Some comments about the ruling by the four Ivy-League judges in Colorado to keep Trump off the ballot

Law professor JonathanTurley responds to the ruling by the Colorado supreme court:

“This country is a powder keg and this court [colorado] is throwing matches at it. For people who claim they're trying to protect democracy, this is hands down the most anti-democratic opinion I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

Colo SC: "We hereby rule that Trump will not be allowed on the ballot.  See, people who want Trump don't realize he's a threat to our precious democracy.  So we simply can't allow you to vote for him.  Simple.  And in fact we're concerned that the two main political parties may not come up with acceptable nominees without our guidance.  So we decree that in 2024 the nominees shall be governor Gavin Newsom and Nikki Haley.  See?  Democracy, citizen!"

Commenter: "This decision is ludicrous on its face and will be overturned."  Ah, like the "justices" did when the Democrats set up thousands of unmonitored "drop boxes" that allowed operatives to dump in millions of fraudulent, unsigned, unwitnessed ballots?  *That* kind of overturned?

The Huffington Post sez "Americans just don't know enough about the likely candidates.  That's why we totally support the Democrat National Committee's decision not to have a single debate before the 2024 election.  See, no matter how soundly our brilliant president Biden would defeat Trump, the conservative-owned Media would spin it as a win for the Orange Dictator.  We have spoken."

The Colorado ruling was a test case; IF the US SC overturns, the Democrats will analyze the court's opinion and will then file suits in the other states with their arguments slightly adjusted to overcome the US SCt's objections to Colorado.
   Dems will then file lawsuits in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia.  
   Second twist: they'll file those lawsuits so close to the election that if the Dem-controlled state courts rule for them, the USSC won't have time to overturn before the election.
   "Quit complaining!  We threw him off the ballots totally legally, citizen!"  Clever.

"If SCOTUS overturns this--as it rightly should--the entire liberal press, networks and websites will wail endlessly about the "terrible injustice" of giving Americans a choice in a presidential election."

"Look, every good American knows we need trusted companies, like Fakebook and Google and Instagram and TikTok to ensure voters only see trustworthy (i.e. approved) news.  We Dems call that "managed news."  Managing the ballot is just taking this principle to its logical conclusion.  If states weren't allowed to control who appears on the ballot, Hitler himself could run for office!"

"Wait...can a state's electors vote for someone who's not on the ballot?"
....Technically that was legal back when Democrats were trying to get the win for Hilliary.  The Democrat National Committee urged electors in states won by Trump to instead vote for Hilliary, and no one was prosecuted at all.  But now doing that is called "trying to change the results of a fair election," and anyone urging that is charged with a crime.  Many electors in Georgia were charged with "attempting to overthrow the government" for doing that.

In New Jersey 15 years ago the Democrat candidate for the U.S. senate either died or was imprisoned for a crime just a month before the election.  State law said parties weren't allowed to substitute a new candidate within 30 days of the election.  But the Democrat-dominated state supreme court ruled "Laws are merely suggestions for your competent judges.  This law surely didn't mean what it says (since it disadvantages our party) so we'll waive this law for our friends in the Democrat Party, allowing them to substitute anyone they want."  

The Democrats did that, and won the seat.  But they really support the law.  Really.  Well, much of the time, anyway.

"Remember, it isn't who votes that matters, but who counts the votes.
  --Joe Stalin