The Supreme Court is facing a pivotal case concerning former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to feature on Colorado’s ballots, according to a recent report by Newsweek on Tuesday, December 26.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s recent decision has ignited a complex legal debate, centered around the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, which legal analysts deem a formidable argument against Trump’s candidacy. This ruling sets the stage for a critical showdown in the nation’s highest court.
Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to Trump’s political aspirations, ruling that his actions related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot disqualified him from seeking elected office, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section expressly disallows individuals involved in insurrection from holding public office, echoing its original aim to prevent former Confederates from occupying positions post-Civil War.
More Read
Anticipation mounts within the legal community for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, raising inquiries about potential implications, especially given the conservative leaning of the court.
Legal experts stress the challenges the court may encounter in navigating the Colorado ruling, rooted in an originalist and textualist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, a stance the court has consistently favored in recent years.
Renowned political strategist Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, highlighted the reliance on these constitutional interpretations in recent Supreme Court decisions, citing landmark cases like Roe v. Wade.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Blumenthal argued that overturning the Colorado decision would necessitate departing from these doctrines, suggesting it would require compromising the court’s legal principles to enable Trump’s return to the ballot.
“The Colorado Supreme Court found, without disagreement, and by clear and convincing evidence, that Trump indeed engaged in insurrection on January 6. Consequently, the case is, on originalist and textual as well as historical grounds, open and shut,” Blumenthal stated.
The essence of the matter lies in the court’s commitment to originalism and textualism, doctrines that have significantly influenced various legal realms, from reproductive rights to environmental regulations.
Blumenthal emphasized the historical implications of these doctrines, noting, “Using cherry-picked, false, and bad-faith history, originalism has been the pure pretext for overturning Roe, dismantling commonsense gun regulations, ending environmental regulation, gutting consumer protection, and voiding voting and civil rights.”
Despite the seeming entanglement of the Supreme Court due to the Colorado ruling, legal expert Dave Aronberg proposes a potential exit strategy for the conservative majority while maintaining their adherence to originalist philosophy.
Aronberg suggests focusing on due process arguments, referring to Section Five of the 14th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to enforce the Amendment. He posits that the framers intended Congress, rather than individual states, to establish procedures for disqualifying a candidate involved in insurrection.
However, Aronberg acknowledges the limitations of this approach, underscoring the delicate balance the Supreme Court must strike between its conservative jurisprudence and the repercussions of the January 6 insurrection.
