On April 20, 1999, the American conscience was seared as millions of heartbroken citizens watched the unthinkable stream across their TV screens.
Two students walked into my school, Columbine High School, and perpetuated pure evil, murdering 12 of my classmates and a brave teacher before killing themselves.
During the ordeal, I was hiding under a library desk, listening as the murderers taunted innocent people, killing at will like it was a game — some dark movie where they were the anti-heroes attempting to teach society a sick and twisted “lesson.”
My heart felt like it would beat out of my chest as the shooters killed my two friends, Matt and Isaiah, right next to me. Isaiah was going to be the first person in his family to graduate; instead, he spent his final moments being called racial slurs. Matt was, without a doubt, one of the nicest guys on the football team.
I thought I was next, but somehow I survived. After the shooters left the room, I remember hearing God clearly tell me, “Get out of there.” It was a calm, peaceful, and powerful voice that forced me to my feet before I somehow mustered the courage to yell to everyone else, “Let’s get out of here!”
We immediately escaped before the killers could return, but 10 of our peers were killed in that library. All of the carnage unfolded in just 7 and a half minutes, but it felt like an eternity. Tragically, my sister, Rachel Joy Scott, was one of the others murdered that day just 30 yards away from where I was hiding.
In Rachel’s final moments, she was taunted for her Christian faith yet had the courage not to deny God, even at gunpoint. Her example of faith, hope, love, and devotion, 25 years later, is still inspiring millions of kids across the globe.
I didn’t realize it at the time, but this event would try to define me for the rest of my life — but I refuse to let it. We are more than the events that happened in our past. After the shooting, however, I was broken but didn’t know it.
I pressed on, learning, growing, and healing along the way.
As I’ve shared my story with thousands of kids and families over the years, I’ve come to find solace in efforts to make lasting change by pointing others to hope, even amid tragedy.
My goal? To change hearts and save lives. And I’ve often looked to Rachel’s example to accomplish this quest. To know Rachel was to love her. With a tilt of her head, she had a smile that could light up a room. After her death, we heard story after story about her small acts of kindness that made a huge difference in others’ lives.
Since Rachel left us, her seven personal journals have given an even deeper lens into her love for God and people.
She was real, authentic, and raw about her struggles. Rachel worked to establish the right belief system — one that would guide her with the faith and values she espoused. Her wisdom surpassed that of a normal 17-year-old, which is why her story has inspired books, a movie, and so much inspiration along the way.
My family and I have been committed to sharing her with the world, using a platform that rose from tragedy to inspire people through the power of story. We travel to schools, address students, and speak out in the media about the root causes of moral decay.
Others who faced the unthinkable at Columbine have also used the event for good. I’m proud of my family, especially my parents Darrell Scott and Beth Nimmo, and my community – people like our principal, Frank DeAngelis, fellow library survivor Patrick Ireland, and other victims&#8217; families and classmates who have made a positive difference out of something horrible.
“Look hard enough…and you’ll always find a light,” Rachel wrote in one journal entry. “Open your eyes to the love that can be.” She added, “Glory only comes when one pursues their dreams.”
Rachel’s writing revealed her compassion, non-judgemental disposition and a forgiving attitude toward others. One month before she died, she wrote an essay for her English class entitled, “My Ethics: My Codes of Life.” In it, she said, “How do you know that trust, compassion or beauty will not make this world a better place?”
Ultimately, what made Rachel stand out was a willingness to be used by God and a selflessness in stepping up and out for others. Rachel’s story has likely prevented around a dozen school shootings and saved thousands from suicide. It’s the very chain reaction of goodness she had wanted to have in her life.
So, as we reflect on the 25th anniversary of Columbine, I must ask: No matter what you face, what kind of chain reaction are you aiming to ignite? That’s a challenge to us all and I’m fortunate enough to have a sister who has shown me the way.
* * *
Craig Scott is a survivor of the Columbine High School shooting. He was in the library, where ten students were killed, including two of his friends that had hidden next to him under a table. Craig escaped only to learn his sister, Rachel Joy Scott, was the first person killed. For more than 20 years, Craig has dedicated his life to making a difference in schools. In speaking with more than a million people, Craig has positively impacted school cultures by sharing lessons learned from Columbine and challenging students to value themselves and others.
Billy Hallowell contributed to this article.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

25th Anniversary Of The Columbine School Shooting Marked In Colorado

25 Years Since Columbine, My Sister Rachel’s Legacy Lives On

Colorado

Public Schools

Readers Pass

School Shooting

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and United Airlines have launched an investigation involving a chartered flight that was transporting the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Rockies</a> from Denver to Toronto.
Rockies hitting coach Hensley Meulens posted a video on social media that showed him sitting in the pilot&#8217;s seat in the cockpit while the plane was in the air, ESPN <a href="https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39976154/rockies-coach-posts-video-cockpit-prompting-faa-probe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
&#8220;Had some fun in the cockpit on our flight from Denver to Toronto. Thanks to the captain and the first officer of our United charter that allowed me this great experience,&#8221; Meulens wrote in a caption for the social media post.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
The Colorado Rockies are under investigation by the FAA and United Airlines after a video showed hitting coach Hensley Meulens in the cockpit of the team’s charter mid-flight.<a href="https://t.co/raRrpPBJzY">pic.twitter.com/raRrpPBJzY</a>
— Front Office Sports (@FOS) <a href="https://twitter.com/FOS/status/1781375768548823108?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2024</a></blockquote>
United Airlines responded to the video by saying in a statement: “We’re deeply disturbed by what we see in that video, which appears to show an unauthorized person in the flight deck at cruise altitude while the autopilot was engaged.”
“As a clear violation of our safety and operational policies, we’ve reported the incident to the FAA and have withheld the pilots from service while we conduct an investigation,” the statement added.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The FAA said that it opened an investigation, but that it will “not comment on the details of open investigations.”
“Federal regulations restrict flight deck access to specific individuals,” the FAA added.

Colorado Rockies v Washington Nationals – Game One

Colorado Rockies Under Federal Investigation After In-Flight Incident

Air Travel

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

General

U.S.

Two <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado</a> counties are challenging the state’s laws that restrict local law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
On Monday, a <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24548867/douglas-county-v-state-of-colorado-complaint-district-court-denver.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> was filed against Colorado through Democratic Governor Jared Polis by Douglas and El Paso Counties, who argue that the state’s sanctuary city laws are dangerous and unconstitutional. The suit challenges two laws, <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1124_signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB 19-1124</a> and <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023A/bills/2023a_1100_enr.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB 23-1100</a>, which prohibit police from detaining an illegal immigrant based on a civil immigration detainer from an agency like ICE and block local governments from working with the feds to detain illegal immigrants. 
“The nation is facing an immigration crisis. The nation, the state, and local governments need to cooperate and share resources to address this crisis,” the suit, filed in Denver County District Court, says. “Colorado House Bills 19-1124 and 23- 1100 prohibit the necessary cooperation and create dangerous conditions for the State and migrants.”
The suit argues that the Colorado Constitution “forbids the use of constitutional power to prohibit a political subdivision of the State from cooperating or contracting with the federal government.” 
The counties say that the laws should be struck down and they should be allowed to cooperate with federal agencies to enforce immigration law. Douglas County backed Trump by about 7 points in the 2020 election while El Paso County, home to Colorado Springs, went for Trump by 11 points. 
El Paso&#8217;s Board of County Commissioners <a href="https://www.epcsheriffsoffice.com/news-releases/el-paso-county-sheriff-bocc-join-lawsuit-to-overturn-unlawful-immigration-laws-in#:~:text=In%20recent%20years%2C%20the%20Colorado,and%20hold%20accountable%2C%20those%20who" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted</a> last week 4-0 to authorize the county to join Douglas County&#8217;s litigation against the state. 
“Here in El Paso County, Colorado, we have no choice but to release violent, career criminals back onto our streets, because we have no way to communicate with ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) and identify undocumented immigrants, or keep them in custody, once local judicial adjudication has been executed,” said Sheriff Joseph Roybal. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712932862202000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0plT8RRdMy9XUpIhocnjQS">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Douglas County Commissioner Lora Thomas <a href="https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/douglas-el-paso-colorado-immigration-lawsuit/73-63ba8a10-2d8b-41f3-a454-a91ff73de1cd" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed</a> to the influx of illegal immigrants into Denver as one reason for the lawsuit. 
“The national migrant crisis has forced Denver to continue to cut local services for residents. We have an obligation first to our citizens, and we see what’s happening in Denver as a warning sign to be proactive here in Douglas County,” Douglas County Commissioner Lora Thomas said. 
Last week, Denver announced budget cuts to some department, including the police, sheriff, and fire departments, to allocate more funding for illegal immigrants. Mayor Mike Johnston has regularly asked the Biden administration for more federal dollars for the city to deal with the migrant crisis.

Venezuelan migrants make their way to Denver after traveling for months.

Conservative Counties Challenge Colorado’s ‘Dangerous’ Sanctuary City Laws

Denver

Illegal Immigration

Jared Polis

A Colorado school bus aide who was arrested for allegedly abusing special needs children is already out on bail.
Kiarra Jones, 29, was allegedly seen on a school bus camera hitting a child with severe autism, ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/school-bus-aide-arrested-after-allegedly-abusing-children/story?id=109085679" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Though the school district was aware of concerns from parents for months, Jones was only arrested and fired on April 4. She was released the next day on $5,000 bond.
Video of Jones’ alleged abuse was released two days before her arrest, but had been filmed on March 18, nearly a month earlier. It shows Jones allegedly elbowing 10-year-old autistic boy Dax in the stomach, slapping him in the face, and stomping on his feet.
Dax attends The Joshua School, a private school in Colorado for students with autism, CBS News <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/littleton-bus-aide-fired-students-autism-tortured-traumatized/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Students take a bus dedicated to students with disabilities provided by Littleton Public Schools (LPS). It is there that young students were abused, parents of at least three students have said.
Students would allegedly come home with fractured bones and bruises, and at least one child had a tooth knocked out, CBS reported.
&#8220;They took my trust and spit on it,&#8221; Dax’s father, Devin, said at a press conference last week.
The parents also discussed their decision to let the video of Dax’s abuse be released to the media without his face being blurred.
&#8220;It was a heavy decision to make to uncover it, but we cannot bring attention to this if we don&#8217;t look at it,&#8221; Dax’s mother, Jess, said at the press conference. &#8220;It&#8217;s ugly to look at, but it&#8217;s important to see how confused and afraid he was in that video. It just speaks to his vulnerability, and it speaks to the terror he had to endure while on that bus.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712932862202000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0plT8RRdMy9XUpIhocnjQS">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Jess added that she first noticed injuries on Dax in September 2023 and told his school, who said the injuries didn’t occur in their care. Jess then went to LPS, which told her not to be concerned.
&#8220;I notified LPS on March 18 and on March 19 got a phone call from Littleton police informing me that an LPS employee had severely abused my child,&#8221; she said at the press conference, according to CBS. &#8220;I went to the LPS transportation building and was in utter shock.&#8221;
At that same press conference, the father of another child said his son is non-verbal, and couldn’t tell him about the alleged abuse.
&#8220;My son doesn&#8217;t have the ability to tell me when someone is hurting him,&#8221; the father said. &#8220;My son doesn&#8217;t have the ability to tell me that he was forced to watch someone hurt his friends.&#8221;
Parents of three children are preparing to sue the school, with attorney Ed C. Hopkins saying the school district knew of the abuse but didn’t stop it sooner.
&#8220;They had everything they needed to stop it faster and they didn&#8217;t,&#8221; Hopkins said. &#8220;They had notice and they ignored it. These children have been traumatized and tortured because they failed them.&#8221;
Jones was arrested and faces felony assault charges for crimes against at-risk children, ABC reported.
&#8220;It was determined that more than one non-verbal autistic student was assaulted by the suspect on a moving school bus while en route to school,&#8221; the Englewood Police Department said in <a href="https://www.englewoodco.gov/Home/Components/News/News/6291/21" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a press release</a> on Tuesday. &#8220;It was also determined that the suspect was the victims’ assigned paraprofessional employed by Littleton Public School District at the time of the incident.&#8221;

Kiarra Jones Mugshot

Woman Allegedly Caught On Camera Abusing Special Needs Child Already Out On Bail

Child Abuse

Crime

The city of Denver announced budget cuts to some departments this week, including the police, sheriff, and fire departments, to allocate more funding for illegal immigrants who have overwhelmed Colorado&#8217;s capital.
Democratic Denver Mayor Mike Johnston announced the cuts on Wednesday, celebrating the move as a way to avoid &#8220;the worst-case budget cut scenarios.&#8221; The &#8220;<a href="https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Mayors-Office/News/2024/Newcomer-Strategy-Avoids-Budget-Cuts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Newcomer Program Strategy</a>&#8221; is a nearly $90 million budget plan that funds aid and sheltering for illegal immigrants through the rest of 2024, Fox 31 <a href="https://kdvr.com/news/local/denver-introduces-nearly-90m-newcomer-budget-plan-for-migrant-aid/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. To pay for the illegal immigrant plan, the Democrat-run city <a href="https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/2024-services-migrants-budget-cuts-denver-agencies-fund-programs/73-a8654a1f-0a20-4928-9d4d-f8a3c2966719#:~:text=The%20Denver%20Police%20Department%20will,for%20police%20officers%20or%20firefighters.">will cut</a> police spending by $8.4 million and fire department spending by $2.5 million, while the Sheriff&#8217;s Department will be hit with a 2.2% reduction.
“After more than a year of facing this crisis together, Denver finally has a sustainable plan for treating our newcomers with dignity while avoiding the worst cuts to city services,” Johnston said. “So many times we were told that we couldn’t be compassionate while still being fiscally responsible. Today is proof that our hardest challenges are still solvable, and that together we are the ones who will solve them.”
Denver <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/denver-scrambling-to-handle-40000-new-migrants" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scrambled</a> earlier this year to find a way to shelter an estimated 40,000 migrants who had arrived in the city over the course of a few months. The mayor took action to help mitigate the strain on migrant shelters by requiring that migrant families leave a shelter after staying for six weeks.
Johnston&#8217;s office said in January that the migrant influx was “straining capacity” and that “over the past two months, Denver has seen a dramatic uptick in arrivals and is currently sheltering 4,000 people.” The mayor added that the city would need to come up with $100 million to pay for the crisis. Denver, which is a &#8220;sanctuary city,&#8221; followed up weeks later by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/denver-booting-800-migrant-families-from-shelters" target="_blank" rel="noopener">booting</a> around 800 migrant families from overcrowded shelters.
The new city budget plan allocates $51.7 million for migrant shelter and housing, according to Fox 31. Another $9.7 million will go toward &#8220;supportive services,&#8221; including case management and workforce training, and $6 million will be allocated for migrant transportation.
The mayor&#8217;s office took the biggest hit in budget cuts to help pay for the illegal immigration crisis with a 9.6% reduction in spending. Other city departments taking a budget hit include the City Attorney&#8217;s Office, Economic Development, Public Health and Environment, and the Public Library, among others.
Denver&#8217;s &#8220;Newcomer Program Strategy,&#8221; comes as Colorado voters voice their frustration with the crisis at the U.S. southern border as residents listed immigration as the top issue for the 2024 election in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/poll-colorado-voters-say-immigration-is-the-top-issue-as-2024-election-draws-closer" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent poll</a>.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Immigration emerging as a top issue among voters in Colorado follows trends we are seeing in research nationally,” Republican pollster Lori Wiegel said.
Colorado has become a Democratic stronghold in recent presidential elections. President Biden won the state over former President Donald Trump by nearly 14 points in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-colorado.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2020</a>, a significant increase in Democrat support from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2016</a>, when Hillary Clinton won the state by just five points.
Denver isn&#8217;t the first blue city forced to make budget cuts to handle the illegal immigration crisis. Last year, New York City <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/eric-adams-cuts-police-education-budgets-to-deal-with-ongoing-illegal-immigration-crisis-pounding-nyc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cut education and police spending</a>, dropping the number of NYPD officers to below 30,000. The Big Apple has seen over <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nyc-to-start-53m-program-that-will-hand-out-prepaid-credit-cards-to-illegal-immigrants" target="_blank" rel="noopener">150,000 migrants</a> flood its streets since 2022 as the border crisis continues under the Biden administration.

migrant shelter

Denver To Cut Police, Fire Dept. Spending To Help Pay For Illegal Immigrant Crisis: Report

Denver To Cut Police Spending To Help Pay For Illegal Immigrant Crisis: Report

Border Crisis

Politics

Colorado voters say that immigration is the top issue facing the country ahead of the 2024 election, a recent poll has found.
The <a href="https://www.copollinginstitute.org/research/march-2024-statewide-poll-coloradans-deeply-concerned-about-high-cost-of-living-in-the-state">poll</a> of 632 likely voters, reported by the Colorado Polling Institute and conducted by Democratic pollster Aspect Strategic and Republican pollster New Bridge Strategy, found that 14% of voters said that immigration is the top issue that the state government should address. The issue beat homelessness at 12% and the lack of affordable housing at 11%, which respondents also provided as answers to the open-ended question.
“Immigration emerging as a top issue among voters in Colorado follows trends we are seeing in research nationally,” Republican pollster Lori Wiegel <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2024/04/04/colorado-voters-poll-migrant-crisis-top-issue-immigration/">asserted</a>. President Joe Biden still holds a 10% lead over former President Donald Trump in the state, however, with 49% of respondents saying that they will vote for the Democrat incumbent, with 39% saying they will support Trump in the November presidential election.
The poll comes as Denver has seen a drastic increase in the number of new arrivals, with <a href="https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiNWQ4YjcwZDctODkwNy00YjA4LThlMTktMjM3YjU2NmIwZTRjIiwidCI6IjM5Yzg3YWIzLTY2MTItNDJjMC05NjIwLWE2OTZkMTJkZjgwMyJ9">nearly 41,000 migrants</a> currently being served by the city of <a href="https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/denvercitycolorado,denvercountycolorado/PST045222">just over 700,000</a>. The city has even asked landlords if they would be willing to house migrants. As many as 4,500 migrants were previously residing in the city’s homeless shelters as of January, though the figure has decreased in recent months.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The city of Denver begging landlords to house illegals: &quot;But if you know somebody who is a property owner or you yourself are [a property owner] willing to rent to migrants, we&#39;ve got information how you can do that on <a href="https://t.co/XnVoasLyDn">https://t.co/XnVoasLyDn</a>&quot; Continually hitting new lows. <a href="https://t.co/iBDPKCsPS8">pic.twitter.com/iBDPKCsPS8</a>
&mdash; Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1774610130270617605?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The poll of Colorado voters reflects a wider trend throughout the country, with a recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/voters-say-immigration-is-top-issue-facing-country-biden-faces-widespread-disapproval-on-immigration">national poll</a> performed by Harvard Harris and the Center for American Political Studies finding that voters say immigration is the top issue facing the country. The poll also found that Biden has his lowest issue-specific approval rating on immigration, a trend that has persisted for four consecutive months.
Another national poll, <a href="https://apnorc.org/projects/most-favor-hiring-more-border-patrol-agents-and-immigration-judges/">performed</a> by the Associated Press and National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, found that a majority of Americans want to hire more Border Patrol agents and limit the number of migrants who are allowed to seek asylum.
The findings come as the United States faces an unprecedented border crisis with over <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2455010/illegal-border-crossers-total-over-10-million-since-biden-inauguration/">10 million</a> crossing the border since Joe Biden took office. There have been over one million illegal immigrant <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/over-one-million-illegal-migrants-encountered-at-southern-border-in-first-six-months-of-fiscal-year-2024">encounters</a> on the southern border in just the first six months of fiscal year 2024. There have also been an estimated <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/Blockbuster-House-Report-Reveals-How-Badly-Bidens-Broken-Our-Immigration-System">1.7 million illegal immigrant gotaways</a> recorded since Biden took office in 2021. There were 415,000 total reported gotaways for 2018, 2019, and 2020 under the Trump administration.

Migrants on border

Poll: Colorado Voters Say Immigration Is The Top Issue As 2024 Election Draws Closer

Border

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) underwent surgery Tuesday morning after she was admitted to a Colorado hospital and doctors found she had an acute blood clot, her campaign said.
Boebert, 37, was admitted to UCHealth Medical Center of the Rockies in Loveland, Colorado, after she experienced swelling in her leg, according to a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/laurenboebert/posts/pfbid02mzadSWknemesgQEGFZt97nqzduL1Cb89fvYksuEQ4dMnbRn48sKPS7MBUSE9mHHQl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> released on Tuesday by her campaign. Upon undergoing a CT scan, doctors found that Boebert had an acute blood clot and diagnosed her with May-Thurner Syndrome, a <a href="https://www.upmc.com/services/heart-vascular/conditions-treatments/may-thurner-syndrome#:~:text=May%2DThurner%20syndrome%20is%20a%20rare%20vascular%20condition%20that%20affects,leading%20to%20narrowing%20and%20scarring." target="_blank" rel="noopener">rare condition</a> that affects a vein in a person’s pelvis. Doctors completed a successful surgery on Boebert Tuesday morning, removing the blood clot and inserting a stent.
“We successfully performed surgery on the Congresswoman this morning and expect her to make a full recovery,” said Dr. Rebecca Bade. “Patients with May-Thurner Syndrome who undergo the procedure to restore blood flow are able to live and work just as they have in the past after a brief recovery.”
The statement from Boebert’s campaign added that May-Thurner Syndrome is more likely to affect women between the ages of 20-45 who have given birth. The Republican congresswoman thanked doctors at UCHealth and said she looks forward to returning to her work in Congress.
“I want to thank Dr. Rebecca Bade and the entire team at UCHealth Medical Center of the Rockies for their great care and providing helpful insight on my recent diagnosis,” Boebert said. “I&#8217;m looking forward to making a full recovery and getting back to Congress to continue fighting for Colorado.&#8221;
Boebert is currently in a heated GOP primary as she seeks to win the House seat for Colorado’s 4th district. Boebert <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lauren-boebert-swapping-districts-for-2024-re-election-bid" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> late last year that she would switch districts and run for the seat of Republican Rep. Ken Buck, who retired earlier this year. A special election to replace Buck for the remainder of his term will be held on June 25, coinciding with the Republican primary election.
Boebert is not running to replace Buck immediately since she will serve out the remainder of her second term representing the 3rd district, but she is a candidate in the primary election, where she <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/who-candidates-running-colorados-congressional-district-4-special-election-primary-elections/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">faces</a> 10 other Republican candidates vying to be on the ballot for the 4th district in November.
The firebrand congresswoman, who has represented Colorado’s 3rd district since 2021, won against Democrat Adam Frisch by just 546 votes in the 2022 election, and Frisch is seeking the 3rd district seat again this year.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“I cannot put into words how grateful I am for everyone who has steadfastly stood alongside me over the past year and beyond,” she said in December. “I am going to do everything in my power to represent the 3rd District well for the remainder of this term as I work to earn the trust of grassroots conservative voters in the 4th District to represent them in 2025.”

Lauren Boebert

Lauren Boebert Diagnosed With Rare Condition, Undergoes Surgery

Congress

Doctors

U.S. House of Representatives

From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their decision would be overturned. As I <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshShow/status/1737548394610962791?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a> on this show at the time, there were so many flaws with the opinion, it was difficult to know where to begin. The decision ignored Donald Trump&#8217;s calls for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It accused him of speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a single Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his entire candidacy. It&#8217;s not worth rehashing all of the details. This was a decision that any reasonably informed person knew was going to be overturned.
Unfortunately, what&#8217;s become very clear in the past 24 hours is that a very large number of people in this country are not reasonably informed. Instead, they&#8217;re told to pay attention when Rachel Maddow <a href="https://x.com/MSNBC/status/1737271726218608932?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">beams</a> into MSNBC to tell viewers that Donald Trump might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple states. They&#8217;re bombarded with junk &#8220;analysis,&#8221; like CNN&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/status/1764681550271062046?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">assessment</a> that the legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they&#8217;re fed think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/12/no-easy-exit-ramp-for-scotus-on-trump-harvard-scholar-says/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> the Colorado Supreme Court&#8217;s decision &#8220;unassailable.&#8221;
Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate assessment of constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast than you can from an esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly specializes in Constitutional Law. With as far as Harvard has fallen in the past decade or so, that may not be surprising. But it&#8217;s worth pointing out because of the implications for the rest of the country.
Millions of people listen to con artists with very fancy titles who lie to them as a matter of course. And even when these con artists are exposed — as they were yesterday — they make it very clear that they&#8217;re not backing down. We saw that again and again in the aftermath of the Supreme Court&#8217;s unanimous decision yesterday, striking down the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1321-distraught-leftists-pee-on-their-own-faces-in-protest-against-supreme-court-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
I&#8217;ll begin with Keith Olbermann, who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision that he apparently admitted to having urine all over his face. This is not an exaggeration, although I — and everyone else who happened to be using Twitter yesterday — very much wishes it were. Here&#8217;s how Keith&#8217;s day began. He <a href="https://x.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1764672353378652544?s=20">tweeted</a>, quote, &#8220;The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the &#8216;court&#8217; has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the &quot;court&quot; has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
&mdash; Keith Olbermann⌚️ (@KeithOlbermann) <a href="https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1764672353378652544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So we&#8217;re not packing the court anymore. We&#8217;re just going to get rid of the whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone helpfully pointed out that the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision was unanimous. Here was the <a href="https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1764693103686942940?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reply</a>: &#8220;Cry more &#8230;. 9-0.&#8221; 
Olbermann, reading this, announced: &#8220;Those aren&#8217;t tears, Fascist. They&#8217;re urine. I&#8217;m sure you enjoy being bathed in it.&#8221;
At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly imagine in that circumstance. At worst, it&#8217;s an admission of exactly the kind of deviant behavior you&#8217;d expect Olbermann would engage in, all of the time. Although we can’t be sure if Olbermann pees on his own face, or if someone else does it. There are many details left obscured here, and probably for the best. 
As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that Olbermann isn&#8217;t alone on the Left. In response to yesterday&#8217;s decision, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold — the woman who unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown off the ballot — also began attacking the Supreme Court. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
More lunacy from Colorado&#39;s Jena Griswold, lashing out at Clarence Thomas and bashing the Court’s &#8212; while offering fake platitudes we should be respect them.
MSNBC’s Katy Tur: “Do you think this Court is partisan?”
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswolf (D): “I think this… <a href="https://t.co/LzVtQalKek">pic.twitter.com/LzVtQalKek</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1764718474121679178?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Just to restate how absurd this is — the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision was unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary of state did. And instead of grappling with the implications of that, both the interviewer and the woman with the crazy eyes (Griswold) pretend as though this was a partisan decision. That&#8217;s how the question was framed, and it&#8217;s how Griswold responds. She goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas. They use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs decision came out.
There&#8217;s a reason they&#8217;re doing this, which I&#8217;ll get into a moment. But for now it&#8217;s important to highlight some more unhinged responses to the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling — because you have to understand how truly, profoundly Donald Trump has broken these people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate columnist disclosed that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision. In case you&#8217;re not familiar with this process, because you&#8217;re a normal person, here&#8217;s what this columnist <a href="https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1764720374107767190?s=20">wrote</a> on Twitter: &#8220;If you double click where it says &#8216;JJ.&#8217; at the top, then copy and paste it, that line reads: SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. And if you do a control-F search for &#8220;SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part,&#8221; it highlights that same line.&#8221;
In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the opinion, you&#8217;ll find some evidence in the metadata that previously — before this opinion was published — Sonia Sotomayor may have written a dissenting opinion, instead of joining the 9-0 final majority opinion. This is a discovery that could mean a clerk made a minor mistake somewhere and then corrected it before publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting development. But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely interesting development.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly interesting. Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs viewers of his findings deep in the metadata of the court&#8217;s opinion:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mjs_DC</a> explains how metadata suggests that the concurring opinion by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme Court ruling on Trump&#39;s ballot eligibility might have initially been a dissent. <a href="https://t.co/SsJGdB3Aoc">pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc</a>
&mdash; MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) <a href="https://twitter.com/MSNBC_reports/status/1764750568168288464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you&#8217;ll notice that he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn&#8217;t actually know that this change in the opinion was made &#8220;late&#8221; in the process. He doesn&#8217;t really know why the metadata says that Sotomayor was dissenting. It&#8217;s just speculation. And the point of it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the experts you&#8217;ve heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney Barrett agree with them. That&#8217;s the last thing they want you to think about.
The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason. They published an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/opinion/supreme-court-trump-colorado-constitution.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">op-ed</a> claiming that the Supreme Court had just &#8220;erased&#8221; part of the Constitution. They find it easier to make embarrassing, emotional claims than to address, in any way, all of the B.S. they&#8217;ve been peddling about this case. For people who pretend to care so much about &#8220;misinformation,&#8221; it&#8217;s striking.
The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this failure tells us a lot about what they&#8217;re planning. Just like we saw during Russiagate, they&#8217;re not going to acknowledge their mistakes. They&#8217;re not going to give up on their goal of removing the leading presidential candidate from the ballot — all in the name of &#8220;defending democracy.&#8221; Instead, their plan is simply to adapt, and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of millions of American voters. 
It&#8217;s important to emphasize here that four justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Amy Coney Barrett — tried their hardest to preserve this possibility in yesterday&#8217;s ruling. They all suggested that, while states can&#8217;t bar Trump from the ballot, there might be a way for the federal government to do it, without an act of Congress.
What does that mean, exactly? That&#8217;s not clear. Amy Coney Barrett won&#8217;t tell us. Maybe soon enough, we&#8217;ll find out.
Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very clear that Democrats will press forward with an effort to disqualify Trump using an act of Congress. In response to the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling — which held that only Congress, rather than states, can disqualify federal officeholders for insurrection — Raksin went on television to announce that Democrats in Congress will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a bill aimed at removing the leading Republican presidential candidate from the ballot.
Is this &quot;defending democracy&quot; &amp; &quot;fighting fascism&quot;?<a href="https://t.co/OgVBx9aAAY">pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY</a>
&mdash; KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) <a href="https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1764773920719122811?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses their minds. The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50 states to make their own decisions — whether it&#8217;s about abortion, or presidential candidates — never crosses their minds, either.
If you page through the Washington Post&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/gregg_re/status/1764690464425284026?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comments section</a>, you&#8217;ll see that very clearly. Millions of Left-wing voters want Jamie Raskin to pass his bill, and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. And they have some very high-level support. As the podcaster Comfortably Smug <a href="https://x.com/ComfortablySmug/status/1764780412537090244?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed out</a> the other day, &#8220;Left Wing Dark Money groups like Fix The Court are focused on packing the court, and their former director now works for the Biden campaign.&#8221;
What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he&#8217;s actually not an outlier on the Left. He&#8217;s popular because he&#8217;s willing to say what they&#8217;re thinking. He is the face of all their worst impulses and ideas. And they are so committed to winning — so committed to preventing you from voting — that they truly don&#8217;t care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.

Keith Olbermann

Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling

Donald Trump

Matt Walsh

MSNBC

Opinion

In the wake of Monday&#8217;s unanimous Supreme Court ruling, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) promised to &#8220;revive legislation&#8221; that would prevent anyone guilty of participating in an &#8220;insurrection&#8221; from running for president.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-trump-cant-be-kicked-off-colorado-ballot">The ruling</a> came after three states — Colorado, Maine, and Illinois — declared former President Donald Trump ineligible to appear on primary ballots, citing Section 3 (the insurrection clause) of the 14th Amendment.
&#8220;States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,&#8221; the unanimous decision read in part — but since it left the door open for Congress to use legislation to enforce Section 3, Raskin declared his intent to do exactly that.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin immediately goes on CNN to announce he and Eric Swalwell are working to &quot;revive legislation&quot; to force President Trump off the ballot <a href="https://t.co/QcYhBQn0JK">pic.twitter.com/QcYhBQn0JK</a>
&mdash; RNC Research (@RNCResearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1764703589916627041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;We’ve been saying all along that section three of the 14th Amendment presents a clear and unequivocal statement that anyone who has sworn an oath of office — and, by the way, not just a president but members of Congress and others who hold federal office — who engage in insurrection or rebellion, having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic can never serve again in federal or state office,&#8221; Raskin told CNN&#8217;s Dana Bash, adding, &#8220;Donald Trump is disqualified.&#8221;
&#8220;I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,&#8221; he added.
&#8220;And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it,&#8221; Raskin said, despite the fact that the Senate had already failed to convict Trump on that charge once and no other court had tried him.
&#8220;So the House has already pronounced upon that, and there was also a 57 to 43 vote in the Senate. The question is whether Speaker Mike Johnson would allow us to bring this to the floor of the House,&#8221; he said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin

House Democrat Promises To Legislate Trump Off The Ballot After SCOTUS Decision

2024 Election

Jamie Raskin

Supreme Court

Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D-CO) took a wave of criticism after she first declared former President Donald Trump ineligible to appear on her state&#8217;s primary ballot — claiming that he was guilty of insurrection — and then complained that the Supreme Court had unanimously decided in Trump&#8217;s favor.
Griswold&#8217;s initial order, citing Section 3 (the insurrection clause) of the 14th Amendment, stated that Trump was guilty of insurrection despite the fact that neither Congress nor any court had found him to be so – and for that reason, he was ineligible to appear on Colorado&#8217;s primary ballot.
&#8220;States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.&#8221;
Griswold made an appearance on MSNBC shortly after the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-trump-cant-be-kicked-off-colorado-ballot">ruling</a> was handed down — in which the Court declared: &#8220;States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
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.” <a href="https://t.co/7BkeBMBPWY">pic.twitter.com/7BkeBMBPWY</a>
&mdash; Greg Price (@greg_price11) <a href="https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1764707337900622177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;My larger reaction is disappointment,&#8221; Griswold told MSNBC host Katy Tur. &#8220;I do believe that states should be able under our constitution to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists. And ultimately this decision leaves open the door for Congress to act, to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that Congress is a nearly non-functioning body. So ultimately, it will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.&#8221;
Critics were quick to point out that if Griswold were truly interested in saving &#8220;our democracy,&#8221; the American voters should have been her first choice rather than a backup plan only adopted after her attempt to enforce her own will had been thwarted.
&#8220;Truth has been getting inverted at a cyclic rate lately and I’m just glad regular people see through it,&#8221; The Daily Caller&#8217;s Geoffrey Ingersoll said. &#8220;Absolutely bats*** that a person who unilaterally removed a candidate from the ballot can worry about &#8216;democracy being subverted&#8217; and not get laughed right off the screen.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Truth has been getting inverted at a cyclic rate lately and I’m just glad regular people see through it.
Absolutely batshit that a person who unilaterally removed a candidate from the ballot can worry about “democracy being subverted” and not get laughed right off the screen. <a href="https://t.co/l4hBHGte4b">https://t.co/l4hBHGte4b</a>
&mdash; Geoffrey Ingersoll (@GPIngersoll) <a href="https://twitter.com/GPIngersoll/status/1764709454954602507?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;GOD how they hate leaving “democracy” up to the voters!&#8221; actor Nick Searcy added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
GOD how they hate leaving “democracy” up to the voters! <a href="https://twitter.com/MSNBC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@msnbc</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/JenaGriswold?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JenaGriswold</a> <a href="https://t.co/ywGFWiHohL">https://t.co/ywGFWiHohL</a>
&mdash; Nick Searcy, iNSURRECTIONAL FILM &amp; TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) <a href="https://twitter.com/yesnicksearcy/status/1764743795646566739?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Gotta admire a fascist crying that they tried to seize power to &#8216;save democracy,'&#8221; Derek Hunter said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Gotta admire a fascist crying that they tried to seize power to &quot;save democracy.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/kIayM2S65T">https://t.co/kIayM2S65T</a>
&mdash; Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/derekahunter/status/1764711203689869347?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;In other words: &#8216;We tried to substitute our own leftist opinion for the will of the voters and got smacked down,'&#8221; added Tim Murtaugh.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In other words: “We tried to substitute our own leftist opinion for the will of the voters and got smacked down.” <a href="https://t.co/2oht3jkU6c">https://t.co/2oht3jkU6c</a>
&mdash; Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1764710076017779078?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Jena Griswold

‘Absolutely Bats***’: Colorado Democrat Dragged For MSNBC Melodrama Over SCOTUS Ballot Ruling

'Absolutely Bats***': Colorado Democrat Dragged For MSNBC Melodrama Over SCOTUS Ballot Ruling

Donald Trump won big at the Supreme Court on Monday. The Supreme Court voted unanimously that Colorado could not toss him off their ballot for the presidency. 
A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court in Colorado decided it was perfectly acceptable to invalidate Donald Trump on the ballot in Colorado in the primaries of the general election because he was an “insurrectionist.” 
The basic premise of their argument was truly inane, claiming that because the Constitution of the United States bars insurrectionists from office, the state government of Colorado could simply declare Trump an insurrectionist and then toss him off the ballot.  
That claim had many legal problems. One: how do you define “insurrectionist”? Two: Even if you were going to define “insurrectionist,” that would theoretically have to be done at the federal level, not the state level. Three: How do you even define “insurrectionist” in terms of which party defines it in the federal government? Is that done by some sort of election board? Is it done by the legislature? How does the insurrectionist clause distinguish itself from, for example, issues with age? A state could theoretically throw someone off the ballot if they were not 35-years-old but still running for president, saying simply that this person was not eligible and, therefore, does not get listed on the ballot. But that would be pretty obvious from the federal language.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1917-unanimous-supreme-court-puts-trump-back-on-the-ballot-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
On Monday, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment “expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy” and thus “fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.” … Section 1 of the Amendment, for instance, bars the States from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or “deny[ing] to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” And Section 5 confers on Congress “power to enforce” those prohibitions, along with the other provisions of the Amendment, “by appropriate legislation.” 
Section 3 of the Amendment likewise restricts state autonomy, but through different means. It was designed to help ensure an enduring Union by preventing former Confederates from returning to power in the aftermath of the Civil War. … Section 3 aimed to prevent such a resurgence by barring from office “those who, having once taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, afterward went into rebellion against the Government of the United States.” 
Section 3 works by imposing on certain individuals a preventive and severe penalty—disqualification from holding a wide array of offices—rather than by granting rights to all. It is therefore necessary, as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized, to “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are embraced’” by the provision. … Chase went on to explain that “[t]o accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable.” … For its part, the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.” 
The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. </blockquote>
So they have said that under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it should be Congress defining who is an insurrectionist and who is not. They say Congress’ Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3.
<blockquote>This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. </blockquote>
The court is making two separate arguments. Argument number one is that only Congress can define the word “insurrectionist” for purposes of who gets on the ballot and who does not. Argument number two is that even if that were not the case, the states do not have the capacity to do that. So theoretically, a different part of the federal government could actually create an enforcement mechanism that wasn&#8217;t the legislature. But states don&#8217;t have any power to enforce Section 3 with regard to federal offices, especially the presidency.
The court goes on to state, “Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’ powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’” 
Ultimately, there were two arguments made: that it can only be Congress that determines who is an insurrectionist and who is not, and that states cannot simply toss people out for federal office because that&#8217;s the federal government&#8217;s job.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Although all nine members of the court agreed with the result, a slight dissent on sort of the rationale came from the liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. That dissent was written specifically to create a sideshow of controversy — because there really was no controversy. Everyone agreed Colorado couldn’t just toss Trump off the ballot.
But the minority opinion here, concurring in judgment, tried to find a point of differentiation from the majority opinion specifically so they could say that the majority opinion was overreaching in favor of Trump. They agreed that allowing Colorado to simply declare who can and can&#8217;t be on the ballot would violate the Constitution of the United States. 
But the Court also stated:
<blockquote>Yet the majority goes further. Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. … Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment. </blockquote>
Basically, what they have said is that the conservative majority on the Court did this for Trump. What&#8217;s weird is that they&#8217;re claiming the Supreme Court majority went beyond its remit in order to help Trump, presumably because they think that if Congress were run by Democrats, a simple piece of legislation not defining insurrection, but just saying Donald Trump cannot run because he is an insurrectionist, might be sufficient.
In the end, the bottom line is what Amy Coney Barrett stated: This is 9-0. We&#8217;re done here.

Donald Trump Holds Primary Night Event In Columbia, SC

Trump Wins Big At The Supreme Court

Ben Shapiro

Fourteenth Amendment

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> issued a ruling on Monday that determined the state of Colorado cannot remove former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot using Section 3 of the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14th Amendment</a>.
All nine justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agreed with the decision</a>. Colorado&#8217;s primary is set to take place on Tuesday, March 5.
&#8220;BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!&#8221; Trump said in a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112038026037364851" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a> to Truth Social.
Colorado voters challenged Trump&#8217;s eligibility over his actions leading up to the U.S. Capitol breach on January 6, 2021.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued a 4-3 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-supreme-court-rules-trump-not-eligible-to-run-in-2024-removes-him-from-ballot" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> in December that found Trump to be disqualified from holding the office of the presidency.
Citing Section 3 of the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14th Amendment,</a> an insurrection clause dating back to the Civil War, the ruling said Trump should not appear on the primary ballot.
Two other states — Maine and Illinois — also moved to bump Trump from the ballot using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court decision on Monday <a href="https://www.nbcchicago.com/illinois-election-2024/trump-supreme-court-ruling-illinois-colorado-ballot/3372429/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ends those efforts as well</a>.
&#8220;States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,&#8221; the Supreme Court said.
Trump, who is running for another term in the White House for a second time this year, is the clear GOP frontrunner as he holds a wide delegate lead over his next closest rival, Nikki Haley.
The Dhillon Law Group, led by founder and managing partner Harmeet Dhillon, served as counsel of record for Trump&#8217;s case to keep him on the ballot in Colorado.
&#8220;Today&#8217;s unanimous Supreme Court decision underscores the bedrock principles of our democracy and the rule of law. This victory is not just for President Trump but for the integrity of our electoral system and the rights of voters across the country,&#8221; Dhillon said.
&#8220;The attempt to use the 14th Amendment in this manner was a dangerous overreach that, if left unchallenged, could have set a perilous precedent for future election,&#8221; she added. &#8220;We are proud to have defended the constitutional rights at stake and grateful for the Supreme Court&#8217;s unequivocal affirmation of these fundamental principles.&#8221;
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, also <a href="https://twitter.com/JenaGriswold/status/1764670650592186392" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reacted</a> to the ruling on Monday with a post to X.
&#8220;I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates,&#8221; Griswold said. &#8220;Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.&#8221;
Despite the unanimous decision on the topline issue in the case, <a href="https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1764669055989063836" target="_blank" rel="noopener">only five of the justices agreed</a> that the only way to enforce Section 3 is through Congress. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with her liberal colleagues in opposing this view.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
In a separate matter, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> announced on Wednesday that it was taking up the issue of whether <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trump</a> can invoke presidential immunity to shield himself from federal prosecution in a 2020 election case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a745.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scheduled</a> an oral argument for the week of April 22, 2024, raising doubts among legal experts that a trial in the case brought by Smith could be held before the election in November.

Supreme Court Rules Trump Can’t Be Kicked Off Colorado Ballot

Elections

Menu