Supreme Court seems skeptical of kicking Trump off election ballot during landmark hearing: Full coverage
The case stems from the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump couldn’t appear on the ballot this fall.
The United States Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments in a landmark case that will decide whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for a second term in office because of his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which culminated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Throughout the hearing, however, both liberal and conservative justices seemed highly skeptical of the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove Trump from state ballots based on its reading of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars those who have taken an oath of office and later “engaged in insurrection” from holding office gain.
Trump appealed the Colorado ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 3 doesn’t apply to presidents and that Congress, not the states or courts, is the only body that can remove candidates from ballots.
Trump reacts to oral arguments
Speaking to reporters at Mar-a-Lago shortly after court adjourned, Trump gave his response to Thursday’s oral arguments, calling the case before the court “election interference.”
“It’s more election interference by the Democrats — that’s what they’re doing,” Trump said before boasting that he is currently “leading in virtually every poll” in the Republican primary.
The former president also falsely stated that there were “no guns” involved during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol. Numerous Trump supporters were charged with firearms possession on federal property that day.
Court is adjourned
After what seemed like a tough two hours of arguments for lawyers for the plaintiffs seeking to uphold a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to bar Trump from state ballots, the United States Supreme Court adjourned early Thursday afternoon.
As even liberal court watchers seemed to agree, the high court seems unlikely to allow the Colorado decision to stand.
NYU law professor and MSNBC commentator Andrew Weissmann said in a post on X that the court’s decision would likely not even be close.
Justices seem skeptical that the 14th Amendment bars Trump from running
Throughout oral arguments Thursday, both conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be used to justify Trump’s removal from ballots in Colorado or other states.
Like several conservative justices, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed plaintiffs’ lawyer Jason Murray on whether Section 3 applied to presidents.
“Why didn’t they put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in Section 3? The thing that really is troubling to me is, I totally understand your argument that they were listing people that were barred and president is not there,” Jackson said.
Earlier, Justice Elena Kagan questioned Murray on the idea that a single state could block a federal candidate from appearing on a ballot.
“I think that the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Kagan said.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned Murray on who decides what constitutes “engaged in insurrection,” the wording of Section 3 that disqualifies those who have taken an oath of office from holding office again.
Chief Justice John Roberts called the idea that individual states could be allowed to block a candidate from appearing on a ballot while others left that person on them “a daunting prospect.”
In all, it seemed to be tough going for Murray, indicating that the court may be unlikely to allow the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court barring Trump from the ballot in that state to stand.
Trump lawyer: Jan. 6 was a riot — not an insurrection
Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Mitchell is now arguing that there was no insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
Mitchell: For an insurrection there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: And so the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?
Mitchell: We didn’t concede that it was an effort to overthrow the government either, Justice Jackson. None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but did not qualify as an insurrection as that term is used in Section 3.
Is Trump an insurrectionist?
As the arguments about whether the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from ever holding office again, the question of whether he “engaged in insurrection” was brought front and center to the nation.
What does Section 5 of the 14th Amendment say?
Here is the text (via the Library of Congress):
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Trump’s lawyer is arguing that the former president never “engaged in an insurrection” — which would disqualify him from running for president, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. But even if he did, the argument before the court is whether Section 5 means that only Congress can enact legislation that would effectively bar a person from holding office again.
Some Democrats want Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself
Citing his wife’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, some Democratic lawmakers have called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from today’s arguments on whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump from holding office again.
In the weeks following the 2020 election, Thomas pressured Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and Arizona lawmakers to reject the election results showing that Biden had defeated Trump in battleground states.
“Given questions surrounding his wife’s involvement, Justice Thomas should recuse himself so there’s no question of bias,” Sen. Dick Durbin wrote in a post Wednesday on X, formerly known as Twitter.
In January, eight House Democrats wrote in a letter that, given his wife’s advocacy for challenging the election results, Thomas should step aside rather than create an appearance of conflict.
“Your wife’s activities raise serious questions about your ability to be or even to appear impartial in any cases before the Supreme Court involving the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection,” the letter said.
USA Today.
Trump plans to stay away from Supreme Court
While Trump has made a habit of turning his recent court appearances into circus-like campaign stops, the former president is not expected to attend Thursday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
CNN reports that Trump will instead spend the day at Mar-a-Lago in Florida before traveling to a Nevada caucus victory party in Las Vegas.
“Trump’s decision not to attend the historic Supreme Court arguments in the case — which would determine his ballot eligibility nationwide — is an indication of how carefully his team is handling the case before the court,” the network noted, adding that an appearance by the former president “could be considered disruptive to the normally staid and above-the-fray decorum of the Supreme Court.”
Source:
