“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore!“
Donald J. Trump, President of the USA, January 6, 2021,
Save America March, Washington DC
“The J6 hostages, I call them.
Nobody has been treated ever in history
so badly as those people nobody’s ever been treated in our country.”
Donald J. Trump, GOP Presidential candidate, January 5, 2024, Iowa.

A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits for-
mer President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential
nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,
from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme
Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado
secretary of state to exclude the former President from the
Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any
write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on sev-
eral grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3
against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

Read carefully, this means that the Supreme Court of the USA is telling the Colorado Supreme Court:
‘Stand down, this is a matter too important to be decided state by state! This has to be settled at the federal level’!
Nota Bene, the gist of the matter – was Trump involved in insurrection? – remains in limbo!
The Supreme Court says nothing which might enlighten us about this subject.

“In interpreting what is meant by “liberty,” the
Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse
what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent
views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason
the Court has been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not men-
tioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125.
Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential compo-
nents of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the
Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abor-
tion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in
American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state
constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years
before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor
had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in
every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least
some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could
have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed
the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s ex-
panded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abor-
tion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until
the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history,
and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.“

Do I have to remind you that up to 1865 it was legal, in some US states, for people to own other people?
People could be lawfully owned as slaves…
And “the people and their elected representatives” were OK with that. In some states!
So OK that a war had to be won by those who were not OK with “elected representatives” having the power to determine whether people could be owned. Only after the conclusion of that war the 13th Amendment could be adopted!
Enshrining each individual’s freedom to steer their own fate, within the confines of the law!

Fast forward back to our days.

When “elected representatives” – at state level – have been given back the power to determine how wide is the lawful space inside which a woman can dispose of her own body.
When “elected representatives” – at the same state level – are denied the power to ascertain whether a president, after losing an election, has incited his supporters to storm the Capitol.

And who has done that?
Who’s been determining what “the people and their elected representatives” might do at which level?
A team of nine individuals named by various presidents and only vetted by the Senate? Who are judging according to their “own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy.“?!?

“Weird” is not enough to describe this!