You couldn't resist Brexit could you.

Sure lets tie ourselves to a group of EU countries that now have problems with mass immigration and the rise of right wing political parties.

For all it's faults the US has been our ally since WW2 they certainly have domestic problems just like the EU and we should not slavishly follow their foreign policy. But they are still our allies.

The problem with the SC and the Colorado SC is that they are political courts. Neither of us like that but how do you solve that?

You could allow Congress to pick the judges but it doesn't solve the problem. A Congress dominated by one party will still select "their man".

You could allow the judiciary to pick their own judges as we do in this country. However it is an old boys network with a complete lack of transparency so is even worse that the US system.

You could get the voters to elect them as many judges are now but I'm not sure that solves anything.

In other words we can all see the problems but none of the answers are much better.

It seems that unelected justices on the Colorado Supreme Court just decided that the people of Colorado cannot vote for President Donald Trump in 2024.

How is this happening in a country that claims to be a "democracy"?

I would but it seems that in the USA such an idea is a complete non starter. They can elect a mob boss to be President but not change the constitution to stop it happening.

One of the dissenting judges

Carlos Samour, one of three justices who dissented, argued the government could not "deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law".

"Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection - there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," he wrote.

I would but it seems that in the USA such an idea is a complete non starter. They can elect a mob boss to be President but not change the constitution to stop it happening.

One of the dissenting judges

Carlos Samour, one of three justices who dissented, argued the government could not "deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law".

"Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection - there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," he wrote.