US Supreme Court justices on Thursday heard oral arguments in a landmark case over whether former President Donald Trump should be barred from running for president in the 2024 election.
A majority of the justices, including liberal members of the court, expressed skepticism about a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that ruled GOP presidential nominee Trump is ineligible to participate in the state’s presidential primary ballot.
A key point of doubt that emerged through the justices’ exchanges with Trump and plaintiffs’ lawyers was whether states have the authority to disqualify federal candidates.
Other apparent objections to the Colorado decision include whether the constitutional provision applies to the President, who can enact it, the implications for democracy if a candidate is prevented from voting, the “disparity” which The state will result in disqualification. Using different standards and definitions of “insurrection”.
The hearing was related to a December Colorado Supreme Court decision finding that Trump was ineligible to hold office and ordering Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold not to include Trump’s name on the Colorado presidential primary ballot. Let’s do.
The ruling came in a lawsuit that was filed in September in state district court by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of six Colorado electors who argued that Trump should be barred from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Has been disqualified from. Section 3, ratified after the Civil War, bars anyone who takes an oath to support the Constitution and then “joins in rebellion” from holding office again.
“Donald Trump attempted to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election,” the lawsuit said. “His efforts reached a peak on January 6, 2021, when he incited, incited, and otherwise engaged in a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol by a mob who he believed were following his orders, and He refused to defend the Capitol or stop the mob. The attack continued for about three hours.
The district court judge, relying on a five-day evidentiary hearing with expert testimony and detailed testimony, determined that Trump was involved in insurrection but that Section 3 does not apply to presidents.
The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4–3 decision, affirmed the district court’s finding that Trump was involved in insurrection, but reversed the district court’s order, also concluding that Section 3 applies to presidents.
Trump appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which took the case and set the scope of its review in a broader context: “Whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by ordering President Trump to be excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot ?”
The answer to this question will have deep implications for the entire country that will extend beyond this year’s elections. Efforts to disqualify Trump from voting have emerged in most states, and he has already been disqualified in Maine.
Critics of the trial, even some Trump opponents, have argued that disqualifying Trump would violate democratic principles, and say a defeat at the ballot box is the best way to remove him from office. Proponents of disqualification argue that the framers of Section 3 intended it as a form of constitutional self-defense against the threat posed by Trump and that the provision itself is meant to preserve democracy.
The plaintiffs include former Republican U.S. Representative Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island, who now lives in Colorado; former Republican Colorado House and Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson; Denver Post columnist and Republican activist Krista Kafer; Michele Priola, Kathy Wright, and Christopher Castilian.
The court is expected to rule on the case sometime before Colorado’s presidential primary election on March 5.
This is a developing story and will be updated. It was first published by Colorado Newsline.
