Regime media’s going to be regime media
The outcome was never truly in doubt, but the Supreme Court Monday made official what most people in Constitutional Law hoped and predicted would happen, that the Colorado Supreme Court overstepped its authority in such an egregious manner as to result in a unanimous ruling to allow Donald Trump back on the ballot. A couple hours after the decision, Maine Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, withdrew her decision to unilaterally remove Trump from the ballot in the Pine Tree State.
The speed with which the Court took action to rebuke the Colorado Supreme Court was rare but warranted considering the stakes in a presidential election year. The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court in mid-December to remove Trump from the ballot, with Maine following suit a week later, and other states considering the same path, forced the Supreme Court to accept cert on the appeal on January 5th. An oral argument was scheduled and heard on February 8th. The decision was handed down on March 4th. That’s pretty expeditious in today’s judiciary, but also very necessary. By acting as quickly and as decisively as they did, the Court specifically removed the judiciary from interfering with the presidential campaign, even though regime media reacted to the decision by accusing the Court of doing the opposite - being a political body that injected itself into the political race. But as you’ve come to learn if you’ve been reading Look Through The Chaos for any length of time, regime media getting their political analysis exactly backward is nothing new.
Hugh Hewitt called his 9-0 shot on Fox News the day the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision to remove Trump from Colorado’s ballot, calling it judicial nonsense and one that will tarnish that court’s legacy for generations.
Yet regime media constantly pounded the drum, believing they could pull off the Jedi mind trick of willing the Supreme Court to bend to their narrative.
Oral arguments always are fraught with legal experts trying to read too much into the tea leaves of justices’ exchanges with the lawyers, but it seemed pretty clear in this case that no one on the Court was buying what Colorado’s advocates were selling.
When the Supreme Court announced over the weekend that there would be a decision released Monday, on a day when the Court wasn’t in session, it signaled almost certainly it had to be the Colorado decision, and that it would be a lopsided affair. In the unsigned decision, the Court’s ruling was that states cannot remove candidates from ballots, and five of the nine went on to say that Congress is the only body that can remove a candidate from the ballot.
Naturally, regime media, joined by the most ardent Never Trumpers, went apoplectic.
It wasn’t a 9-0 decision at all, regime media kept repeating. It was a partisan 5-4 decision, they want you to believe. Let’s analyze that. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberals on the Court – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in a separate opinion that the Court’s majority went a step too far and ruled on a question not specifically asked in the appeal, that Congress is the only remedy to remove a candidate from the ballot. Note that Justice Barrett did not agree with the liberals that Trump should or should not be removed, she was simply maintaining her desire to be a judicial minimalist, only willing to address the subject on which the appeal is being made and nothing further. But what regime media conveniently left out of their reportage of the 4-justice life raft is this line by Justice Barrett.
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”
So it wasn’t a 5-4 decision. Anyone is regime media telling you it was is lying, ignorant, desperate, or a combination of all three. How deep is the delusion within regime media? This much. Here’s Never Trump charter member George Conway, III, on with former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki on MSNBC.
The Supreme Court is not making anything up. In fact, it’s just this kind of analysis that the majority of conservatives on the Court were trying to head off by adding the provision that only Congress can adjudicate the removal of a candidate from the ballot. And how did the Court come to that conclusion? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which consists of only one sentence, but one devastating to the whole argument being made by Colorado, Maine, and regime media.
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
All of the controversy and pretzel twisting that Colorado and Maine went through to beat Section 3 of the 14th Amendment into submission becomes moot when you read a paragraph later in the amendment that only Congress can enforce any alleged offense warranting removal.
And if you ever wanted to know just how committed to the leftist Get Trump narrative CNN is, Rep. Jamie Raskin appeared yesterday after the Court decision and announced that he and Fang Fang’s boyfriend, Rep. Eric Honeypot Swalwell, are working on legislation to have Congress act and remove Donald Trump from the ballot. CNN reported that as if it were news you need to know.
I’m unclear of what multiversal world Raskin is referring to where a Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Republican House majority will take up that bill, schedule it for a floor vote, and get it passed and signed into law this year before the election in 8 months, because it’s not the world in which I’m presently living.
9-0 decisions by the Supreme Court in today’s fractious society are rare indeed. When they happen, you should question not the motivations of the Court, but those in media that claim that all nine, occupying positions on both ends of the ideological spectrum, are wrong, partisan, and illegitimate.
Sadly, regime media hasn’t changed a bit. They won’t anytime soon.
