Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court rules Trump will stay on Colorado ballot despite Jan. 6 attack

Published

on

Supreme Court rules Trump will stay on Colorado ballot despite Jan. 6 attack

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Trump may not be disqualified from appearing on state ballots despite allegations he “engaged in insurrection” after losing the 2020 election and thereby should be barred under the Constitution from holding office.

Reversing a ruling by Colorado judges, the high court said states do not have the authority to interpret the post-Civil War 14th Amendment or use it to remove a presidential candidate from the state ballot.

It was an unsigned, unanimous decision.

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court decided that Trump was disqualified from running for president because he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It says no person may “hold any office, civil or military” who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.

Advertisement

Legal scholars and historians told the court in friend-of-the-court briefs that the Reconstruction Congress sought to prevent “insurrectionists” from gaining power and subverting American democracy.

The justices did not dispute that reading of history, but they appeared more concerned about allowing state judges to remove from the ballot a candidate who is the overwhelming choice of Republican voters.

“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,’’ Monday’s ruling stated.

All nine justices said they agreed that Colorado or any state may not disqualify a presidential candidate based on the 14th Amendment.

But Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett objected to part of the court’s opinion that said Congress must enact a law to enforce this provision in the 14th Amendment.

Advertisement

“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment,” the court’s three liberals wrote.

Barrett filed a similar concurrence.

“I agree that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. … In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home. “

The court moved with uncommon speed to hear Trump’s appeal and to rule for him. His lawyers asked the court to review the Colorado case Jan. 3. Two days later, the appeal was granted, and arguments were held Feb. 8.

The justices ruled for Trump in less than a month and in time for his votes to be counted in Colorado’s primary election on Tuesday.

Advertisement

The court has moved less quickly to resolve Trump’s separate claim of presidential immunity from prosecution. As a result, the criminal trial over his role on Jan. 6 may not be held until after the November election.

Last week, the court announced it would hear Trump’s immunity claim, setting arguments for the week of April 22. Under that schedule, the justices are not likely to rule before June.

By then, it may be too late for the trial to be held before the November election.

The court’s Monday opinion does not discuss or decide whether Trump engaged in insurrection after losing the election in November 2020.

The lawyers who brought the suit in Colorado called that a victory of sorts.

Advertisement

“While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump. The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington or CREW.

Election law experts also noted the Colorado decision does not prevent members of Congress from objecting to Trump’s election if he wins in November.

“This decision does not resolve the contentious insurrection issues, which will remain live and disputed in the public domain in the months ahead,” said Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor. “But it shuts the door on any exclusion of Trump from the ballot in any state, either in the primary or the general.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Park Police union says officers ‘did everything they could’ during DC anti-Israel riot

Published

on

Park Police union says officers ‘did everything they could’ during DC anti-Israel riot

Following the protests at Union Station by anti-Israel agitators defacing federal property in protest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, a Park Police union is pushing back against criticism that only a few arrests were made.

Thousands of Hamas-sympathizing agitators descended on Washington, D.C., Tuesday, at one point defacing federal monuments with phrases in support of the terrorist group responsible for the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel, saying, “Hamas is coming.” 

Twenty-three people were arrested at the protests, but some have suggested that number should have been higher. 

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., posted on X, “How many more times are they going to allow leftist degenerates who support terrorism and hate America to vandalize property and attack police? There should have been hundreds of arrests today in D.C. not just 23.”

HOUSE REPUBLICANS REPLACE AMERICAN FLAGS AT UNION STATION AFTER ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTS

Advertisement

The Columbus Memorial Fountain at Union Station during an anti-Israel protest on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington July 24, 2024.  (Reuters/Seth Herald)

But the U.S. Park Police Labor Committee is pushing back.

“Our officers on the ground did everything they could to protect life and property. In fact, despite having only 29 officers available to mitigate damage — 29! — with no additional help from the Department of the Interior, we processed several arrests for charges ranging from assault on a police officer to destruction of government property,” Kenneth Spencer, chairman of the United States Park Police Fraternal Order of Police, said in a statement. 

“That’s why it’s so disheartening to hear some members of Congress and members of the media, many of whom describe themselves as ‘champions’ of law enforcement, suggesting that officers gave protesters a ‘pass’ or that insufficient arrests were made. 

“Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who truly cares to understand the problem would see that our officer staffing crisis is at the root of our agency’s mission readiness. A small unit of 29 officers arrested 10 individuals while being assaulted by a mob of thousands. We simply did not have the staffing or resources to accomplish a mass arrest operation.”

Advertisement

SEE IT: THE MOST DRAMATIC PHOTOS FROM WEDNESDAY’S PRO-HAMAS WASHINGTON, D.C. PROTESTS

A pro-Palestinian demonstrator sprays graffiti on Christopher Columbus Memorial Fountain at Union Station

An anti-Israel demonstrator sprays graffiti on the Christopher Columbus Memorial Fountain at Union Station on the day of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington July 24, 2024.  (Reuters/Nathan Howard)

At least one demonstrator, whose face was covered, was spotted by Fox News carrying what appeared to be the flag of the terrorist group Hamas while others were heard shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

KAMALA HARRIS REACTS TO ANTI-ISRAEL RIOTS AT DC’S UNION STATION

Protesters-gather-for-Israeli-PM-Netanyahu's-address-to-Congress-in-Washington

Anti-Israel demonstrators burn an effigy depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outside Union Station on the day of Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington July 24, 2024.  (Reuters/Nathan Howard)

The White House condemned the protests Wednesday evening, calling the chaos “disgraceful.” 

Advertisement

“Identifying with evil terrorist organizations like Hamas, burning the American flag or forcibly removing the American flag and replacing it with another is disgraceful,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a comment to Fox News Digital Wednesday evening. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Ali: Kamala Harris has a campaign soundtrack: Beyoncé's 'Freedom'

Published

on

Ali: Kamala Harris has a campaign soundtrack: Beyoncé's 'Freedom'

Vice President Kamala Harris’ bid for the presidency has a soundtrack: Beyoncé’s “Freedom.”

The leading Democratic presidential candidate took the stage in her first visit to her Wilmington, Del. campaign headquarters and again during her first campaign rally in Wisconsin as the song played.

Now the cathartic anthem graces Harris’ first campaign ad, in which she says: “There are some people who think that we should be a country of chaos, of fear, of hate. But us? We choose something different: We choose freedom.”

Pit that against the musical number her competitor chose for his grand entrance on Night 3 of the Republican National Conference. Donald Trump walked out to James Brown’s “It’s a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World,” a tone-deaf choice for a former president found liable for sexual abuse, who’s bragged about sexually assaulting women, a married man who paid hush money to a porn star and a former president who rolled back women’s reproductive rights 50 years with the repeal of Roe vs. Wade.

Maybe the Godfather of Soul would have endorsed Trump’s usage of his song, but Brown would be breaking with decades’ worth of musicians who’ve decried GOP candidates playing their tracks at rallies and booster events. Adele, Rihanna, R.E.M., the Rolling Stones, Prince, Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses and Queen are among the many artists who’ve spoken out against Trump using their tunes for campaign purposes.

Advertisement

Heart bristled when the McCain-Palin campaign used “Barracuda.” Tom Petty insisted George W. Bush back away from “I Won’t Back Down.” Bruce Springsteen decried Ronald Reagan’s appropriation of “Born in the U.S.A.”

Beyoncé, however, gave Harris her blessing to use “Freedom,” a single from her 2016 blockbuster album “Lemonade.” The song, which features guest rapper Kendrick Lamar, is an explosive expression of empowerment. At the time of its release, it spoke to public outcry around police killings of unarmed Black men and women — Eric Garner, Tamar Rice, Freddie Gray — and protests that were largely fueled by the ire of younger generations.

Whether Beyoncé was singing about the tyranny of a cheating spouse or racial injustice (or both), the song became an anthem for a new, potentially potent block of the American electorate.

For the first time, Gen Z and millennials could now account for as many votes as baby boomers and their elders, groups that have made up a majority of the electorate for decades.

Folks under 40 have grown up with Beyoncé and her ubiquitous work. Think of Beyoncé like the Who for boomers — their work is everywhere (Republican Sen. Rand Paul played the band’s anti-war hit “Baba O’Riley” when he campaigned in 2015) — or Nirvana for Gen X, except no one cares what we think. Whatever, nevermind.

Advertisement

The Harris campaign’s smart choice of music coincides with a willingness to lean into a meme culture that shot up organically around the 59-year-old VP since President Biden announced Sunday that he was dropping out of the race.

Pop star Charli XCX showed her support for Harris when she tweeted “Kamala IS brat.” The British singer is referring to the TikTok and Twitter edits of Harris’ image superimposed to songs from Charli XCX’s hit album “Brat.” The avalanche of memes come from a video clip in which Harris talks about her mother’s response to the hubris of youth: “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.”

Right-wing social media used the quote to deride Harris as inarticulate and a “word salad” master, but liberal swaths of Gen Z have since reworked the clip into emojis and memes that celebrate Harris’ nonconformist approach. She’s become a viral sensation, in a good way, unlike J.D. Vance’s damning “single cat lady” memes and a cringey internet joke about encounters with couches.

It’s rare that relevant talent will shill for a Republican candidate. Case in point: Trump’s pop culture ambassadors at this year’s RNC were Kid Rock, Kanye’s ex Amber Rose and former WWE wrestler Hulk Hogan, whose big moment was ripping his shirt off and screaming “Let Trump mania run wild!”

Harris chose to let freedom ring, and she has Queen Bey behind her.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Texas sues Biden administration over program giving birth control to teens without parents' knowledge

Published

on

Texas sues Biden administration over program giving birth control to teens without parents' knowledge

Texas officials are challenging a recent order from President Biden’s administration that would allow schools to distribute birth control to teenagers without parental consent.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Thursday that his office is suing the Biden administration over their 2021 change to Title X guidelines banning parental consent requirements for birth control services.

“By attempting to force Texas healthcare providers to offer contraceptives to children without parental consent, the Biden Administration continues to prove they will do anything to implement their extremist agenda — even undermine the Constitution and violate the law,” Paxton said in a statement.

TRUMP SAYS HE ‘WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL’ OR OTHER CONTRACEPTIVES

A woman takes the next pill from a monthly pack of contraceptive pills.  (Annette Riedl/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Texas legal battle began in Dec. 2021 when US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that Title X — the federal program that provides free, confidential contraception to anyone regardless of age, income or immigration status —  violates parental rights and violates state and federal laws.

The case was argued by former solicitor general of Texas Jonathan Mitchell, representing father Alex Deanda, who said he was “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage.”

SCHUMER PLANS VOTE ON ‘CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION’ IN BID TO PROTECT SENATE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY

Matthew Kacsmaryk

Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, previously ruled that parents must be informed when birth control is provided to their children under 18 years old. (Senate Judiciary Committee via AP)

In response, the federal government updated guidelines to state that Title X projects “may not require consent of parents or guardians for the provision of services to minors, nor can any Title X project staff notify a parent or guardian before or after a minor has requested and/or received Title X family planning services.”

Paxton is now seeking a permanent injunction on this rule, which he claims defies the findings of the federal court.

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife Angela are pictured outside the Supreme Court on Nov. 1, 2021.

Paxton and his wife Angela are pictured outside the Supreme Court. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Paxton filed the lawsuit in a federal court in Amarillo. It will likely be heard by Kacsmaryk, the same judge who previously ruled parents must be informed of birth control provided to their children.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending