Google Removes Trump PAC Ad Targeting Black Men and it is Very Suspicious
The NH Libertarian Party Goes on a Weird Twitter Spiral about Feeding Orphans
Joe Biden and Karine Jean Pierre Drag the 'Star Wars' Guy to a...
Mike Johnson vs MTG, Frat Bro Revolution, Time Magazine Meltdown!
KJP Assigns Blame for What Will Happen to the Middle Class If Biden...
Vile Georgetown Professor Calls Byron Donalds an 'Uncle Tom' in a Repugnant Scene
This Video of Biden's Chief Economic Adviser Is Making the Rounds (Yeah, It...
BREAKING: Congressman Henry Cuellar Indicted for Allegedly Taking Bribes from a Foreign Co...
Columbia Professor Awards All Students A's and Cancels Final Exam Citing 'Current Conditio...
MSNBC Host Lets Robert De Niro Know He's Risking It All to Speak...
Arrested UCLA Protester Returning to Retrieve Belongings Upset to Find Out Where They...
RUN, BRANDON, RUN: Chicago Mayor SPRINTS From the Media When Asked About Killed...
Senator Kennedy Humiliates Democrat Witness, Reads Nasty Old Tweets Out Loud
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski Scolds Al Sharpton for Daring to Compare This to January...
Fate of Aid Shipment to Gaza Might Shock Only the Biden White House...
Premium

The Nation: The Supreme Court 'Twisted' the 'Crystal-Clear' 14th Amendment

AP Photo/Steve Helber

As we've noted, liberals aren't having a good day Monday after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Colorado can not kick Donald Trump off the ballot citing the 14th Amendment. It was a 9-0 decision. All of the justices agreed that the Consitution says it's the job of Congress to decide if Trump was guilty of insurrection, not the Colorado Supreme Court.

This was the Associated Press' framing of the decision:

There were definitely tears over at The Nation, where they hastily put together this article. John Nichols writes "that court’s ruling that states can’t remove Trump from the ballot flies in the face of the 14th Amendment’s crystal-clear language":

“The plain text of the Constitution could not be any clearer,” says Maryland US Representative Jamie Raskin, the constitutional law scholar who served as lead impeachment manager for the second trial of former President Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors, and who then joined the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. “If you’ve sworn an oath to support the Constitution and you violate that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion,” explains Raskin, you’re disqualified. “That’s what the Constitution itself says.”

But even the straightforward language of the Constitution is no match for John Roberts’s Supreme Court. On Monday, Roberts and his fellow justices—conservatives and liberals alike—embraced a reading of the amendment that cleared the way for Trump to seek a second term. Trump now has an even better chance to reoccupy the White House he disgraced and endangered when he abandoned his oath of office and sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.


Yes, even the liberal justices twisted the meaning of the 14th Amendment to keep Trump on the ballot.

There was no insurrection, and Trump certainly didn't engage in it.

Has anyone even been charged with insurrection, let alone found guilty?

If President Joe Biden is so agile and virile, I don't know what everyone is so worried about. They need Biden's opponent struck from the ballot in order to win?

I don't know how a 9-0 decision could be "twisted" or why the liberal justices decided to help Trump take back the White House and end democracy. They know we can all read the Constitution ourselves, right? Start with proving there was even an insurrection, and then prove to us how Trump participated in it.

***


Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement