Justices appeared hostile to the effort to challenge disgraced former President Donald Trump’s candidacy that was heard by the Supreme Court yesterday, as the tenor of the questions suggested they’re leaning heavily against the Colorado voters.
These indications came from the justices as they heard arguments on the unprecedented question of whether the Republican frontrunner should be barred from the ballot because of his actions to derail a peaceful transfer of power, including his incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Expressing deep concerns about the ability of a single state to disqualify a candidate from seeking national office based on Section Three of the 14th Amendment,
One Trump appointee, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, asked the lawyer representing Colorado voters about one of Trump’s talking points — that removing the Republican front-runner from the ballot is “disenfranchising voters” who want him to be president.
“What about the idea that we should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide?” Kavanaugh asked.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was also named to the top court by Trump questioned whether the former president had a fair opportunity to defend himself against claims he could not run for office but Jason Murray, the attorney for the Colorado voters who brought the lawsuit, said that he had. A Colorado judge held a trial before making her ruling, which was appealed to both the state’s top court before making it to the US Supreme Court.
Murray said that leaving unresolved the question of whether Trump is ineligible would be “a disenfranchisement and constitutional crisis in the making.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. raised grave concerns about states deciding whether candidates accused of engaging in insurrection can run for office, but he was less clear about if the Supreme Court may be relied upon to sort it out.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. challenged Murray to define the limits of the 14th Amendment and how to decide who qualifies as a participant in an insurrection.
Murray, arguing that Trump should be disqualified from holding office, said the reason Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been dormant for more than 150 years is because “we haven’t seen anything like Jan. 6 since reconstruction.”
Trump is facing four separate indictments but the Biden administration dragged its heals in bringing the former White House occupant to justice and none of the 91 criminal charges specifies that he engaged in an insurrection.
Congress wrote Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in 1866 to keep former Confederates from returning to power, saying officers of the country who engaged in an insurrection should be barred from office.
Norma Anderson, a 91-year-old former Colorado legislator, stands at the forefront of a legal battle aiming to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado.
Anderson, a Republican stalwart, joined forces with a group of voters in a lawsuit invoking the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office.
Anderson’s long-standing skepticism of Trump deepened after the events of January 6, 2021, when she believed Trump crossed a line by attempting to overturn the election results.
“He tried to overturn an election,” she said. “The very first time I ever ran, I didn’t win. I didn’t go out and try to change the election. I said, ‘Whoops, work harder next time, lady.’”
The lawsuit, spearheaded by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), argues that Trump’s actions before and during the Capitol attack render him ineligible to run for office.
The case has already made waves, with Colorado’s top court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in a 4-3 decision last December, prompting Trump’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
The legal challenge rests on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. Anderson and her fellow plaintiffs argue that Trump’s actions squarely fall under this provision, making him unfit for the presidency.
The case has garnered attention and debate across political lines, with some conservative scholars supporting the plaintiffs’ argument while others see it as an attempt to interfere with the electoral process. Polls reflect a divided public opinion on the matter, with Trump himself decrying the efforts as anti-democratic.
Notably, Anderson’s involvement in the lawsuit highlights her evolution within the Republican Party. While she has been a lifelong Republican, her disenchantment with Trump led her to leave the party in 2018, only to rejoin in 2021. She underscores that her decision to challenge Trump’s candidacy is rooted in her commitment to the party’s core values.
The lawsuit has not been without its challenges, as Anderson and her fellow plaintiffs have faced threats and harassment. Yet, they remain resolute in their pursuit of justice, recognizing the significance of their endeavor regardless of the court’s eventual ruling.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, Anderson remains steadfast in her belief that the lawsuit serves a crucial purpose in holding Trump accountable for his actions. Whether or not the court rules in their favor, Anderson sees the challenge as a necessary step in confronting the events of January 6th and ensuring accountability for those involved.