CO Sec Of State: SCOTUS Must Rule Trump IS An Insurrectionist

CO Sec Of State: SCOTUS Must Rule Trump IS An Insurrectionist

CO Sec Of State: SCOTUS Must Rule Trump IS An Insurrectionist

According to Jena Griswold, the erstwhile CO Secretary of State, SCOTUS should absolutely rule that Trump is an insurrectionist. If they don’t, they are no friends of democracy.

Griswold told CNN anchor John Berman she knows that the Supreme Court has “not been friendly” to democracy the day after the body heard oral arguments in the Trump v. Anderson case on Thursday.

The state official stressed the importance of the case and noted she found it surprising that the justices did not seem to discuss whether Trump committed an “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021.

 This is truly laughable. Yet many of us here in CO aren’t laughing about this mess that Jena Griswold and Norma Anderson among others have dragged our state into. This case before the Supreme Court is about determining whether a state has the RIGHT to keep a NATIONAL candidate off the ballot. It is not and never has been about deciding whether Trump is or was an insurrectionist. That is an entirely different case under different statues. 

That said, I swear, Jena is going to persist until the day she dies on this hill. 

Jena, you can persist all you want, but the case before the Supreme Court never was about deciding whether President Trump is an insurrectionist. It is about a state arbitrarily deciding if a national candidate can or should be allowed to be on the ballot! 

As several Supreme Court justices made clear during their questions, what Colorado is attempting to do is unprecedented across the history of the 14th Amendment being enacted. 

As has been noted here multiple times, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t include the actual office of the President. 

The case centers on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office who had previously served in the federal or state government before the war but then supported the Confederacy. It provides (as relevant here) that no one “shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,” if that person had previously sworn, “as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States” to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the federal government.

Read the above carefully. The President or Vice President is only mentioned in that someone who was and elector as in the electoral college, who had conspired against the U.S. cannot be allowed to hold that role. Not only that, but it was only members of Congress or a military officer who were disqualified from holding office. The President is not listed in that equation.

As Toni wrote here, the SCOTUS court as a whole was highly skeptical of the reasonings put forth by the attorneys representing Colorado. Basically upon review for the second time, the attorneys representing Colorado were schooled, BIGLY. 

That said, it isn’t just Jena who is on board demanding that SCOTUS ignore the law and the case itself and rule that Trump is an insurrectionist. It’s the media and other Democrat politicians. 

Details Glenn? You mean …THE LAW? You are demanding that the court decide the case on the political merits rather than legal so that your guy can win and Trump loses. 

Except, as Jonathan Turley points out here, these days many legal commentators aren’t discussing the merits of the LAW, they are discussing it from their political narrative perches. So, for the court to be questioning on the merits of the 14th Amendment and the case itself, has sent watchers like Jena Griswold and Congressman Jamie Raskin into tailspins. 

Raskin, who was amazingly, a Constitutional law professor back in the day, is completely ignoring Section 5 of the 14th that explicitly says that it is the job of CONGRESS to determine who is or isn’t eligible to be on a national ballot. Furthermore, the 14th wasn’t enacted to stop future insurrections. It was enacted to punish those elected officials who fought for the South. 

But today, the likes of Jamie Raskin and Jena Griswold want to weaponize the law and place demands upon the Supreme Court. Rule our way…or else is the implicit warning. 

As the House’s preeminent constitutional scholar says, “This is their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.”

In other words, use grotesque law fare to ban Trump from the ballot and all SCOTUS justices will be handed the keys to the kingdom. 

This case wasn’t about insurrection. It is about whether a STATE has the ability to keep a national candidate off the ballot and disenfranchise voters by doing so. 

Welcome HotAir readers!

Featured Composite: Fred Schilling/Wikimedia Domain/Quick Spice/ Commons

Written by

  • Chad King says:

    We are truly in the end times. According to Jena Griswold, keeping someone off a ballot and depriving citizens of their right to vote for that person is “protecting democracy.” Simply ignore the fact that not even the hacks in Biden’s whimsically named “Department of Justice” haven’t convicted Trump of “insurrection,” they haven’t even indicted him. Jena Griswold is a poster child for what’s wrong with our country.

  • Cameron says:

    Raskin tried to stop Trump from becoming President in 2016 but I don’t recall that being a “threat to our sacred democracy” that’s worse than Pearl Harbor wrapped around 9/11.

    And I have to tolerate him being my representative.

  • GWB says:

    Griswold also ignores that her state is the outlier among dozens of states
    Because she’s the test case. She was honored to be the sacrificial lamb turkey for this truly horrendous concept.
    I think she’s gonna cook for it.

  • checkers says:

    Couldn’t a broad definition of insurrection be anyone whom opposed the current party in charge’s opinions. So if you run on an opposing viewpoint, you are an insurrectionist? I mean, if we are splitting hairs every opposing candidate in every election is fomenting insurrection. ? Right?

  • Howard Hirsch says:

    There’s no such thing as a “national ballot” for president. There are 51 separate elections for presidential electors. Each state party agrees to place on the ballot the names of its presidential and vice-presidential candidates agreed to at the national convention, although there is no legal requirement that they do so in any state. Each state party also agrees to bind its presidential elector candidates to vote for the party’s ticket should it win the state, although that process is held together with baling wire as well and there have been many instances of “unfaithful electors”, especially in the last twenty years.

  • draigh says:

    “CO Sec Of State: SCOTUS Must Rule Trump IS An Insurrectionist”

    Um, that isn’t the case SCOTUS is reviewing. That is the job of a court bringing charges. Colorado did not do that!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner