The Colorado voters who were contesting Trump’s ability to run for office seemed to have a strong case before the Supreme Court.
Judge Jason Murray, who was representing Colorado, was asked probing questions by justices on both sides of the aisle regarding the “extraordinary” consequences of allowing individual states to determine if a candidate is an insurrectionist.
The idea that the 14th Amendment was meant to give the federal government the authority to rein in disobedient states is “at odds” with what Chief Justice John Roberts called the states’ right to exercise unilateral control over federal elections. Justice Elena Kagan spoke out shortly after, calling it a “extraordinary” finding that would allow one state to essentially sway the entire national election.
It appeared as though the court was inclined to reverse the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that found Trump unable to be president again, and the tone of the questioning indicated that they were strongly opposed to those who wanted his name removed off the 2024 ballot. It seemed like the judges were against the idea that states might decide on the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment, which was added after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate leaders from being elected to office.
Opponents contended that Trump violated this provision by inciting violence on January 6, 2021, when tens of thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol and several tried to prevent Congress from recognising Joe Biden’s triumph.The judges, however, voiced persistent concerns that empowering the states to decide Trump’s eligibility could have far-reaching ramifications that could destabilise the nation.
Roberts argued that states could eliminate candidates from the ballot based on different criteria and different pieces of evidence. When Justice Samuel Alito wanted to know if military leaders could defy instructions from the president the instant they thought the president was involved in an uprising, he inquired.
Roberts predicted that several states would remove individuals from the ballot regardless of the Democratic candidate. “The potential outcome is quite frightening.”
Legal analysts had already predicted that the challengers would face animosity from the justices, regardless of their political affiliation, so the odds were already stacked against them before the session ever started. That opinion appeared to be validated by Thursday’s interrogation.
Both the conservative and liberal members of the court were very critical of the decision, and the liberal justices voiced their concerns about its potential consequences.
“The reason the framers would have created a system that could lead to temporary disuniformity in this manner is my question,” The words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…