaged in it but incited it. This was the conclusion of 232 of 435 representatives and 57 of 100 senators."

The Trump attorney claimed the OBVIOUS insurrection was merely "a riot". Then why did they pick that day to riot? Why did Trump direct them to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell!"? I noticed the Justices did not intervene when he spoke (unitil he needed "rescuing"). He planned it, he incited it, he engaged in it by directing them, KNOWING they were ARMED. And then he did NOTHING to stop the violence for nearly THREE HOURS while watching it on TV.

We all heard Trump demand votes and threaten the Georgia SOS, so he could win, AFTER he was defeated by Biden. To me it's a no brainer. Trump should NOT be on the ballot.

Expand full comment

But so many people are afraid to vote or can't as repugs have somehow got them purged. What a set of laws we have? Half of the laws are not enforced and the others are broken by broken men women.

Expand full comment

The fact that it seems none of the people working in any aspect of the government , elected or appointed, has a set of principles that can guide them in these decisions they are charged with.

The fact that the Supreme Court of the U S appears to be flying by ‘the seat of their pants’, instead of rational thinking and understanding of the straightforward Constitution of the U S

Expand full comment

The Justices kept interrupting Murray (CO) when he was trying to get a point across. I felt they were abrupt, disrespectful and rude to him. They did not demonstrate that insulting behavior to Trump's attorneys. They wouldn’t be patient enough to listen to a history lesson. For something as important as this was rushed through in a few hours. Unbelievable!

Expand full comment

Very well said Mr. Hartman. Those pusillanimous judges are very concerned about a possible future when future former presidents MIGHT be subjected to litigation. They are not concerned about a former president and now candidate who promises to be a dictator if he is in the White house again. A former president who encouraged a mob to engage in insurrection only four years ago. If, in the future a former president is challenged in court; then we can deal with that situation at that time. We have an obvious violation of the law NOW!

Expand full comment

Have any of the justices considered what will happen if trump loses the election? The arrogance, fear, or indifference that allows them to so easily dismiss the Colorado appellate, may well open the doors to greater violence than the decision to remove him now.

Our institutions are failing, repeatedly, as will our democratic processes in totality if a Republican wins in November. And possibly, no matter who wins.

Expand full comment

This is exactly how fascists win because representatives and leaders are afraid of bring violence against them. They want to be safe and comfortable. Sadly, society cannot be made safe by not facing violence of maga or any other faction of society willing to bully members of their opposition. Violence will prevail as long as it is successful in getting them what they want. The focus still has to be placed on base campaigning with 3 or 4 economic issues and repeating the message daily.

Expand full comment

Funny Thom that when liberal judges go against your theories or whims that Trump or Putin or some nefarious cause has to be behind it. Personally I feel Trump should never be allowed to run again and should have been disqualified in the first election, but our floundering fathers left us with little recourse and our current Democratic leadership is so afraid of its own shadow its participating in genocide and proudly shutting down the southern border. Perhaps these liberal judges are more knowledgeable than you as they have not shown any fear of repercussions in prior decisions.

Expand full comment

This is a very insightful piece. Thanks Thom

Expand full comment

I have lost what little bit of respect I still had for SCOTUS. Our Mad King Donald has pulled off his revolution with a lot of help, but it is nearly complete now. Cut to Putin LHAO. This is no longer my country, if it ever was, and I go back to the 18th century on my dear mother's side.

Expand full comment

From the bit I heard on the radio, it sounded to me as though the focus was on states rights and is it permissible for a state to act unilaterally in a federal election. In this case I think I'd support the federal government Oven states rights. Out of ignorance I don't know the proper procedure to prosecute a federal officer for sedition to prevent them running as a candidate for becoming president. It just strikes me as a federal issue as opposed to the responsibility of one or more of the states.

Expand full comment