The Founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom and diligence, envisioned the Supreme Court to be just that – SUPREME! President Truman’s words “… the buck stops here…”, is an accurate statement and well-intended for how the Highest Court in the Nation was expected to function.
The Supreme Court (SC) was designed to be a NON-PARTISAN organization, free of any/all political party affiliations and established primarily, if not solely, to judiciously interpret the Articles of the Constitution, as written by the Founders. This perspective is reinforced by the fact that all positions, once attained, are for the remaining life span of the appointed individual. Sadly, however, this tenet has gradually deteriorated over the years, but even more so over the past six (6) years, as political partisanship gradually infiltrated the group. Currently, SC justices are essentially (political) pawns, rather than the independent voice (to the nation) for constitutional interpretation, fairness and impartial legal leadership.
The Supreme Court (SC) was designed to be a NON-PARTISAN organization, free of any/all political party affiliations and established primarily, if not solely, to judiciously interpret the Articles of the Constitution, as written by the Founders. This perspective is reinforced by the fact that all positions, once attained, are for the remaining life span of the appointed individual. Sadly, however, this tenet has gradually deteriorated over the years, but even more so over the past six (6) years, as political partisanship gradually infiltrated the group. Currently, SC justices are essentially (political) pawns, rather than the independent voice (to the nation) for constitutional interpretation, fairness and impartial legal leadership.
However, this narrative is NOT to address the many ways in which the Supreme Court - that body of legal scholars, has failed. My purpose is, instead, singularly focused on the proceedings of February 8, 2024. On that day, the State of Colorado presented to the SC, arguments in support of that State’s decision to block Donald J Trump from being on the State’s ballot, for the upcoming State primaries for the Presidential election in November 2024.
Colorado’s argument to the SC should have been focused primarily on only two (2) points, as follows:
Jason Murray, attorney representing Colorado and assigned to present the case, should have focused directly, if not entirely, on these two elements; but he did not! Instead, he allowed himself to be led around, primarily by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh – other justices participated in the interrogation but the slanted questions came mainly from these two. Questions, paraphrased, as follows:
These are clearly slanted/partisan questions, which not only ignored the findings of a legitimate Congressional investigation, but tainted the original objective of the hearing.
Colorado’s argument to the SC should have been focused primarily on only two (2) points, as follows:
- Does the State – any State, have the constitutional right – with cause, to prevent a candidate for Office from placing his/her name on that State’s primary ballot.
- Was the State of Colorado justified in citing the events of January 6 2021 as a legitimate reason for their decision to prevent Donald J Trump from participating in the primaries for that State.
Jason Murray, attorney representing Colorado and assigned to present the case, should have focused directly, if not entirely, on these two elements; but he did not! Instead, he allowed himself to be led around, primarily by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh – other justices participated in the interrogation but the slanted questions came mainly from these two. Questions, paraphrased, as follows:
- … why should any ONE State have the right to determine who gets to be President…
- … we must consider the consequences to the nation resulting from your actions against Trump…
- … not everyone agrees that the events on January 6th constituted an insurrection…
These are clearly slanted/partisan questions, which not only ignored the findings of a legitimate Congressional investigation, but tainted the original objective of the hearing.
Bullet # 1 – This was a blatantly false and totally misleading question. One would expect to hear such a question raised by a candidate running for office – NOT from a justice of and on the SUPREME COURT. At no time, during the hearing did Jason Murray, ever suggest that the State of Colorado was attempting to influence the upcoming presidential election. As a matter of principle and law, no ONE State has that capability or authority. The question should never have been posed and was designed entirely to unsettle the presenter and detract from the real issue.
Bullet # 2 – It is important to re-state the objective of this hearing; a) Review the circumstances under which the State of Colorado sought to reject and remove Donald Trump’s name from their primary ballot; b) was such an action supported within the Articles of the Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3. If this was the purpose of the hearing and the objective of the Supreme Court, then the expressed concern over “consequences” had no place in a Constitutional discussion. This was, after all, a question of legality, with regards to Colorado’s stated position. To pollute the discussion with concern of consequences is akin to suggesting that a person on trial for murder should not be convicted because of the “consequences” such a conviction would have on his family. How is it possible that a justice, sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court, could stray so far away from the objectives of the day, to ask such a ludicrous and almost inappropriate question.
Bullet # 3 – Following the events of January 6th, the nation and the government were faced with how best to unravel the horrific debacle created on that day. The extreme partisanship, currently existing within the Congress, did not make the decision any easier. Nonetheless, it was finally agreed that a bipartisan committee would be assembled to perform a complete and comprehensive investigation of the events. This, for the purposes of determining guilt or innocence of the individuals who participated in the assault on the Capitol building. The investigation and hearings spanned a period of approximately 18 months, ending in January 2023. The final results of this investigation were clear and decisive.
- The assault on the nation’s capital was classified as an insurrection
- Donald Trump, along with others were complicit in the planning and execution of this assault.
The United States government is comprised of three (3) main branches, as follows:
That said, the question posed by one of the two justices, mentioned above was completely out of step with the essence and purpose of the February 8th hearing. For starters, who – in the mind of that questioning justice, comprised the group referred to as “… not everyone…” And why should that be a concern? The conclusions of the congressional hearing were well grounded in its investigatory findings and specific articles within the Constitution. Their conclusion was that an Insurrection did, in fact occur on January 6 2021. If the SC did not agree with this conclusion, February 8th 2024 was not the time and/or place to make that position public. The “audio only” broadcast of the proceedings, presented the Supreme Court – not as an impartial branch of government - as it should be, but instead, a partisan group catering to the affiliations of its conservative members.
The court has now retired to review the results of the hearing and render a position. Based on the media’s interpretation of what was said, the consensus is that the decision (from the court) will be that the State of Colorado will NOT be allowed to remove Donald Trump from their primary ballot.
- The Congress of the United States – comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- The Executive branch – comprised of the Office of the President and his Administration
- The Supreme Court
That said, the question posed by one of the two justices, mentioned above was completely out of step with the essence and purpose of the February 8th hearing. For starters, who – in the mind of that questioning justice, comprised the group referred to as “… not everyone…” And why should that be a concern? The conclusions of the congressional hearing were well grounded in its investigatory findings and specific articles within the Constitution. Their conclusion was that an Insurrection did, in fact occur on January 6 2021. If the SC did not agree with this conclusion, February 8th 2024 was not the time and/or place to make that position public. The “audio only” broadcast of the proceedings, presented the Supreme Court – not as an impartial branch of government - as it should be, but instead, a partisan group catering to the affiliations of its conservative members.
The court has now retired to review the results of the hearing and render a position. Based on the media’s interpretation of what was said, the consensus is that the decision (from the court) will be that the State of Colorado will NOT be allowed to remove Donald Trump from their primary ballot.
Significance of the Supreme Court Decision:
Donald J Trump presents a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the National Security of the United States. Based on a regression analysis of Donald Trump’s behavior, actions and statements made over the past 6 years, it is painfully obvious that his attention is not focused on the interests of the United States, but rather, solely and only on himself. But I am not an attorney; for this perspective to have any significance, it must first be processed and validated thru the Rule of Law by competent, objective and non-partisan attorneys.
I am convinced that any reasonably intelligent person, reviewing Donald Trump’s behavior and narrative over the past 6 plus years, should/will conclude in similar fashion, UNLESS there’s a hidden, partisan agenda buried within their mindset.
The Supreme Court Justices should have reviewed the conduct and behavior of Donald J. Trump, in the manner described above, in order to have a macro understanding of exactly who he is. Now, faced with specific allegations of inappropriate and possibly illegal behavior, the job/role of the Supreme court justices is/should be abundantly clear, as follows:
It is left to be seen how the SC will rule on this issue. The state of the nation and its Democracy will rest on that ruling. However, if because of partisanship and right-wing politics, the court concludes that Donald Trump is immune from being held accountable for his actions, it will be a sad and bleak day for the United States and its citizens.
Live up to your oath of office and do the right thing.
Donald J Trump presents a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the National Security of the United States. Based on a regression analysis of Donald Trump’s behavior, actions and statements made over the past 6 years, it is painfully obvious that his attention is not focused on the interests of the United States, but rather, solely and only on himself. But I am not an attorney; for this perspective to have any significance, it must first be processed and validated thru the Rule of Law by competent, objective and non-partisan attorneys.
I am convinced that any reasonably intelligent person, reviewing Donald Trump’s behavior and narrative over the past 6 plus years, should/will conclude in similar fashion, UNLESS there’s a hidden, partisan agenda buried within their mindset.
The Supreme Court Justices should have reviewed the conduct and behavior of Donald J. Trump, in the manner described above, in order to have a macro understanding of exactly who he is. Now, faced with specific allegations of inappropriate and possibly illegal behavior, the job/role of the Supreme court justices is/should be abundantly clear, as follows:
- Review, interpret and conclude conclusively that the 14th Amendment, Section 3 specifically states that anyone seeking to hold a federal office within the government of United States, shall be barred from doing so, IF it is determined that such person or persons were engaged or participated in an insurrection against the United States.
- Based on the findings of the January 6th Congressional hearing, the State of Colorado was justified in its decision to bar Donald Trump from the State’s primary ballots. The SC has an obligation to rule on this position, impartially
It is left to be seen how the SC will rule on this issue. The state of the nation and its Democracy will rest on that ruling. However, if because of partisanship and right-wing politics, the court concludes that Donald Trump is immune from being held accountable for his actions, it will be a sad and bleak day for the United States and its citizens.
Live up to your oath of office and do the right thing.
RSS Feed