The fight between states and the federal government ripped this country apart once before in Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857. Now a case before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could hopefully avert another epic split of our democracy.
SCOTUS justices sharply questioned advocates arguing before them that former President Donald Trump should be booted from the ballot heading into the 2024 presidential election. The arguments surround a decision by the liberal Colorado Supreme Court that allowed Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold to disqualify trump from running for president.
Colorado justices upheld that decision in a 4-3 vote based on the assessment that Trump participated in insurrection and that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment supported his disqualification. Trump’s lawyers attacked that argument and SCOTUS justices appeared to step up the heat during oral arguments this week.
Nearly every Supreme Court justice expressed reservations Thursday about allowing a single state to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election ballot.
Justice Elena Kagan boiled the problem with the Colorado voter’s position down to one question: Why does a single state get to decide who gets to be the president of the United States?
That was not the response leftist radicals across the United States wanted to hear. Lawyers arguing for upholding the Colorado decision were hit with a barrage of icy responses and questions before SCOTUS. The historical context of the Civil-war era Fourteenth Amendment and the practical reality of letting the Colorado ruling stand seemed to weigh heavily on SCOTUS justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh let loose a harsh line of assessments toward arguments in favor of the Colorado decision. Their comments indicated their possible opposition to the Colorado decision.
Roberts commented that allowing the state to dump Trump could in “very quick order” allow a number of states to toss Republicans or Democrats off ballots. This would create election chaos at the federal level.
“And it’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Roberts said. “That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”
“Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Jason Murray, the attorney arguing for the Colorado court’s decision.
Throughout the oral arguments, Murray was left with little legal grounding. Each justice that opined regarding the case hit him with a different legal aspect that undermined his argument.
“[T]here were people who felt very strongly about retaliating against the South, the radical Republicans, but they did not think about authorizing the South to disqualify national candidates,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “Do you have any examples of this?”
Murray had nothing to uphold his position. He then faced another liberal justice, appointed by Joe Biden. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tore into Murray’s assertion that there is “no ambiguity” in Section 3.
“With having a list and not having ‘president’ in it, with having a history that suggests that they were focused on local concerns in the south, with this conversation where the legislators actually discussed what looked like an ambiguity, you’re saying there is no ambiguity in Section 3?” she asked.
The Colorado case, with the left-wing donor backed group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) pushing the issue, couldn’t have expected such a cold response before the high court.
Critics commented that Trump’s lawyers didn’t overtly influence SCOTUS justices, but the nine members clearly understood the case and potential consequences of their ruling. After oral arguments it appeared a strong majority on the bench leaned into a final opinion that would favor Trump.
- Majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices present doubts about dumping Trump off the ballot.
- Oral arguments were presented this week and liberal lawyers faced a barrage of questions.
- Justices repeatedly questioned Colorado’s authority and the consequences of ruling in its favor.
Source: The Daily Caller