Et tu, Ketanji? Et tu?
The otherwise awesome justice just failed my test for jurisprudence. She was literally telling the lawyer, Murray, that the 14th Amendment section 3, by saying only "officers" but not President or Vice President, when it included Representatives and Senators, means, back in 1868, Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens could not run for any office EXCEPT president and vice president. Huh? Even with a back and forth in the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment where one senator explained the office of president and vice president are included in the term "office"--and literally no other senator said it means it doesn't? Even when one reviews the US Constitution and sees that Representatives and Senators are called "members," not "officers," which is why those legislation positions were added? I had thought this was the weakest argument for Trump to make, even if the lawyers had a right to try it out at least. I also have consistently been saying none of the Colorado Supreme Court justices took that argument seriously, and the majority slammed it (The dissent did not state any disagreement with the majority on that ground).
Also, how stupid are these justices when Trump's lawyer said, "Well, Trump didn't actually take part in the attack on the Capitol..." and they accepted that with none pointing out how the felony-murder rule works, how conspiracy law works, and how the case law from the earliest days of the Republic held that any person even minutely connected before, during, or after acts of Treason are traitorous themselves. I guess all this only applies to leftist agitators, and people of darker skin colors.
Further, it is frustratingly ironic that Trump can literally say in his post-argument press conference that there was an "insurrection," but it was started by Nancy Pelosi. Yet, inside the Supreme Court's courtroom, the idea that this was merely a riot, which is essentially amorphous without leaders, was being taken seriously by some of the so-called justices.
As I predicted in my post dated January 6, 2024, the US Supreme Court will likely keep Trump on the ballot despite the materially undisputed facts of Trump lying to the public about a fraudulent election in which he was deprived of re-election, his amassing people in DC to march on the Capitol building, and using language of war and violence (yeah, the one line about "peacefulness" doesn't cut it, as courts look at overall content and circumstances) to stop a presidential transition. That is not only the definition of "insurrection," which is a riot with intent from a leader seeking to control the government, or stop a government action. As I have said in my December 31, 2023 blog post, it is why Trump was indictable and would likely be convicted for Treason. There was, from the materially undisputed evidence, an intent to intimidate at the very least. January 6, 2021 was unlike yippies in 1968 seeking to "levitate" the Pentagon with flowers and meditation. It was also unlike the recent anti-Israeli war sit-in in the Capitol Rotunda. In neither event did Pentagon or Congressional people run for their very lives. We all saw this live. The idea that there is a reasonable doubt to this is itself ridiculous when the record before the US Supreme Court makes the statements I just articulated materially undisputed. But, we are at the late Weimar stage of our nation. And fecklessness rules the establishment, whether liberal or conservative/right wing.
In my January 6, 2024 post, I predicted the US Supreme Court would at least have six votes to keep Trump on the ballot. I guess the remaining three libs are going along, as I am sure there will be a hard push on Sotomayor. Feckless libs and corrupt reactionaries. That's our current Supreme Court. No belief in the law which they are supposed to uphold and enforce without fear or favor. SMH.
