MONOKULTUR

Colorados højesteret har med en 4-3 afgørelse besluttet at fjerne Donald Trump fra Colorados stemmeseddel, fordi de mente at Trump havde ledt an i en opstand mod USA, da der brød optøjer ud på Capitol 6/1 2021. Alle dommerne var Demokrater, men som flere har bemærket, så var de 4 dommere, der stemte for at fjerne Trump fra stemmesedlen i Colorado fra Ivy League universiteter, mens de 3 dommere, der stemte imod var fra Denver universitetet.

Deres argument var, at man ikke må bestride et embede, hvis man har forsøgt at styrte USA. Jesse Watters mindede om, at konføderater blev valgt til Kongressen efter borgerkrigen, fordi Ulysses S Grant ville hele nationen. Sjov note: I Arlington fik Demokraterne fjernet en statue, udformet af den jødiske abolitionist Sir Moses Ezekiel, der netop symboliserede forsoning mellem Nord og Syd. En af dommerne i dissens skrev i sit modsvar: “I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”

Afgørelsen vil blive omstødt, for den er ikke resultat af en retsag med vidner, forklaringer og beviser, men alene synsninger, fra de fint uddannede. “This is a massive denial of due process, the most fundamental way and the easiest way to see that President Trump has not been convicted by a criminal jury unanimously of insurrection,” sagde Jeffrey Clark, en tidligere jurist i justitsministeriet til Epoch Times, fordi Colorados Højesteret havde støttet sin argumentation på 6. Januar Kommiteens konklusioner

“The entire January 6 committee made a mockery of due process. There was no cross-examination of any witnesses. There were no Republicans appointed by the Republican conference who had lawyers who could ask questions of the witnesses,” he said. “It was just a unilateral process by seven Democrats and two token Republicans who all had announced that they hated President Trump and they wanted him to be convicted in the second impeachment trial. So that’s not the kind of government report you can rely on.”

Selv på Slate, mener man at afgørelsen er grotesk. De lægger endda ud med følgende skudsmål om Trump

Donald Trump is an astoundingly dangerous candidate for president. He is a pathological liar, with clear authoritarian instincts. Were he elected to a second term, the damage he would do to the institutions of our republic is profound. His reelection would be worse than any political event in the history of America — save the decision of South Carolina to launch the Civil War.

Men principper er i dette tilfælde principper på Slate, skal det siges til deres store ros, for de mener at hvis USAs Højesteret skal “preserve its integrity, it must, unanimously, reject the Colorado Supreme Court’s judgment”. Reglen om at udelukke folk, der har deltaget i en opstand imod USA gælder nemlig ikke præsidenten, Og det ville skabe en farlig præcedens “It took mere moments after the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to see why, as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick threatened to remove President Joe Biden from the Texas ballot as retribution.”

Flere i medierne slikkede sig om munden ved udsigten til at få fjernet vælgernes mulighed for at vælge deres egne kandidat, af hensyn til Demokratiet. Når vikeligheden rammer dem, spekulerede Gregg Gutfeld, vil de føle sig som om de endelig havde fået en sød piges telefonnummer kun for at finde ud af at det er en ‘suicide hotline’. George Conway mente, at det var slut for Trump, som ikke ville kunne appellere, da “Supreme Court of the United States has no business countering what state courts say about state law.” Da valget af præsident er et føderalt anliggende er det et mærkeligt argument

“Why are you standing with confederates who betrayed this country?” Those words from New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay on MSNBC captured the unhinged coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualification of Donald Trump from the 2024 election. While the underlying theory under the 14th Amendment had been previously rejected by jurists in various states (including many Democrats), Gay had a simple take for viewers: anyone raising democratic or constitutional objections are modern day confederates.

Indledte Jonathan Turley og konkluderede “So those three Democratic appointees on the Colorado Supreme Court were just more confederate fellow travelers.”

It is only the latest example of how the left is engaging in McCarthy-like tactics to portray advocates for free speech or other constitutional protections as enemies of the state.  Back in the day, it was the Democrats who were denounced for raising such legal objections. Now,  Democratic members and pundits attack witnesses as “Putin lovers” or supporters of “insurrectionists” in opposing censorship. Or confederates for objecting to ballot cleansing.

Indeed the rhetoric used by Gay is strikingly familiar to the defense for censorship on the left. She added on MSNBC that the Colorado decision “should send a message that our electoral system can be used for nefarious purposes against democracy itself. It’s clear. It’s clear as day.”

Thus, it is up to society to protect citizens from the “nefarious” uses of free speech or free elections by cleansing ballots and social media.

Of course, others simply used the opinion to vent on an almost schoolyard level. Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project, taunted the former president and said that the court “called you out for what you are. You’re a filthy insurrectionist. You’re a losing loser who loses.” That is still weirdly preferable to labeling anyone raising constitutional concerns as standing with “confederate traitors.” Yet, it is remarkable how these critics who have long objected to Trump rhetoric have adopted the same personal and reckless rhetoric.

Hugh Hewitt kaldte det “one of the most ridiculous decisions” nogensinde. “In the sixty years I’ve been practicing and teaching law, I’ve never seen a decision that is so antidemocratic and so unconstitutional. It is absurd.” sagde Alan Dershowitz. Ty Cobb, der ofte har kritiseret Trump, mente at USAs Højesteret vil omstøde afgørelsen enstemmigt.