WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, “Big win for America!!!”
Justice Glenn Martin found the Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll’s direction for mandatory Covid vaccination, issued in December 2021, to be unlawful under the Human Rights Act.
A similar Covid vaccination order issued by the Director-General of Queensland Health at the time, John Wakefield, was determined to be “of no effect,” with enforcement of both mandates and any related disciplinary actions to be banned.
In his decision handed down on Tuesday 27 February, Justice Martin held that the Police Commissioner “did not consider the human rights ramifications” before issuing the Covid workplace vaccination directive within the Queensland Police Service (QPS).
What a sly dog. Schiff plays the long game to eliminate other Democrats.Schiff has decided that he can’t beat Porter in a one on one, so he’s built up Garvey hoping Garvey finishes second.
In a two way race Schiff leads Garvey 52-38%. But in a two way race with Porter, it’s tied. In the California races, the top two go on to the next level.
Who supports Schiff?
Democrat mega-donor Ed Buck – who was convicted of two counts of distribution of controlled substances resulting in death in 2022, as Breitbart News reported – was another donor to Schiff’s campaign and was also “a social acquaintance” of the representative.
Furthermore, a “Schiff booster” and lawyer named Arthur Charchian, “the head of the Southern California Armenian Democrats,” was implicated in a money laundering scheme.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump, with lawyers Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. (Shannon Stapleton/Pool Photo via AP)
Visits: 38
Just in case you missed it. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Trump’s $355 million fine.
SusanShelley
Let me tell you about the time Ruth Bader Ginsburg saved Donald Trump $355 million plus interest. It was Feb. 20, 2019, and Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court in the case of Timbs v. Indiana.
In that case, police in Indiana had seized Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover SUV, which he bought for $42,000 with money he received from a life insurance policy when his dad died. The state sought civil forfeiture of the vehicle because Timbs had pleaded guilty to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft. However, the fine for the crime was only $10,000 and the vehicle was worth four times that. Taking the vehicle was an excessive fine, the judge ruled, and excessive fines are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed.
But then the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies only to the federal government, and it does not bind the states.
Yes it does, the U.S. Supreme Court said unanimously. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions stating that they would have arrived at the decision through different reasoning. But the conclusion was the same.
“There can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment,” wrote Gorsuch.
“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies in full to the States,” wrote Thomas.
“The Excessive Fines Clause traces its venerable lineage back to at least 1215,” wrote Ginsburg, “Magna Carta required that economic sanctions ‘be proportioned to the wrong’ and ‘not be so large as to deprive [an offender] of his livelihood.’”
Timbs v. Indiana was a landmark decision. It was the first time the Supreme Court had held that the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applied to the states. Just nine years earlier, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court had acknowledged in a footnote, “We never have decided whether … the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines applies to the States,” pointing to the 1989 case of Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., in which the court declined to decide the issue.
McDonald v. Chicago was itself a landmark decision. In that case, the Supreme Court said for the first time that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
“When ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.
How that eventually changed is a little-known part of U.S. history that is about to protect former President Trump from the state of New York.
The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, in 1868. It read, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
However, this did not immediately make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. That change began more than 50 years later, in 1925. In the case of Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court floated the idea that freedom of speech and of the press are assumed to be “among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states.”
Gradually over the next century, the court would pick and choose provisions of the Bill of Rights, declare them to be “fundamental” or “deeply rooted” in our history, tradition and “scheme of ordered liberty,” and make them binding on the states. (The history of this process can be read in Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for the court in McDonald v. Chicago.)
The Eighth Amendment reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The “cruel and unusual punishments” clause was declared applicable to the states in 1962, in Robinson v. California. The “excessive bail” provision has applied to the states since the 1971 case of Schilb v. Kuebel. And the “excessive fines” prohibition has been binding on the states since the 2019 Timbs case.
New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron fined the former president and 2024 frontrunner an astronomical $355 million plus $100 million (and counting) in interest. Engoron also prohibited the Trump Organization from taking loans from financial institutions that do business in New York for three years, and he banned Trump personally from working as a director or officer of any corporation or entity in New York for the same period. Engoron even refused Trump’s request for a 30-day extension of the due date to pay the fine, which New York requires before he can appeal the judgment.
This was a civil fraud trial, without a jury, in which the judge found Trump guilty of giving his assets a too-high valuation to get good loan terms, even though the bank adjusted those values downward before approving a loan that was paid back fully and on time, with interest.
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” wrote Ginsburg. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on a promise to sue Donald Trump, calling him an “illegitimate president.” She said she’ll ask the court to seize Trump’s buildings if he can’t come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in time to pay the fine.
We’ll see. It may be easier to go up against Trump than to argue with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump, with lawyers Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. (Shannon Stapleton/Pool Photo via AP)
First Trump now a meatpacker. Who’s next on the AG’S List? Not happy with phony charges against a former President, James is now going after our food supply.
“The lawsuit filed in a New York state court in Manhattan seeks a $5,000 civil fine per violation of state business laws, and to recoup ill-gotten gains from false sustainability claims.” – Reuters reported.
I'm suing @JBSFoodsUSA, the world's largest beef producer, for misleading the public about its environmental impact.
The beef industry is one of the largest contributors to climate change, and JBS has falsely advertised its commitment to sustainability and endangered our planet.
“Families [are] willing to spend more of their hard-earned money on products from brands that are better for the environment,” James said in a statement. “JBS USA’s greenwashing exploits the pocketbooks of everyday Americans and the promise of a healthy planet for future generations.”
Trumps going to Texas, Joe asks if he can go to. Last week Donald Trump announced that he was going to Texas. Not to be left out, Joey asked his handlers if he could go to. They said yes, but not anywhere near the hot zones. Not Eagle Pass, but Joe’s going to Brownsville.
Monday almost 5,000 undocumented crossed the border in Texas. Brownsville recorded 12. The Texas governor should send about a hundred busloads to Brownsville so they can maybe pick up their ballots for the 2024 election.
Lawmakers scrapped proposed maps that were recommended by a 10-member bipartisan commission.
CBS
Visits: 9
NY State Legislature rejects new state maps. They wish to return to Gerrymandering. The Democrat controlled good old boys network are up to their same dirty tricks. They lost four seats last election. So, they want them back and more. Let’s review.
The people voted for a bipartisan Independent Election Comission to draw up the state maps. Well the Democrats rejected it and drew up maps if used would only leave two Republican House seats. The Court thre that out and had an Independent Court Master draw up the maps. The maps reflected the state and Republicans won four Seats.
Now the Legislature rejected those maps and the new maps drawn up. The New maps took away two Republican districts and made them more Democrat. Republicans said OK and acccepted them.
Democrats said no we want to draw up our own maps so more Republican districts would turn blue. Stay tuned.
Throw out the NY Bail. Eighth Amendment Protects President Trump. The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled 9-0 that the eight amendment protects Americans from exsessive fines. Ginsburg wrote the decesion in overturning the Indiana Supreme court.
The court held unanimously that the excessive fines clause of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment applies to the states. The ruling is potentially a major win for property owners and individual citizens facing excessive fines, fees, and forfeitures—to say nothing of Tyson Timbs, the man who fought the seizure of his SUV all the way to the Supreme Court.
The UAW says it will spend $40 million in new funds to support the organizing of workers in nonunion auto plants and battery facilities, Jessica j. Trivino. Detroit Free Press.
Visits: 15
Just my two cents. Why the UAW has no choice but to try and Unionize other auto and battery plants. What choice does the union management have?
We all have seen the numbers. The auto plants when they switch over to all electric, will be half the size of what they are now. Management knows that but they don’t care because they will keep their jobs.
If non union auto workers ask the tough questions, there’s no way that they will vote to unionize. So how will this be done?
The UAW says it will spend $40 million in new funds to support the organizing of workers in nonunion auto plants and battery facilities, “particularly in the South,” through 2026.
‘Dear Joe…’ Border Patrol Union Unleashes on Biden in Short But Hard-Hitting Open Letter
By Laura Wellington forThe Western Journal
Biden to blame. Tenor.com Gif.
Sometimes less says more. The Border Patrol Union proved it Monday with a social media post on X.
The union shared a very concise letter to President Joe Biden.
Fewer than 50 words, the message was short but sweet and to the point.
“Dear Joe, You OWN this catastrophic disaster at the border – lock, stock and barrel,” the union wrote on the National Border Patrol Council account. “You created it. You nursed it along. You encouraged it. You facilitated it. It’s all yours. Don’t run from it now like a coward. Signed, The BP agents you’ve thrown under the bus.”
I guess there is no arguing who owns this issue in the eyes of the Border Patrol agents. It can’t be passed off as former President Donald Trump’s by the current administration anymore.
Nor should it be. The Biden administration unleashed the kraken on the United States, with almost 9 million illegal immigrants infiltrating this nation since Biden’s inauguration.
Biden has welcomed the invasion with open arms, fanning the flames every step of the way. He’s done everything he could to assist in drowning our nation under the weight of this invasion. Illegals are receiving free everything while Americans look on in disgust. The evidence is clear.
Illegals are receiving free food, free healthcare, free lodgings, free medical care, free diapers, free relocation travel, and free money. The list continues. Whatever they need, it all comes free. He’s forced Americans to pay for all of it while they are barely getting by. And then those same illegal immigrants threaten Americans with words of pure hatred, warning us of what is to come. It worsens by the day.
And now that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has refused to allow the invasion to continue in his neck of the woods, the cartels have figured out how to carry on smuggling illegal immigrants through southern California and Arizona. The influx is simply changing course but not lessening.
According to a Fox News report from Feb. 1, over 71 percent of illegal entries are now happening through California and Arizona rather than Texas.
Where the Border Patrol’s Del Rio Sector, which covers part of the Texas border with Mexico (including hard-hit Eagle Pass), was averaging 3,000-4,000 illegal migrants invading our nation at their border per day in December, that number has reduced to 200, Fox reported.
It shows that effective policing of the border can provide huge results. But as the cartels are not only persistent but also rather well-versed in the best possible ways to get around these impediments, they are coming up with their own solutions.
It’s like watching water find its way through the cracks. This water, however, is tainted with violence, crime, perversion, and death.
More than 8.9 million illegal immigrants have arrived into the United States since Biden took office. This number is larger than the population of Arizona.
The fact that the Border Patrol Union stood up and called Biden out is a very good sign for the United States in the face of this atrocity. It’s a sign of how strong resistance remains to the Biden administration’s rampant lawlessness.
The union — which endorsed Trump in both 2016 and 2020 — has locked horns with Biden many times over the course of his benighted administration. In 2021 it was blasting Biden’s approach to border security as a crisis, and that was when the invasion was in its infancy.
That was the same year the Border Patrol was the subject of an attack that included Biden himself over a hoax story about agents on horseback using whips against illegal immigrants from Haiti.
Now, with the 2024 election approaching, it seems that Border Patrol agents are drawing their own line in the sand, sending a powerful message that they stand on the right side of the Constitution. They see how wrong and corrupt the current president and his administration is.
I liken it to them saying, “Don’t count on us to be complicit without speaking our truth. That ship has sailed.” It is a wake-up call to anyone who might have had any doubt left in his head of how intentional Biden’s actions have been.
The Border Patrol agents are required to do a job but that doesn’t mean that they agree with what is happening.
Frankly, we don’t know what will come of this situation after the fact — so much depends on American voters righting the country’s course when November’s elections roll around.
At a minimum, however, it emphasized which side the Border Patrol union and agents are on.
It’s the side of the law, of history and of the American people. And the country can’t ask for more than that.+
Dementia Joe can’t even read the 4K jumbotron-sized teleprompter; he only knows what the devils(s) whisper in his ear. — TPR
90
