Justices took their places at their mahogany bench prepared for more than two hours of argumentation from both parties, grilling lawyers from both camps but focusing on narrow provisions rather than larger questions like whether President Donald Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 amount to insurrection.
Multiple justices appeared dubious about granting state courts power to ban candidates on 14th Amendment grounds; even liberal justices expressed unease with this idea.
We Were Very Strong
On Thursday, the justices heard two hours of dramatic arguments in the case regarding Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for election in Colorado. Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Mitchell made his case that Colorado Supreme Court should not disqualify him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits former officeholders engaged in insurrection from returning to office; Mitchell claimed this provision could not apply as President is not explicitly mentioned within the Constitution whereas it does for senators and members of Congress.
Justice Elena Kagan rejected the argument that a single state should decide who can run for federal office, questioning how such a body could deem Donald Trump insurrectional, as evidenced by a chaotic Capitol riot on January 6. She pointed to an 1869 case that required congress to pass legislation for insurrection bans to work effectively.
We Were Right
Justices remained skeptical during long arguments lasting over two hours regarding efforts to remove President Donald Trump from the ballot under an obscure post-Civil War provision barring those engaged in insurrection from holding office. Some justices asked whether Congress must first act before states invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment while others debated its applicability against an already sitting president.
Chief Justice John Roberts declared a ruling against Trump to be incongruent with both the purpose and history of the Constitution, as well as warning that should they allow Colorado’s decision to stand, other states might use similar techniques to remove him from ballots.
Trump’s lawyer argued that Section 3 was never meant to apply to sitting presidents, and state Supreme Courts can’t remove him from the ballot without congressional action. As evidence, he cited In Re Griffin v Salmon Chase from 19th century court cases wherein the judge determined Griffin couldn’t be enforced under civil war-era insurrection ban without first getting approval from Congress through legislation or by court decision.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged attorney Jason Murray
As the court marshal bangs her gavel to commence arguments, those waiting outside the Supreme Court gather near speakers that play audio of legal statements being read aloud from within. Most are Trump opponents and nod as lawyers representing both parties present their points of view on this case.
The justices are currently deliberating whether Colorado and Maine may disqualify President Trump from their state ballots due to his 2020 efforts at overturning his election loss, including the January 6 attack on Congress. Trump’s opponents contend he should be disqualified according to section 14th Amendment that disqualifies people who “engage in insurrection” from holding federal office.
At one point, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged attorney Jason Murray who represented Colorado voters who brought this case. She inquired as to why different states use different standards when selecting voters to appear on ballots and whether this might lead to confusion. His reply was that for an insurrection to occur there must first be an organized, concerted effort – something the march on Congress was not.
“So your client isn’t covered?”
The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed broad skepticism of efforts to remove President Trump from the 2020 ballot, after two states Colorado and Maine invoked an Article 14 clause prohibiting people who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. After nearly 90 minutes of arguments on this subject, justices questioned if Congress must first act before state courts could use this provision and whether President Trump falls within its scope.
Trump’s lawyers assert that the January 6 riots did not qualify as an insurrection since they were disorderly and criminal in nature, rather than organized. Additionally, they assert that the clause specifically excludes him. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of former Obama appointee Justice appointed by President Obama at one point lightly mocked Mitchell by asking, “So your client isn’t covered?”
The justices raised concerns that upholding this case could set a dangerous precedent, allowing states to strike candidates off ballots. They said this would reduce US democracy to select just a handful of presidential candidates at once.
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff
