Colorado’s Supreme Court’s decision regarding Donald Trump’s potential exclusion from the 2024 presidential ballot resonates as a blatant dismissal of seriousness. The court’s 4-3 division, dominated by the left wing, seemingly adhered to the desires of the Democratic fringe by rashly asserting, sans evidence or precedent, that Trump was an insurrectionist.
The decision carried a weighty tone as it declared Trump disqualified from the presidency under Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Yet, the court tempered this with a rather perplexing note of levity, hinting at their own uncertainty within uncharted legal terrain and deferring the impact of their ruling till January 4, 2024, pending any U.S. Supreme Court review. This curious approach essentially left Trump’s qualification hanging indefinitely.
While delaying decisions pending appeals isn’t uncommon, this majority opinion essentially left the matter of Trump’s qualification open-ended. The assertion that Trump doesn’t qualify appeared to be extended indefinitely, highlighting the seriousness of the ruling’s implications.
The court’s conclusion, attributing the Capitol riot to Trump’s January 6 speech, stands on shaky grounds. Notably, even the individual, Jack Smith, whom Biden designated to pursue Trump, refrained from charging him with insurrection due to the lack of a clear legal link between Trump’s actions and the riot. This further emphasizes the critical lapses in law enforcement actions during that eventful day.
The court’s decision to connect Trump’s speech with the violence, implying a breach of the Brandenburg test, negates the speech’s First Amendment protection. This irresponsible judgment is anticipated to fuel extreme reactions from the leftist fringe, evoking reminders of past episodes involving James Hodgkinson, the Supreme Court leaker, and others, upon the probable U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal.
Colorado’s court seemingly engineered this controversial decision. Presently, lawsuits invoking the 14th Amendment are spreading across 17 states, draining Trump’s legal resources—a calculated strategy in a larger campaign against him, painting a stark picture of the left’s quest to quash dissenting voices under the guise of “saving democracy.”
In essence, this episode portrays a real instance of election interference, spotlighting the lengths to which the left is willing to go to silence free speech advocates who challenge them. This unabashed attempt to curtail fundamental rights is, ironically, labeled by the left as “saving democracy.”
