by Stephen Kruiser
It has been a whirlwind few days since the Colorado Supreme Court took a plunge off of the progressive cliff and booted Donald Trump from the state’s GOP primary ballot.
In the first 24 hours or so after the ruling, reaction predictably broke along party lines. The rabid, Trump-hating Left was ecstatic, of course. Even Republicans who aren’t Trump fans thought that the court had severely exceeded its authority. Everyone immediately became a legal expert and opinions were flying like Frisbees at the beach.
There were a couple of interesting developments in the skeptic camp yesterday, and they didn’t come from where one might expect.
Rick wrote something yesterday about New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait wandering away from the hive mind to question the Colorado court’s ruling. First, Rick explains the crux of the matter:
But “insurrectionist” is a legal term. And once the Supreme Court finds that Trump may have welcomed efforts on his behalf to change the results of the 2020 election but had no part in planning or participating in the efforts, the Colorado Supreme Court’s case will fall apart and all other challenges to Trump’s ballot access will fail.
I’ve said since January 6, 2021, that anyone who calls what happened that day an insurrection is an unhinged liar. Trump couldn’t have participated in an insurrection because there was no insurrection.
Rick quotes Chait as saying that the “weak point in this argument” has to do with this insurrection angle.
For those unfamiliar with Chait, he’s a leftist’s leftist. The fact that he’s writing a takedown of the Colorado ruling in the thoroughly liberal New York Magazine is a real red flag indicating just how awful it is.
There was an even more delicious defection on Thursday.
My friend and colleague John Sexton writes over at HotAir that The Washington Post editorial board has joined the naysayers:
People (including our own Ed Morrissey) have been saying this since the decision appeared Tuesday but I’m still a bit surprised to see the Washington Post‘s editorial board making the same case. After laying out the basis of the Colorado decision under the 14th Amendment, the board points out “the law is not so clear.” The board argues that section 3 of the Amendment should probably apply to the president (which is what the Colorado Supreme Court found) but says that doesn’t really matter unless you’ve also concluded that President Trump did in fact commit insurrection in connection with Jan. 6. And on that point, the Colorado court is way out on a limb.
WaPo is home to some of the most vitriolic, unbalanced Trump screeds on Earth, and has been since 2016. I read its Opinion section every day and can assure you that the editorial board not at all mentally balanced when comes to anything having to do with him.
This is, in the words of WaPo’s least favorite American politician, “YUUUUGE.” Stay tuned to see if The New York Times has a moment of clarity anytime soon.
While it is impossible to know how the Supreme Court will rule on anything, it will be stunning if it doesn’t quickly throw the Colorado court’s ruling on the trash heap of irresponsible jurisprudence.
What happened in Colorado is, of course, the clearest sign of the Democrats’ desperation yet. They’re rolling into an election year with an incumbent president who is less popular than chronic diarrhea. Even if their plan to get Trump off the ballot works, Biden would probably lose to whichever Republican wins the nomination instead. He’s not even Ramaswamy-proof at this point.
For the moment, I’m going to have faith in SCOTUS and say that Trump will be on the ballot.
That’s when the real fun begins.