Former President Donald Trump has found some strange allies in his criticism of the four Democratic justices on the Colorado Supreme Court who booted him from the state’s 2024 ballot earlier this week”
The Washington Post’s editorial board.
In an editorial published on Wednesday, the radical left-wingers who drive the agenda for the Post argued that the Colorado court got it wrong in its application of the 14th Amendment to Trump.
The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent former Confederates from rejoining the federal government following the Civil War.
For one thing, the Post noted, the Section 3 of the amendment, which the Colorado high court applied to Trump, says “is not so clear” on this point. For one thing, it says nothing about disqualifying a presidential candidate for being involved in an “insurrection.”
Read: MSNBC Analyst Claims Union Soldiers Died So Candidates Like Trump Could Be Kept Off Ballot
But beyond that, the Post finally found some fundamental American values in order to question the treatment of Trump.
One of them is due process.
In its editorial, the Post notes, “What’s missing from the majority’s analysis is due process of law. Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it.”
The Post points out that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is pursuing two cases against Trump did not file any charges asserting Trump violated federal law dealing with insurrection. “The penalties for that, by the way, include disqualification from ‘any office under the United States,’” the Post notes.
And perhaps betraying its real motive as House Republicans zero in on impeaching Democratic President Joe Biden for his influence-peddling schemes and, maybe, for failing to defend the southern border, the Post contends, “Disqualifying a candidate based on an accusation, albeit one blessed by a state court judge as in the Colorado case — but not an actual conviction — is dangerous.”
“What’s to stop a Republican politician from seeking to bar his Democratic opponent because the opponent attended Black Lives Matter protests, claiming that those protests, some of them nominally in service of abolishing the police, qualify as insurrection?” the Post asks.
Perhaps a better example of a Democratic politician supporting “insurrection” would be now-Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to bail violent BLM protesters out after riots over the death of George Floyd.
“In the absence of clarity, a body of unelected officials should be reluctant to prevent the country’s citizens from choosing an elected official to lead them. The Supreme Court, hopefully, understands that,” the Post concluded, apparently arguing that the nation’s highest court should confirm Trump’s appeal when it comes due next month.
Android Users, Click To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our free newsletter.
We can’t do this without your help. Visit our GiveSendGo page and donate any dollar amount; every penny helps.