It looks like SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 that CO (states) do not have the power to prevent candidates for federal office from being on the ballot.
This is significant. I guess that'll show the IL traffic court judge who's boss. Noted liberal gadfly and legal scholar Keith Olberman says that the women of color on SCOTUS are "inept at reading comprehension" and that the court should be "dissolved". I eagerly await the rabid leftists to bash Olberman for his attempt to combine "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" so effectively.
Not necessarily a Trump win, but a federal appeals court has ruled that TX can enforce it's state laws regarding immigration.
Also not a direct Trump win, but it looks like a DC circuit court just ruled unanimously that the Biden DOJ and lower courts over sentenced J6 peaceful protesters. Opinion authored by a P-BO appointee and joined by another P-BO appointee.
It appears that the higher courts are still able to look at the law without a partisan lens (to some degree) and make appropriate rulings unanimously.
I've never been a fan of getting things done in the courts, but when that's the only avenue, then it's necessary.
2 comments:
The SCOTUS ruling did leave open the "right" for state courts to block candidates from state offices. I suppose that might mean a debate over whether or not the US Constitution has any sway of that particular possibility. But it still seems a grievous wrong if any state court blocked a candidate for, say, governor on the same weak reasoning attempted to block Trump. Regardless of whether or not they had authority, the reasoning is preposterous to simply assert one is guilty of a crime without anyone bringing charges in court and going through that process to determine one is actually guilty. On any level, why couldn't some court simply point to you and assert you're guilty of a crime you not only never committed, but for which you were never accused, arrested, tried or convicted. I guess the court is doing the accusing here, but clearly that's not at all in line with the proper understanding of justice to go from accuse to conviction without any of what supposed to happen in between.
On another point, one of the Justices suggested among the problems with the Colorado court is the impact it has on the nation to pull this crap on a nominee for federal office, a position for which the people of the rest of the nation have a voice. Yet, when Texas...in addition to the several states which joined their suit...sought relief for the election fraud of Pennsylvania, that was exactly their point. By acting contrary to their own state laws, the results of their election process were unworthy of certification and falsely added to Biden's totals, yet SCOTUS said Texas et al had no standing. What's missing in my wonderment is who actually brought the suit against Colorado. Was it someone from that state? If so, standing isn't in question. But the reasoning of the Justice...it was either Roberts or Kavanaugh, if I recall correctly...would suggest they erred in the Texas suit after the 2020 election...which they most certainly did.
Olberman really is a moron, isn't he?
"Not necessarily a Trump win, but a federal appeals court has ruled that TX can enforce it's state laws regarding immigration."
A win for the nation as well as for Texas. But as Biden overturned Trump's policies in the first place, it does suggest Trump's policies were better and wrongly reversed by the Joey Pampers.
"Also not a direct Trump win, but it looks like a DC circuit court just ruled unanimously that the Biden DOJ and lower courts over sentenced J6 peaceful protesters."
My question is so what? That's a Capt. Obvious ruling, so what will be done about it? Are they overturning the sentencing? Going with "time served" and releasing them? I've not been following this ruling.
The courts definitely have their place. All of these seemed within that place. None of them would have happened were it not for bad policies and actions which led to taking complaints to them as the only recourse available. I think the courts are right to say "No, no! You can't do that!" if what's been done is unconstitutional.
I'm sure that the SCOTUS ruling is not perfect, but it's a win for Trump when he badly needs one.
As for the DC ruling, I'm not sure how it'll play out. I do think that the fact that it's in the DC circuit is notable as that's not a particularly friendly court for conservatives.
I agree that these decisions were within the scope of the proper role of courts.
Post a Comment