No one except her political opponent running the television ads and his cynical political supporters would ever think a thing about her statement. Nor should Colorado voters.
It would be common for a public figure who was in her position to say years later that he or she “argued” the case in the Supreme Court, because for all intents and purposes she did. It was her argument that the Solicitor General made in the Court on behalf of the State of Colorado.
It was Ms. Griswold who was represented in that case by the Colorado Solicitor General, who argued her case on behalf of the State of Colorado in the Supreme Court.
Then Secretary of State Griswold was the named defendant in the seminal case before the Supreme Court. The case would never even have been brought before the Supreme Court were it not for patriotic stand.
It is actually her opponent’s suggestion that Ms. Griswold was somehow dishonest that is mendacious and dishonest, not Ms. Griswold’s statement that she “argued” the case.
Jena Griswold is running for Attorney General of the State of Colorado and one of her Democratic primary opponents is running television attack ads saying that she was somehow being dishonest when she said that she “argued” the seminal 14th Amendment disqualification case before the Supreme Court.
The New York Times’ David Brooks Departs — With the Answer for All of Us
www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/o...
Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Emeritus Laurence H. Tribe replies that rather than discard the Constitution, we should “cling to it as both sword and shield in this time of existential crisis for our republic.” @tribelaw.bsky.social
open.substack.com/pub/judgelut...
@peaceablyassembled, I have never been a member of the Federalist Society. Nor have I ever been to one of their events, to my recollection. Just out of curiosity, why do you ask?
A moral reawakening in America is the answer and the only answer. In politics lies only hopelessness.
Thank you my friend, Ian Bassin, and Reverend Raushenbush.
substack.com/@ianbassin/n...
That is exactly right, bwfoster. In fact, brilliantly right.
The answer to WSJ Editorial Writer James Freeman’s Rhetorical Question “What Would America Do Without Leftist Legal Pundits Parading As Legal Experts”
open.substack.com/pub/judgelut...
“Trump, by contrast, is rechristening things for himself and then pretending it’s an honor rather than an ego trip. He asks not what he can do for his country, but what his country can name for him."
“Many things in this country are named for former presidents, of course. The performing-arts center was established not by John F. Kennedy but as a memorial to him after his assassination.”
Putting his name on the Kennedy Center and parks passes are acts of vandalism of public property, in the most original sense of the word.”
"The difference is that those things belonged to Trump. The assets of the United States of America do not—they belong to the people. His change to the facade of the U.S. Institute of Peace is just graffiti.
David Graham of The Atlantic, from his article posted last night titled “The United States of Donald Trump” and subtitled “Donald Trump is slapping his name and face on everything he can, but America’s institutions don’t belong to him.”
The New York Times' David French on Character, Courage, Righteousness, Truth & Kindness
open.substack.com/pub/judgelut...
Please read this piece by the National Review’s Jim Geraghty, if you never read anything else.
www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-...
