In yet another judicial rebuke to the unending wave of Democratic “lawfare” against Donald Trump, Michigan’s Supreme Court today refused to hear a case arguing that Trump’s name should be excluded from Michigan’s February 27 Republican primary ballot, a case arguing that the former president engaged in “insurrection” on January 6 and is thus disqualified from running for office. The Supreme Court’s ruling aligns with rulings of lower Michigan courts, but is in stark contrast to the ludicrous ruling that emanated from Colorado’s Supreme Court last week.

In a terse statement, the Michigan Supremes indicated that they were “not persuaded that the present questions should be reviewed by this court.” The “present questions” were a reference to a previous ruling by a three-judge panel in mid-December that held that neither Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson nor the courts can prevent Trump from being listed as a candidate — the proper decision, since in all of the dozens of dubious charges leveled against Trump in federal and state courts in New York, Georgia, and Washington, D.C., not one of them is for “insurrection” or anything related. To bar Trump judicially on the basis of insurrection would be to condemn him for a crime with which he has not even been charged, let alone convicted. In Michigan, at least, it appears that the judicial system still grasps the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” even though the Holy Vehms and Star Chambers masquerading as a justice system elsewhere in this benighted Republic have long since abandoned the principle.

Nevertheless, Trump’s enemies in the Great Lakes State are undeterred. Mark Brewer, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs trying to sue Trump off the Michigan ballot, has signaled disappointment with the ruling, but not acquiescence. His clients, he told the press, intend to launch a similar challenge to try to keep Trump off the ballot in the general election, should Trump become the GOP’s nominee.