Opposition International does publish anonymous submissions. There are situations where caution as to revealing the sender’s identity is justified. As editor, I make a point of checking with a couple of the senior journalists who advise OI. On the below comment, there were mixed feelings but we decided to honour the sender’s wish.
His/Her comment is followed by the latest from New York Times on the extraordinary hearing of Trump’s candidacy.
“1. In Pakistan today, voters cannot vote for a popular opposition leader because he was forbidden to run in the general election — and in jail.
A jailed Imran Khan leaves Pakistan divided ahead of election (bbc.com)
2. In Russia today, the country’s top election commission banned an opposition candidate from running in the upcoming presidential election.
3. And in the US of A today, the Supreme Court is considering the decisions of multiple Democratic Party operatives (and judges) to ban the leading Republican presidential candidate (and former President) from state ballots … because, y’know, “Democracy” is on the ballot.
Lots of work for OI. And lots to be concerned about in America.”
Additionally from the New York Times.
Will Trump be allowed to hold office again?
The Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of arguments to kick Donald Trump off state ballots and disqualify him from holding office because of his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
The State Supreme Court in Colorado ruled in December that Trump’s conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office. The court based its ruling on a constitutional provision that bars people who have sworn to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection.
But in Washington yesterday, Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism about several aspects of the Colorado ruling. A majority of them indicated that individual states may not disqualify national candidates unless Congress first enacts legislation. The timing of the ruling is unclear, but the court has fast-tracked the case.
Historical context: Not since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George Bush, has the court assumed such a direct role in the outcome of a presidential contest.