Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a ruling Thursday during oral arguments over Colorado’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, or the “insurrection clause.” asked Jason Murray, an attorney who represents Colorado voters in court. ”
A number of U.S. Supreme Court justices have expressed skepticism about the ability of a state, namely Colorado, to exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot, a point Thomas sharply disputed, especially during a Q&A with Murray. . It has the power to disqualify national candidates. But when asked by Thomas for an example, Murray had nothing to offer.
Murray said the state had the authority to hold an election, but Thomas quickly pushed back.
“But you would expect such conflicts to arise, especially after Reconstruction, after the Compromise of 1877, and during the Redeemer era. There were still large numbers of Confederate soldiers around. Running for state and national office. There were plenty of people who continued to do so,” Thomas said, adding that this reality “suggests that there will be at least a few instances where national candidates are disqualified.”
“Well, there have certainly been national candidates who have been disqualified by Congress who have refused seats,” Murray replied. But Thomas pointed out that “that is not the case in this case.”
“Other than the examples I gave, the answer is no,” Murray admitted, adding that was not surprising.
“What was the purpose of Section 3?” States were sending personnel — the concern was that the former Confederate states remained the bad guys,” Thomas said.
“And that effort was to prevent them from doing things like this, which you’ve often said, also gave states the power to disqualify candidates. What I want to ask you is, if you are right, what is an example of that?” Thomas asked again.
“Sir, by way of example, many candidates for state office or individuals holding state office are excluded in the state. We publish a number of state cases,” Thomas said before interjecting. Murray answered.
“We understand that states control state elections and statehood. We’re talking about national candidates here,” Thomas said, adding that “the Southern and Radical Republicans There were people who felt very strongly about the retaliation against them, but they never thought about giving the South the power to disqualify national candidates. The argument you’re making.”
listen:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized Colorado attorney Jason Murray during Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment hearings before SCOTUS.
Thomas – “What’s an example?”
Murray – No examples.
Thomas – “Do you have any examples?”
Murray – No examples yet. pic.twitter.com/fkiRvkKnvb
— Maintenance Brief (@ConservBrief) February 8, 2024
“So what I want to know is, are there any examples of this?” Thomas asked again.
Again, Mr. Murray failed to set an example.
The reason we don’t see states doing this is the fact that elections work differently back then, and states have background powers under the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment to conduct presidential elections. I think it’s a unique thing. They didn’t use that power to police access to the ballot until about his 1890s. By the 1890s, all had been pardoned and these issues were no longer up for debate.
Chief Justice John Roberts then issued the following opinion:
Look at Judge Thomas’ questions from the 30,000-foot level. In other words, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to limit state power. right? States must not abridge privileges or immunities. We do not take away people’s property without due process and we do not deny them equal protection. Meanwhile, federal powers under Article V were strengthened. Congress has the power to enforce it. Isn’t that the last place, then, for states, including the Confederate states, to seek authority to exercise implicit powers to enforce the presidential election process?
“That seems like a position that is at odds with the whole spirit of the 14th Amendment, and it’s very ahistorical,” Roberts added.
The case is Trump vs. AndersonU.S. Supreme Court No. 23-719.
