February 8, 2024 – U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Trump 14th Amendment case

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations by Katie Weddington

Various analyses of the hearing:

Democrat Lawyer Admits At Supreme Court That Only One Party Can Be Allowed To Rig Elections

There was never a purer demonstration of how traitorous Democrats are about “defending democracy,” or whatever corny phrase they like to use, than what just happened at the Supreme Court.

At the very end of oral arguments in the Colorado case determining whether the state had the right to remove former President Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot, Justice Samuel Alito asked the state’s solicitor general, Shannon Stevenson, what’s going to happen if other states “retaliate” by, say, removing Joe Biden from theirs. Elected officials in at least six states have suggested it as a course of action.

It’s an obvious question that Stevenson either wasn’t prepared for or knew it would expose her state’s case as a tragic joke. “Your honor, I think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately, that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment,” she said. “Courts will review those decisions, this court may review some of them.”

What she said next should have resulted in her being laughed out of the room. “But,” she said, “I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of this case.”

Alito challenged Stevenson on whether she thought the suggestion of retaliation, coming from places like Florida, Arizona, and Georgia, all potentially swing states in the next election, was truly unfounded.

“Um, I think we have processes—” she said, before being interrupted.

“We should proceed on the assumption that it’s not a serious threat?” said Alito.

Stevenson said there are “institutions in place” that should “handle” such matters. Asked to specify which institutions, she said, “Our states, their own electoral rules, the administrators who enforce those rules.” She also said voters would have to rely on “courts.”

In essence, to believe this entire case by Democrats is an effort to safeguard democracy, rather than rig an election, is to trust that Republicans would never dare try doing the same. If they did, it would ruin Democrats’ plot. Alternatively, if such threats were made good, we should expect enough opposition to render them neutral. (Read more: The Federalist, 2/08/2024)  (Archive)

Kavanaugh: Democrat Attempt To Disenfranchise Trump Voters Sounds Awfully Anti-Democratic

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December 2023 to bar Trump from the ballot over accusations that he “incited insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021. The rationale for the decision did not appear to sit well with Kavanaugh, who pressed Colorado lawyer Jason Murray about the state’s attempt to deny Americans the right to choose their preferred candidate.

“What about the idea that we should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide?” Kavanaugh asked.

Murray spent most of Thursday morning arguing that Colorado had a right to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Kavanaugh, however, told him it’s the Centennial State’s position, not the 2021 Capitol chaos, that “has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.”

“And should that be something? Does that come in when we think about, should we read Section 3 this way, or read it that way. What about the background principle, if you agree, of democracy?” Kavanaugh continued.

Murray sidestepped Kavanaugh’s question and repeated his claims that Section 3, like all “constitutional safeguards,” was “designed to protect our democracy.”

“The framers of Section 3 knew from painful experience that those who had violently broken their oaths to the Constitution couldn’t be trusted to hold power again because they could dismantle our constitutional democracy from within. And so they created a democratic safety valve,” Murray replied.

As Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Mitchell explained to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson earlier in the day, the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6 “did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in Section 3” and therefore could not be used to bar Trump from the ballot.

According to Murray, the only way Trump should remain eligible for office is by asking two-thirds of each congressional chamber to remove his supposed disability under Section 3.

“This case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply Section 3 as written, because the reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn’t require that you be given another chance,” Murray claimed.

As Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly stated in all of the lawfare cases against him, questioning the integrity of an election is a First Amendment right, not a crime. (The Federalist, 2/08/2024) (Archive)

Trump responds: