Momentum shifts in Trump’s favor as justices seem hostile to disqualification effort
The tenor of the questions suggested the court was leaning heavily against the Colorado voters.
The Supreme Court appeared to sharply veer against the Colorado voters challenging former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for office.
Justices on both the left and right raised pointed questions to Jason Murray, the lawyer arguing in favor of Colorado’s position, about the “extraordinary” ramifications of letting individual states decide whether a candidate is an insurrectionist.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that would essentially empower individual states to exert unilateral control over federal elections, a position “at war” with the notion that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was intended to empower the federal government to constrain wayward states. He was quickly followed by Justice Elena Kagan, who said permitting a single state to effectively tip the entire national election would be an “extraordinary” ruling.
The tenor of the questions suggested the court was leaning heavily against those seeking Trump’s removal from the 2024 ballot, and seemed inclined to overturn the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court that deemed Trump ineligible to be president again. The justices appeared hostile to the notion that states could be the arbiters of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” a post-Civil War amendment intended to bar former Confederate leaders from holding office.
……..
- Discussion
-
The Supreme Court seems to be sharply veering against the effort to disqualify Trump.
Justices on both the left and right raised sharp Qs about the “extraordinary” ramifications of letting states decide whether a candidate is an insurrectionist. https://t.co/VHgxLJdB8G
— POLITICO (@politico) February 8, 2024
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.