On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from attorneys to have Trump removed from the ballot in Colorado.
Virtually every member of the Court questioned the move, leading most to believe that the Court would leave Trump on the ballot, thereby ending all cases that have tried to have Trump removed, and that did not sit particularly well with Democrats, the media, and liberals.
Talking Points...
- Supreme Court wary of removing Trump
- Reaction to arguments
- Analysis
Since it was announced that the Court would be taking this on, there have been calls to have Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from the case. But honestly, after hearing the questions by all justices, his vote will not be needed to push this over the finish line. Every justice on the bench questioned if removing Trump from the ballot was in the country's best interests or even possible via Section III of the 14th Amendment.
We more or less knew where the conservative justices were going to fall, but most pundits believed this would likely be a unanimous decision, and it very much looks like that will be the case. For instance, liberal Justice Elana Kagan stated:
"I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.
"In other words, you know, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again ... it sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means."
CNN commentator Van Jones hinted that this was a foregone conclusion, but he still put pressure on the Court, making it appear as though they were caving to Trump, stating:
"It's just bizarre to me to watch the system continue to bend over backward as [Trump] plays this chicken game with our system. He is playing a game of chicken and every institution swerves, including the Supreme Court."
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold was also outraged over the decision, saying that the government has it set up so states can run their own elections, which is true, but that does not mean you get to decide which candidates can and cannot be on the ballot for a presidential election on a partisan basis. As the Court even addressed, doing this would lead to Democrats being kicked off ballots in red states.
Griswold then went off on the Court about the expected decision, stating:
"If the justices were to accept Trump's arguments that he is fully above the Constitution, that insurrectionists deserve a place on the ballot and potentially an office, that will be a grave day for this country and a danger to our longevity as the United States."
As most of you know, I had been predicting that the Court would allow Trump to stay on the ballot, and that surely seems to be the case here. However, I was also adamant that the decision would mean little unless it was a unanimous decision, and it would appear that is where we are headed here.
My only hope now is that the Court will go into great detail about how insurrection needs to be qualified to activate this amendment so that we do not run into this situation again. Kagan seemed to hint that would be the case, saying that insurrection needed to be decided on a federal level, meaning that Congress would have to pass a resolution on the matter. If they go into that detail, in their opinion, this path to remove Trump is dead in the water, and every case against him will be dismissed in the individual states.
