Supreme Court decisions? A government shutdown? Aid to Israel and Ukraine? A new immigration plan? A presidential election? Buckle up.
With a decision favorable to Donald Trump Friday by the Supreme Court, it may provide a window into their thinking on another issue headed their way, i.e., whether the courts in Colorado can use Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot there in his bid to become president again.
In the case the Court ruled on today, they turned down the request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track a decision on whether or not Trump had immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while serving as president of the United States.
The thinking of a majority of the Supreme Court on the Colorado case should be to let the voters decide, not some partisan but narrow court majority (4-3), according to Alan Dershowitz and other legal experts. The only body that claimed that Trump was an insurrectionist was the sham January 6 committee, which didn’t allow the Republicans to pick their members for the committee, and instead picked two Trump-hating GOP members of Congress, hired a Hollywood producer to package and produce their narrative, with no cross examination allowed. Then they disposed of much of what they gathered so future members of Congress couldn’t see the evidence they had ignored. What they did have going for them was a corrupt news media, eager to work to legitimize the committee and promote their same narrative, all with the purpose of making sure that Trump couldn’t become president again.
Dershowitz says it should be an easy decision for the Supreme Court, most likely with no more than 2 dissenting votes, and that they should act with great haste to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision. With ballots in Colorado set to be printed on January 5, that presents a deadline for the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent chaos in the 2024 presidential election, as a considerable number of other states are moving in the same direction. The Court would prefer to not get involved in the presidential race that is upon us, but it is also clear that they really don’t have much choice.
There are other battle lines drawn that will become much clearer in the month of January. Here are a few:
While the United Nations couldn’t overcome a U.S. veto in the Security Council to demand a ceasefire from Israel in its fight against the Iran-backed terrorist organization, Hamas, they were able to pass a resolution on Friday calling for “creating the conditions” for a “cessation of hostilities” in Gaza, with the U.S. abstaining. The resolution failed to condemn Hamas, which broke a ceasefire back on Oct. 7 by killing some 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping about 240 hostages, a clear declaration of war.
Most member nations want the UN to stop Israel in its tracks with a ceasefire. But Israel has declared two goals – the eradication of Hamas in Gaza and the return of the hostages. This is the same UN that has sanctioned Israel in the last year twice as many times as they have every other nation in the world combined. That translates to 14 General Assembly resolutions against Israel, while a total of only seven against all other nations, including North Korea, Russia, Syria, Iran and the U.S. (for its blockade of Cuba). China didn’t make the list.
In addition, we will soon see what Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) is made of. He’s got at least two major battles ahead of him that are likely to be decided in January. One is the first of two continuing resolutions (CR), with a deadline of Jan. 19 to either pass a new budget, complete with 12 appropriations bills, and get the Senate and the White House to go along with it, or see a government shutdown, which would, as always, be blamed on the GOP.
Second is the aid package that has been discussed so much. Back in August, the Biden White House asked for $24 billion in more aid for Ukraine. After the barbaric, horrendous attack against Israel by Hamas, Biden saw an opportunity to more than double the amount for Ukraine, calling for $61 billion, by linking it to aid to Israel, which he assumed would be a no-brainer.
But many on the right are growing weary of backing Ukraine, since neither President Zelensky nor President Biden will explain the possible endgame, other than total victory for Ukraine, including expelling Russia from Crimea as well as from the Donbas region on the border with Russia.
After the stalled counteroffensive by Ukraine last spring and summer and very little accountability for the estimated $100 billion in aid already sent, many conservatives have seen enough. They want to see instead of a seemingly endless war that they don’t believe Ukraine can win, a push towards a negotiated settlement, meaning give and take.
The position of Speaker Johnson and seemingly a large majority of the House is that there will be no aid for Ukraine unless there is a whole new policy regarding the border. While Senate Republicans appear to be cutting deals that will let the Biden regime continue their open border policies, the House has not agreed to any of that. That is the big test for Johnson. The House has passed H.R. 2, laying out their plan for major policy changes. The concern is that Biden would agree to anything, and then try to go back to just processing as many illegal migrants as possible. In November alone, according to Customs and Border Protection, there were more than 240,000 total encounters at the southwest border
Just this week, Secretary of State Tony Blinken expressed the administration’s position on all of this, boasting that “The United States has led the largest expansion in decades of lawful migration pathways to help vulnerable migrants, refugees, and other displaced persons,” while greatly downplaying the millions of migrants who have come into this country on their watch, unvetted, unknown, and often with as long as eight years before they’re asked to show up for a hearing on their status.
Speaker Johnson must also figure out a timetable and plan for the impeachment of Joe Biden, following the unanimous vote by House Republicans to open an impeachment inquiry. It should be over the failure to uphold the laws and to protect and defend America by the President’s open border policy, as well as all of the bribes and influence peddling that he and his family have engaged in. We’ll see. 2024 is shaping up to be quite a year.
The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.
