"Sodom and Gomorrah' is trending on Twitter, which seems only natural in the Obama/Biden era, i.e., when "your sins get ripe".
.
.
The Colorado Supreme Court has disqualified Donald Trump from Colorado’s 2024 presidential election ballot, and in a 4-3 ruling has effectively blocked Trump from seeking the presidency because of his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, citing the post-Civil War-era 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that bans insurrectionists from holding public office. The Colorado case was the first constitutional challenge to Trump’s 2024 run to go through a full trial.
Voters, represented by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, had argued he should be barred from the ballot for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
Colorado’s highest court - whose seven-member bench was entirely appointed by Democratic governors - overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.
In its ruling, the Democrat-controlled court found that Trump engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud and directing them to the Capitol. The state justices determined that the office of the president is covered under the insurrection clause, which specifically lists those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as “a member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State.” The district court had previously ruled that the office of the president was not covered under the clause.
The majority opinion was unsigned but joined by four of the seven justices.
Those who voted for fascism are the following four Democrat-appointed judges:
View attachment 88043
Three justices dissented from Tuesday’s decision: Chief Justice Brian Boatright, Carlos Samour and Justice Maria Berkenkotter. Each wrote separate dissents taking issue with how the plaintiffs brought their 14th Amendment lawsuit using a provision of Colorado election law.
Berkenkotter wrote that “the majority construes the court’s authority too broadly.”
“The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute,” wrote Boatright. “The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the Electors’ claim overwhelmed the process.”
Samour similarly wrote that Colorado’s election law provides no “engine” for such a lawsuit, also noting that no federal legislation existed to enforce the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past—dare I say, engaged in insurrection—there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office. Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America’s democracy that sets this country apart,” Samour wrote.
Ironically, all this ruling will do is further cement Trump's status as leading presidential candidate as it not only affirms his status as target #1 of the Biden Department of Justice and liberal court system, but will test the Conservative-dominated Supreme Court appeal over its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which according to many including a Colorado District court, does not apply to the Presidency.
Indeed, as Vivek Ramaswami observed, the 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. "It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States."
And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself.
The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.
The court put its ruling on hold until Jan. 4, so Trump can first seek review from the Supreme Court, which he will. Until then, Trump’s name automatically remains on the ballot until the justices resolve the appeal.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Naturally, Trump’s campaign immediately denounced the ruling.
“Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said.
“We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits."
View attachment 88044
Constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley, who previously said the case has no solid legal basis, also responded to the decision:
"My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view... ...It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots."
Others was just as harsh in their assessment, with many agreeing that this witch hunt will only boost Trump. Some, such as presidential candidate Vivek Ramswami, pledged to withdraw from the Colorado primary unless Trump is reapproved, and urged all other Republican candidates to do the same.
View attachment 88045
Finally, here is Matt Taibbi's kneejerk reaction:
By now most readers will have heard that Donald Trump was disqualified from the ballot in the state of Colorado, by the Colorado State Supreme Court, for what amounts to a criminal offense neither proven nor charged. Fifth Amendment, Schmifth Amendment, apparently.
This is a major escalation of the lawfare phenomenon that’s zoomed from simmer to boil in the seven short years since Trump was first elected in 2016. The glee of #Resistance dolts like Robert Reich and Dean Obeidallah at this decision shows that this was a move dreamed up at the very center of the bubble-within-a-bubble-within-a-bubble that is the blob of the modern Democratic Party. Racket readers, I had a piece planned for later on a quasi-related subject, but I’ll try to get it out in the day or so now.
What a crazy effing country this is…
Here is the Colorado Supreme Court Decision in its entirety.
View attachment 88046
Yet, all of those things happened in addition to the fact that California delayed ratification until four years after Disneyland opened its gates. (1959)
The True Agenda of the 14th Amendment – Abbeville Institute
www.abbevilleinstitute.org
[By] maintaining that the Southern states were not in the Union until redeemed by Congress, the Radicals were driven to the absurd conclusion that the states could not qualify as members of the Union until after they performed a function that only members can perform…
The video, according to sources, was obtained by police after a search warrant was executed on Christian Ziegler’s cell phone and Google account in November to recover evidence in connection with the alleged rape.
According to an affidavit filed by Sarasota police Det. Angela Cox, Christian Ziegler admitted to police he recorded the incident that led to the rape allegation, a video police also recovered in the investigation. Bridget Ziegler told investigators she and her husband had a joint sexual encounter with the same woman more than a year ago, according to the affidavit.
A second video has been recovered by police showing Bridget Ziegler, a cofounder of the conservative Moms for Liberty, engaging in sexual relations with a woman, sources said. It is not known if the woman in the video is the same woman who has alleged she was sexually assaulted by Christian Ziegler. Neither Christian nor Bridget Ziegler have responded to requests for comment from the Trident.
It was on October 2 that, according to the police affidavit, a tryst was planned with both Zieglers and the woman. The woman canceled the planned encounter after learning Bridget Ziegler was no longer available to attend. “Sorry I was mostly in for her,” the woman wrote in a message.
Christian Ziegler then went to the woman’s apartment, gained entry, and, according to the woman, raped her. The Trident has learned the video Ziegler took of that encounter may bolster his claim that the sexual encounter was consensual. No arrest has been made and the criminal investigation continues.
The embattled Christian Ziegler continues to hold the title of Florida GOP chairman, but was stripped of his authority and his $120,000 salary by the executive committee last Sunday. The committee also voted unanimously to urge Ziegler to resign, following the lead of numerous Republican leaders across the state – including Gov. Ron DeSantis, U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, Congressman Vern Buchanan and Congressman Matt Gaetz. To date, Ziegler has resisted those efforts.
The Sarasota County School Board voted 4-1 to request Bridget Ziegler resign from the board. Ziegler was the only board member to vote no. Bridget has also refused to resign and DeSantis, who endorsed her in last year’s school board election, hasn’t moved to remove her from the school board. Bridget Ziegler also continues to serve as a DeSantis appointee on the Central Florida Tourism Board, the Disney oversight board
Numerous citizens spoke at last week’s packed school board meeting against Bridget Ziegler, many of them claiming the revelations of the police investigation exposed hypocrisy in her anti-LGBTQ efforts.
“Bridget and Christian Ziegler have stepped on the backs of marginalized communities across Florida,” said Nicholas Machuca, of Equality Florida, at the meeting. “They have demonized people, Bridget Ziegler is an architect of Moms for Liberty. It is not a grassroots movement. It is a cynical sick tool hatched by the Zieglers to sell fear and division for political gain.”
“You have emotionally and psychologically damaged countless students, parents, and teachers with your hateful rhetoric,” resident Steve Russell told Bridget Ziegler. “Resign.”
The devil is in the details:We’ll look carefully to see whether this is a one-off situation and they’re fundamentally law-abiding people…
~ Larry Krasner, progressive Philadelphia district attorney on arrested looters
Watch how quickly this would stop:
- Cut off social welfare for protesters who block streets
- Every protester should be arrested and heavily find
- Anyone who is non-citizen or green card… pic.twitter.com/OzvsEUDoYs
— I Meme Therefore I Am (@ImMeme0) December 27, 2023
The coordinating organizers are listed below