One Court in the Whole Country

 Apparently, the Colorado Supreme Court (and not all of them either) is the only judicial body in the entire United States willing to read the plain text of the Constitution and apply it; all of the rest of our courts consisting either in corrupt Republican judges or of others so afraid of right wing violence that they won't follow a simply written section of the Constitution.

And here it is, from the 14th amendment:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

There is no confusion about what this amendment says.  Despite the laughable arguments made by Republicans that the President is not "an officer of the United States," it is clear that Donald Trump did indeed support an insurrection against the country, while he was an officer of the United States.  It is 100% obvious that he has no Constitutional right to hold any office in our government ever again.  The language is totally clear.  As we all know, Republicans' endless screaming about the sanctity of the Constitution does not mean a damned thing when the Constitution stands in their way.  Their "legal" arguments to the contrary are patent nonsense designed openly to frustrate the pursuit of justice in the face of their leader Trump's seemingly endless crimes.

And while I am on the subject, we all know that defendants are provided large latitude in this country to determine the scope of the defense they present.  That is as it should be, but should we really allow a patent criminal to spend fifty million dollars of other people's money in a frantic attempt to prevent justice from being done?   Is there not some limit to the "right" of a monstrous deviant to mobilize corruption, hatred and violence, and the vast financial resources of sociopathic billionaires who stand to profit massively if he is re-elected, to evade responsibility for his behavior?  This reminds me of Oliver Wendell Holmes' observation the freedom of speech does not extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater; is there not some limit, long demolished in this case, to a hateful, degenerate defendant's ability to destroy the possibility of our ever seeing justice done, even when he can spend fifty million dollars to accomplish that purpose?

I know, hard cases make bad law and all that, but maybe dealing properly with this hard case is somewhat preferable to seeing a replay of Nazi Germany in our own country.