Earlier today, it was announced that the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in support of President Trump over a Colorado ruling that sought to prevent him from showing up on state ballots.
As many celebrate the decision, those on the left are having a meltdown.
One meltdown has stood out among the crowd.
That would be the meltdown of Colorado’s Secretary of State Jenna Griswold on MSNBC.
Watch the clip here:
Authoritarian basket case Jena goes on MSNBC holding back the tears to bitch about the SCOTUS ruling, and ends up self-owning: “the voters will have to decide in November.”
Yes dumbass, that’s exactly how the system you fucked with is designed to work. pic.twitter.com/tvhBXkmyMf
— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) March 4, 2024
Folks online have pointed out how Jenna Griswold looks like she is close to tears in the clip:
Authoritarian basket case Jena goes on MSNBC holding back the tears to bitch about the SCOTUS ruling, and ends up self-owning: “the voters will have to decide in November.”
Yes dumbass, that’s exactly how the system you fucked with is designed to work. pic.twitter.com/tvhBXkmyMf
— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) March 4, 2024
Here is a backup:
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold looks like she’s about to cry on MSNBC:
“It will be up to the American voters to save our democracy.”
pic.twitter.com/7BkeBMBPWY— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 4, 2024
Who would have guessed that our Supreme Court could make an intelligent decision?
This is a massive win for President Trump!
It’s only wins from here on out.
CNN shares more:
Here are some of the key takeaways from the ruling:
- Trump will appear on the ballot: There was no equivocation in the Supreme Court’s short opinion: States do not have the power to remove a federal candidate from the ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.” It is Congress, the court wrote, that can enforce the provision, not states. That means that the impact of the decision will sweep far wider than the controversy in Colorado.
- Court heads off 2025 showdown: The high court’s opinion also appeared to make it much harder for the insurrectionist ban to be enforced at the federal level. Four justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – asserted that their colleagues went too far. The court’s opinion, the three liberal justices wrote in a concurrence, “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement,” by requiring Congress to act to pass legislation first, something that’s highly unlikely. The move appeared to address a concern that a narrow ruling from the court could lead to a messy confrontation in Congress when the electoral votes are counted in 2025.
- Avoiding insurrectionist debate: The Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t directly address whether Trump’s actions on January 6 qualified as an “insurrection,” skirting an issue that the courts in Colorado wrestled with. The unsigned opinion noted that lower courts in Colorado found Trump’s remarks before the attack on the US Capitol qualified as engaging in an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution. But the court’s unsigned opinion didn’t return to that judgment direction.
When will CNN and the rest of the liberal media accept that President Trump did NOT incite an insurrection?
Not only were the events on Jan. 6th not an insurrection.
But President Trump did not encourage it.
I’m excited to see the continued meltdown from the leftover this news.
The 2024 election is going to be great!
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!