Thank you, Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan, for your brave patriotism
Until this week, it wasn’t clear whether the Supreme Court would allow itself to be turned into a political weapon for Democrats or bow under extreme pressure from the news media, but at least for now, all nine justices have proven they are not ready to become a full partisan tool of the left.
In a unanimous ruling issued Monday, the court declared it unconstitutional for a state to determine whether a private citizen can be disqualified from holding federal office. Yes, all nine members concurred with that conclusion, even Democrat appointees Sonia “wise Latina” Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson of “black girl magic” fame.
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the opinion said. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”
That word “especially” must sting a bit. The dominant argument in favor of Colorado’s secretary of state removing Donald Trump’s name from Republican primary ballots was that Democrats claim he engaged in an “insurrection” while in office, violating his oath as an “officer of the United States.” The president is apparently not just any “officer of the United States,” even when that office is held by Trump, and some state-level officeholder can’t just nullify his campaign, whether they think he’s an insurrectionist or not. (They don’t honestly think that, it’s just a ploy to deny him as a choice at the ballot box.)
In a joint concurrence with the court’s judgment, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson said allowing any state to unilaterally disqualify a candidate for federal office would prove “chaotic,” is “at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles” and “would defy logic.” They further wrote that it would “imperil the Framers’ vision of ‘a Federal Government directly responsible to the people.’”
In other words, Colorado had no case, and the Democrats and loudmouths in the media who supported it were obviously opposed to the Constitution.
What courageous patriots these three strong women proved to be in their contribution to democracy, even as it’s under siege from anti-liberals like Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post and so many of her peers in the press. It’s a testament to their love for the country that they chose America over party in cosigning a ruling that rebukes Democrats’ lawless intimidation tactics.
Young girls all over the country, particularly black and brown ones, can look to these justices to understand true bravery and loyalty to the nation’s founding.
God bless you, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Your country thanks you.
rnrn
How does the Supreme Court’s recent ruling impact the future of election laws and procedures?
Supreme Court Stands Firm Against Partisanship
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed its commitment to impartiality by unanimously declaring the unconstitutionality of a state’s power to disqualify a private citizen from holding federal office. This decision has significant implications for the political landscape, as it highlights the court’s dedication to upholding the principles of democracy and ensuring fair elections.
Until this landmark ruling, there was speculation as to whether the Supreme Court would succumb to pressure from the media and allow itself to be used as a political weapon by the Democrats. However, all nine justices have demonstrated their resilience in the face of partisan influence, proving that they are not willing to compromise their integrity for political gain.
The unanimous decision, issued on Monday, serves as a resounding statement against using the courts as a means to disqualify individuals from running for federal office. This ruling clarifies that it is within a state’s right to disqualify individuals from holding state office, but they do not possess the constitutional authority to enforce the disqualification for federal offices, including the presidency.
Even the liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurred with this ruling, affirming that the Constitution does not grant states the power to enforce Section 3 with regard to federal offices. This outcome is significant because it underscores the court’s commitment to following the letter and spirit of the Constitution, regardless of political affiliation.
The court’s ruling will undoubtedly impact ongoing debates surrounding the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballots in Colorado. Proponents of his disqualification argued that his alleged involvement in an insurrection during his time in office violated his oath as an “officer of the United States.” However, the Supreme Court’s ruling discredits this argument, asserting that the presidency deserves special consideration and cannot be subject to the states’ enforcement of disqualification.
This decision should serve as a reminder of the sanctity of our democratic processes and the importance of an independent judiciary. It illustrates that the Supreme Court remains an essential safeguard against partisan manipulation and underscores its role as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation.
While this ruling highlights the court’s dedication to upholding the principles of democracy, it also raises questions about the future of election laws and procedures. As the country moves forward, it is essential to strike a balance between ensuring fair and transparent elections and safeguarding individuals’ constitutional rights.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against the disqualification of private citizens from holding federal office is a significant victory for democracy and demonstrates the court’s commitment to impartiality. This decision reinforces the importance of an independent judiciary and serves as a reminder of the court’s role in upholding the integrity of our democratic processes. Moving forward, it is crucial for policymakers to carefully consider the implications of this ruling and strike a balance between election regulations and constitutional rights.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
