Supreme Court 'Must Be Dissolved': Liberals Melt Down over Ruling that States Can't Disqualify Trump from Ballots Fred Schilling/U.S. Supreme Court via AP; Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Fortune; Jason Kempin/Getty; Drew Angerer / POOL / AFP via Getty
Progressives melted down over Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that states could not disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot, with some even suggesting that the court be “dissolved.”
In a historic ruling that came Monday, the Supreme Court said only Congress can disqualify a federal candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause.” The ruling — which comes right before Super Tuesday — overturned a 4-3 opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court in December that banned Trump from appearing on the ballot.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D-CO) said in a post on X she was “disappointed”: I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections [sic] from our ballot.
I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.
— Jena Griswold (@JenaGriswold) March 4, 2024
Griswold then went on MSNBC and lamented that voters would decide who was became president.
“I do believe that states should be able, under our Constitution, to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists. And ultimately this decision leaves open, or it leaves open the door for Congress to act, to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that Congress is a nearly non-functioning body. So ultimately it will up to the American voters to save our democracy in November,” she said.
Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold is currently on MSNBC crying about SCOTUS. She is not taking the 9-0 Trump ruling well. https://t.co/qA8m6CGxXl pic.twitter.com/0zmeVxUUld
— Charles R Downs (@TheCharlesDowns) March 4, 2024
There were more unhinged reactions.
Keith Olbermann, a former sportscaster and political commentator, slammed even progressives on the court and called for the Supreme Court to be “dissolved.” He posted on X: The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the “court” has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
— Keith Olbermann⌚️ (@KeithOlbermann) March 4, 2024
Harry Sisson, a Gen Z Democrat influencer, attacked only Justice Clarence Thomas for the decision despite it being backed by all the justices:
Insurrection sympathizer Clarence Thomas ruled that insurrectionist Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in 2024. That should be the headline.
Insurrection sympathizer Clarence Thomas ruled that insurrectionist Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in 2024. That should be the headline.
— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) March 4, 2024
Progressive journalists also criticized the decision.
CNN's Dana Bash in a segment called it “unfortunate for America.”
WATCH: CNN’s DANA BASH on the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision reversing Colorado's move to remove Donald Trump from the ballot:
“Unfortunately for America, the Court isn’t necessarily wrong that this is the way the Framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress, the people who are… pic.twitter.com/ilpVcQA0n0
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 4, 2024
A Vox senior correspondent, Ian Milhiser, posted on X:
LOLZ at the ridiculous notion that a written constitution is an effective check on tyrannical government!
LOLZ at the ridiculous notion that a written constitution is an effective check on tyrannical government! https://t.co/ATm9FLxf4V
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) March 4, 2024
And CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen criticized the Supreme Court for making the decision right before Super Tuesday, “putting wind in Trump's sails,” instead of last week.
If I were on SCOTUS, I would have ruled earlier on the 14A case
The short window between the decision & Super Tuesday risks the Court appearing political by putting the wind in Trump's sails right before primary voters go to the polls
I explained @cnni @BeckyCNN pic.twitter.com/5tZjRkgt60
— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) March 4, 2024
He and other liberals argued that the Supreme Court did not “explicitly deny” that Trump was “an insurrectionist.”
“In a sense, they have left the question open for the criminal authorities and for the American people what to do about Donald Trump's allegedly criminal conduct,” he argued.
SCOTUS could have expressly reversed Colorado's finding that Trump was an insurrectionist – but they didnt
That has big implications for the pending criminal cases against him & for November
I discussed @cnni @BeckyCNN pic.twitter.com/E5uPzXyn04
— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) March 4, 2024
Several legal analysts dismissed Eisen's assertion.
Bad take. Of course the per curiam found it unnecessary to address that issue, *as did the concurrence in the judgment by the three liberal justices.* I see nothing in that concurrence that supports the claim that it "emphasizes" finding below. (Concurrence objects that majority… https://t.co/fbjnoPWVCV
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 4, 2024
The case is Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on ”X”, Truth Social, or on Facebook.
Source link