STATE COURTS ONLY COMPETENT TO KILL NEGROS (JUST DON’T TOUCH TRUMP OR JESUS)

During oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, the US Supreme Court trashed state courts as incapable of anything but rubber-stamping the will of the executive branch in mock trials. The justices suggested state courts are totally incapable of measuring fact against law rather than just doing whatever local people want, so that no state was capable of determining Trump’s guilt of insurrection, or his punishment of being removed from the ballot, in a fair, uniform, legal, or even rational way.

Justice Alito suggested state courts enforcing Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 are just tools of the mob, asking “Would we give any deference to these findings by state court judges, some of whom may be elected?” Justice Barrett suggested state courts are unacceptably incompetent at fact-finding, saying “The first mover state here, Colorado, we’re stuck with that record.” Justice Roberts said it was a “daunting consequence” that state courts in Republican-controlled states would interpret the law arbitrarily, to order “whoever the democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot.”

The Supreme Court justices implied state courts are too incompetent even to protect a right that doesn’t exist. While it is clearly written in Article II that states have a right to decide how they vote for President, it is nowhere written that candidates have a right to be on a state ballot, much less that other states have a right to have a candidate on another state’s ballot. For lack of being able to find any protected Constitutional right for Trump to be on the ballot, Justice Barrett asked “What’s the liberty interest?” Without any national right to have Trump on a state’s ballot actually written in the Constitution, Justice Kagan instead searched the writings of her heart, saying “it sounds awfully national to me”.

Far on the other side of the spectrum from Trump’s right to be on the Colorado ballot, is the 14th Amendment Section 1 right to due process. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly establishes the right of federal courts to protect individual rights from state actors, even more clearly than the right of states to choose electors. It would take a Constitutional amendment, for Congress to pass a law that says states can kill negros without due process. But that is exactly what AEDPA is interpreted to say states can do, by forcing federal courts to live with the state court fact-finding, the same fact-finding that Justice Barrett thought was not good enough for Trump’s non-existent right.

State prosecutors are allowed by state law to lie in criminal trials without any deterrent, and without telling the jury they are allowed to do so without any deterrent. (Far from needing federal courts to ensure an honest process, local jurors are assumed to have some magical ability to detect lies by facial expression.) The US Supreme Court acknowledged this in Imbler v. Pachtman, when they assumed that state judges would sign unjust lies, and sentence people they knew were innocent to death, rather than interfere with the freedom of state prosecutors to use lies at trial. This despite the right to a jury trial and to due process being all over the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, giving federal courts a right to stop the states violating these rights.

Justice Roberts said “I mean, the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to restrict state power, right?” This would seem to preclude creating for states a new exclusive fact-finding power in the protection of Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 through AEDPA, particularly when they are structurally incompetent – not simply excluded by jurisdiction, but incompetent in the basic tasks of fact finding, judicial independence, and interpretation of law – structurally incompetent to make any decisions on Fourteenth Amendment Section 3.

Justice Thomas argued states have no jurisdiction to protect any of the national rights actually written in the Fourteenth Amendment, saying “Do you have contemporaneous examples — and by contemporaneous, I mean shortly after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment — where the states disqualified national candidates, not its own candidates, but national candidates?” It is not clear where exactly states were given unwritten exclusive jurisdiction over fact-finding in criminal justice necessary to enforce Fourteenth Amendment Section 1, if not even written Article II can overcome their jurisdiction and competence problems in Fourteenth Amendment Section 3. Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 circumscribed the ability of Congress to devolve criminal justice power to the state courts using Article III, the same as it circumscribed the 11th Amendment.

So what did the Supreme Court say when faced with idiot state courts violating this actually protected right with lies in federal jurisdiction? In Shinn v. Ramirez they said “Federal habeas review overrides the States’ core power to enforce criminal law”. As such, lying about black people against the Constitution is a “core power”, but choosing the President consistent with the Article II is not. And in Jones v. Hendrix, a state court is a “court of competent jurisdiction” for Fourteenth Amendment Section 1, but not Section 3. And in Jones v. Hendrix, Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 gives Congress the power to un-enforce Section 1, saying “Congress has chosen finality over error correction”.

In other words, even though federal courts know the state process was garbage, and even if there is an actual written right and federal courts are given jurisdiction to protect it in writing in two places, together eclipsing the 11th Amendment and the power of Congress to legislate federal appellate jurisdiction in Article III, they say it is the exclusive right of the states to kill innocent negros. In fact it is the only thing those idiot state courts are endowed by God with the competence to do, despite having nothing actually in writing like Article II that says they can.

So state courts are incompetent to protect the non-existent federal right of Trump to be on the ballot, and other states to have him there, from the state-level executive branch and public mob. Even though states secured that specific selfish state right to remove him, above all others in writing in Article II, before joining the union. But those same worthless crooked idiot state courts are totally competent to protect innocent negros from being given the death penalty, by that same state executive branch and public mob. Even though Article III and the Fourteenth Amendment actually say this is a nationally protected interest in the jurisdiction of federal courts. And even though states never thought to mention this exclusive right against federal jurisdiction, when they were demanding their rights to a jury trial, due process, and against states being sued for their debts in federal court, be enumerated in writing. And all of which came under the power of the 14th Amendment.

What lone God-given power was reserved to the states better than Article II, so that it can survive Article III and their structural and jurisdictional incompetence to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, without even being written anywhere? Killing negros in mock trials.

This is a purely philosophical invention, that was somehow the only thing sifted out of efforts to protect constitutionally deficient economic rights against the federal government. Killing innocent negros is not an economic right, it is just a right so popular that it needs not even be written anywhere to defy all actual law and logic. Like the privacy right to abortion, it’s so true, that it must be what all these other laws mean.

We have trial court and appellate court, state court and federal court. Perhaps state trial court should be called “negro court”, where their only competence is exclusive original jurisdiction to lie about undesirables to “enforce societal norms”.