Anyone who has spent even the slightest miniscule of moment in time around here knows what I think about that question…
However, after listening to most of the Supreme Court hearing yesterday (yeah, I know, I know… I need to get a life obvs) but be that as it may, it didn’t take long for me to realize that it isn’t even going to be close as to how the Supremes are going to decide — Trump will not be denied ballot access by them. Even the left of center Supreme ones were unable to contain their skepticism of the argument before them, either of that argued by the lawyer representing those heroes bringing the suit, or of that by the one arguing for the state.
Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism about several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that Mr. Trump’s conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office under a constitutional provision that bars people who have sworn to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection.
Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump Off State Ballots, New York Times, February 8, 2024
Actually, I do have ever so slightly mixed emotions about the argument myself, especially since Trumpadump was never convicted of insurrection by a court as far as I know; although, he was certainly convicted by his words and deeds in the court of common sense, at least the one governed by yours truly.
What miffed me most about yesterday’s hearing, besides the fact that the ruling will not go the way of common sense, was “Justice” Alito’s argument, or line of questioning, concerning his concern that if the Supremes were to rule that Trump is to be denied ballot access nationally, that the ruling could cause serious national strife (my words poorly paraphrasing his).
For one, as long as Trump continues to breathe, he will cause strife, nationally and beyond, just by continuing to breathe, so what’s a little more on his account, especially when it’s for such a worthy cause?
For two, why should such a concern even be considered in regards to the constitutionality of the case before them, or of any case for that matter?
I mean, if we allow such emotional concerns to govern our rule of law, if we are concerned that a constitutional ruling might cause harm, then obviously the parent(s) of a family struggling below the poverty line should be allowed to steal from the local X-Mart to feed their malnourished children, right?
I mean, now there’s some strife that is being faced by far too many families nationally, yet if a parent were to be caught stealing to feed their family as often as Trump has been caught for all his countless illegalities, then 9 times out 9, that parent will go straight to prison – even more so if race is factored in. Right?
Right?!
Anyway…
