Even the Supreme Court’s liberal justices didn’t seem to buy into how the state of Colorado could keep Trump off the ballot. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:
This week, the argument before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson captivated the nation as the justices considered the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. For some of us, the argument brought back vivid memories of covering Bush v. Gore almost 25 years ago. While one justice (Clarence Thomas) remains on the Court, the last major intervention of the Court into a close presidential election is a matter of distant history.
As someone who covered both cases, much is regrettably familiar: the deep division in the country and rage of many advocates. However, unlike in 2000, the Court itself appears virtually unanimous in this case. The biggest difference is not the Court but the coverage.
The Trump case exposed the erosion of legal coverage in the media. For millions of Americans, the cold reception of all of the justices to the novel theory under the 14th Amendment came as a surprise. Networks and newspapers have been featuring experts who assured the public that this theory was well-based and disqualification well-established. The only barrier, they insisted, was the blind partisanship of the six conservative justices on the Court.
Twenty-four years ago, I was covering the Bush v. Gore case for CBS. I had just left NBC as an analyst when the election controversy exploded. While there were the usual partisans and some outlets slanted the merits, the legal analysis was overall balanced and informative.
Commierado worries too much, there are always 4AM roll up ballots that only help the CPUSA (D) side. (s/)
Statistically Impossible? A construct of the white male patriarchy.
You put your weed in it commierado and no shirking with the Replacements, use your weed money and assimilate these new lifetime CPUSA (D) comrades.
Si se puede!