Poor Jena Griswold.
Despite the secretary of state’s best efforts to ban Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court just wasn’t buying it during Thursday’s arguments.
Even the liberal justices were skeptical and sound unlikely to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision allowing the states to determine who can be president.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan basically told Colorado to get over itself.
“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”
Fellow liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson got straight to the point. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was never intended to determine who is eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
“I didn’t see any evidence that the presidency was top of mind for the framers,” she said, saying Section 3 seemed meant to keep Confederates from returning to power in the states.
The old liberal guards at the Washington Post summed it up best:
Justices from across the ideological spectrum warned of troubling political consequences if the Colorado ruling is not reversed.
And the talking heads on CNN fretted that the Colorado ruling was so weak, it’s likely the justices will be unanimous in their decision to overturn it.
Afterwards there was Jena, all alone on the steps of the Supreme Court facing a bank of TV cameras babbling on about insurrection.
She begged the court to protect America from another Trump presidency, when energy was plentiful, groceries were affordable, crime was punished, and the borders weren’t overrun by eight million people demanding shelter and jobs.
Hold Trump accountable, she demanded.
We predict that’s exactly what the Supreme Court will rule, by allowing U.S. voters to hold him accountable at the ballot box come Election Day. Because democracy.