…like a snowless Xmas. Light rain all afternoon.

I’m proud of the Colorado Supreme Court. I think the counter argument—that the “the people should decide” not the court—doesn’t hold water.

In the first place, no reasonable person who looks at January 6 and the events leading up to it can deny that Trump’s intent was insurrection. Plain and simple, insurrection was attempted.

The “let the people decide at the ballot box” argument doesn’t work. It might work if we had a functioning electoral system, but with ‘Citizens United’, gerrymandering, voter suppression, the Electoral College, relentless right wing media propaganda, etc. the people’s voice can be subverted. Trump has never won the popular vote.

Across all places and all times, human societies have been susceptible to authoritarianism and autocracy. With all the forces that can work against it, Democracy tends to be “a candle in the dark,” to borrow from Carl Sagan.The strongest defense of it seems to be a solid legal structure, such as the U.S. Constitution, which strives to codify a society of laws, not men.

One of the prime purposes of the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion, was to protect the new country from the authoritarianism/theocracy that had dominated most societies in the past. It was based on Enlightenment principles—natural law, reason, justice, a separation of church and state.

But it wasn’t perfect. When writing a document for the ages it’s difficult to anticipate all circumstances (such as X and Fox). The document was also flawed by being written in a time that accepted slavery, and by compromises such as the Electoral College.

Still, it (with amendments) was/is a remarkable attempt to build a solid foundation for Democracy. And it's reasonable to accept the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision as a Constitutional attempt to preserve democracy..

Finally, the argument that sustaining the Colorado decision would result in political violence is really just an acceptance of terrorism. No place for that in a democratic society.