CBS’s Stephen Colbert and NBC’s Seth Meyers did not take the news that the Supreme Court will not allow Colorado to kick Donald Trump off its primary ballot well on the respective Monday editions of The Late Show and Late Night. The duo portrayed the ruling as everything from hypocritical to "dangerous and extreme" to illogical, but that couldn’t cover up the fact they were simply distraught that their exotic legal theory got laughed out of court.
Colbert kicked off his show with the upside-down idea that by not kicking Trump off the ballot, the Court was interfering in the election, “The big story today is the Supreme Court once again shoving their gavels up the election.”
After recapping the decision and some booing from the audience, Colbert continued, “I agree. It is a ruling that I will remind you no one has to follow, because last week, I declared the Supreme Court unconstitutional…So states, feel free to kick him off your ballot -- tell 'em Colbert says it’s okay, I got your back. You're dealing with me now. That was just the Constitution, you’re dealing with me now.”
Insurrection against the federal government is, by definition, a federal crime, but Colbert thought the Court’s allegedly newfound respect for federal power was hypocritical, “Now, the justices claim that since different states have different standards for what would qualify as insurrection, conflicting state outcomes would lead to chaos. Yes, the Supreme Court knows you can't just let states decide who goes on their ballots. States are too busy deciding that life begins in the freezer section.”
Colbert also claimed to be smarter than the justices, “The majority says that disqualifying a candidate for insurrection can only occur when Congress passes legislation. Okay, quick question: if Congress does decide to pass that legislation to disqualify a candidate for insurrection, what if he sends his mob to storm Congress to stop them from passing that legislation? Does that count as insurrection? Or do they have to pass more legislation about that before the next mob shows up? I'm just asking, because clearly you guys haven't put any thought into any of this stuff.”
Over at NBC, Meyers also treated insurrection as something that is self-evident and not an actual crime with a specific definition, “So the Court didn't actually touch the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Of course, they didn't. Any rational human who isn't currently a Republican officeholder or member of an insurrection-themed choir can see with their own eyes or with a pair of googly eyes that it was obviously an insurrection. The Court stayed away from that question the same way you react when your wife asks if you think her sister is hot. ‘What? You have a sister? I don't even remember what she looks like.’"
Despite the 9-0 ruling on Colorado, “So, basically, you have to read the fine print on the ruling to find out just how dangerous and extreme the ruling from the Court's conservatives was. It's like when you play McDonald's Monopoly and you think you won, but then you turn it over, and there's an asterisk that says, ‘Winning's only available in states that begin with the letters X, Y, or Z. Not including fictional states such as Xanadu except for Zanzibar, which is real despite the fact that it sounds fake and winners must collect proceeds between the months of Marchuary and Augvember in the year of our Lord 3,075 million unless Congress votes. Then you can do whatever you want.’”
Meyers also claimed that the Court’s reasoning that Congress has to be the one who acts is terrible because Congress is populated with Republicans, “The Court's liberals seemed furious at this ruling. They wrote that the conservative ‘majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office’ because we all know Republicans in Congress would never vote to disqualify a Republican candidate who engaged in insurrection. The Court's conservatives essentially gave all future insurrectionists the green light to run for and hold public office, which means it's up to us, the voters, to stop them just like we did in 2020.”
Having to defeat your opponents at the ballot box? Only Seth Meyers could think that is the radical position.
Here are transcripts for the March-4 taped shows:
CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
3/4/2024
11:36 PM ET
STEPHEN COLBERT: The big story today is the Supreme Court once again shoving their gavels up the election. Longtime viewers of America will remember that Colorado kicked Trump off the ballot because of the whole launching a violent coup so he could stay in office, violating the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. Well, today, the Supreme Court said Trump can stay on all state ballots in a unanimous ruling. A ruling--[Booing] I agree. It is a ruling that I will remind you no one has to follow, because last week, I declared the Supreme Court unconstitutional, so. You're getting that right? Fact check me on that one, I did that right?
LOUIS CATO: You did that.
COLBERT: So states, feel free to kick him off your ballot -- tell 'em Colbert says it’s okay, I got your back. You're dealing with me now. That was just the Constitution, you’re dealing with me now.
Now, the justices claim that since different states have different standards for what would qualify as insurrection, conflicting state outcomes would lead to chaos. Yes, the Supreme Court knows you can't just let states decide who goes on their ballots. States are too busy deciding that life begins in the freezer section. Next to the pearl onions. Now, you know. Life. So. Anyway, here's the SCOTUS’s basic rationale. The majority says that disqualifying a candidate for insurrection can only occur when Congress passes legislation. Okay, quick question: if Congress does decide to pass that legislation to disqualify a candidate for insurrection, what if he sends his mob to storm Congress to stop them from passing that legislation? Does that count as insurrection? Or do they have to pass more legislation about that before the next mob shows up? I'm just asking, because clearly you guys haven't put any thought into any of this stuff.
***
NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers
3/5/2024
12:49 AM ET
SETH MEYERS: So the Court didn't actually touch the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Of course, they didn't. Any rational human who isn't currently a Republican officeholder or member of an insurrection-themed choir can see with their own eyes or with a pair of googly eyes that it was obviously an insurrection. The Court stayed away from that question the same way you react when your wife asks if you think her sister is hot. "What? You have a sister? I don't even remember what she looks like."
With all that said, I'm afraid the headlines from this ruling are going to be misleading because on the one hand, the Court ruled unanimously that Trump can stay on the ballot, which makes it sound like even the liberal justices said no candidate can ever be disqualified for engaging in insurrection but that's not what they said. There was basically a second, much more divided ruling from the Court's conservatives that went much further and said only Congress can disqualify a candidate.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA: The specific question at hand: did the Colorado Supreme Court error in ordering president trump excluded from the 2024 presidential ballot? Well, that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed as yes. But from there, we see some divisions among the justices…
JESSICA SCHNEIDER: Where there was that 5-4 split was in the particulars, five of the justices here, the majority, so that's what rules, said that states can’t unilaterally decide to take presidents or any federal officers off the ballot, and instead that's a decision that Congress would have to make in the form of legislation to decide which candidates could be disqualified by the 14th Amendment's so-called insurrection ban.
MEYERS: So, basically, you have to read the fine print on the ruling to find out just how dangerous and extreme the ruling from the Court's conservatives was. It's like when you play McDonald's Monopoly and you think you won, but then you turn it over, and there's an asterisk that says, "Winning's only available in states that begin with the letters X, Y, or Z. Not including fictional states such as Xanadu except for Zanzibar, which is real despite the fact that it sounds fake and winners must collect proceeds between the months of Marchuary and Augvember in the year of our Lord 3,075 million unless Congress votes. Then you can do whatever you want."
The Court's liberals seemed furious at this ruling. They wrote that the conservative “majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office” because we all know Republicans in Congress would never vote to disqualify a Republican candidate who engaged in insurrection. The Court's conservatives essentially gave all future insurrectionists the green light to run for and hold public office, which means it's up to us, the voters, to stop them just like we did in 2020, 2024 is the sequel it's 2 Fast 2 Furious except it's called—
DONALD TRUMP: Too big to rig.
