The U.S. Supreme Court heard nearly two hours of arguments Thursday in an effort by six Colorado voters to deny their fellow voters the chance to vote for the top Republican candidate in the 2024 election.
Jason Murray, a Denver attorney representing six voters, struggled to make his case to disqualify former President Donald Trump, stumbling over ostensibly simple questions and facts.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh predictably exposed various flaws in Murray’s argument, but even left-leaning Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared unimpressed. It raised questions about whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies and whether the Centennial State should make the decision. the fate of the nation.
simple background
Six voters backed by Democratic-leaning groups led by former Biden officials filed a lawsuit in September 2023 seeking to remove Trump from Colorado’s ballot in the 2024 election, and filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Trump from the 14th Amendment regarding insurrection. He argued that Section 3 of Article 3 applies to Mr. Trump and Mr. Trump. The former president’s actions on January 6, 2021 qualified.
The case went to Democratic appointees to the Colorado Supreme Court.
control The rulings on December 4 and 3 ruled that Trump, who committed the insurrection on January 6, was not eligible to be president and therefore could not appear on the ballot.
Trump’s lawyers appealed the verdict, arguing that the former president did not commit an insurrection. Article 3 does not apply to the President. The Colorado Supreme Court violated the Electors Clause. And Congress is the appropriate institution to resolve such matters.
Murray swings and misses
Mr. Murray previously persuaded Democratic appointees to Colorado’s Supreme Court to declare Mr. Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot, and on Thursday he sought to repeat his success. But he soon realized that the path forward was equally ideologically unlubricated.
For example, Justice Kagan
Said “The question you have to face is why should a single state decide who becomes President of the United States? In other words, when a former president revolts and becomes eligible to be president again? This question of whether or not to be disenfranchised — just say that — it sounds terribly national to me.”
“So that would suggest that whatever means of enforcing it would have to be federal, national means,” Kagan continued. “If you weren’t from Colorado, but you were from Wisconsin, or if you were from Michigan…the actions of Michigan’s secretary of state could make the difference between candidate A winning or candidate B winning. Don’t you think that’s quite unusual? ”
“Why should a single nation have the ability to make this decision for the entire nation, not just its own citizens?” Kagan added.
Chief Justice John Roberts echoed Kagan’s concerns and suggested that states would likely begin to use these precedents as weapons to exclude other candidates from the ballot.
report CNN.
“It’s going to be a handful of states that will decide the presidential election,” Roberts said. “That’s a pretty scary outcome.”
Judge Thomas was even less forgiving in his cross-examination of Murray.
Thomas pressed Murray to give an example of a national candidate who had been similarly disqualified — perhaps a Confederate soldier who ran for high office “after Reconstruction, after the Compromise of 1877, and in the days of the Saviors.” .
“There were certainly national candidates who were denied seats and disqualified by Congress,” Murray responded.
“I understand that, but that’s not the case in this case,” Thomas retorted. “The state disqualified them. That’s what we’re talking about here. My understanding is that Congress won’t seat them.”
“Once again, Your Excellency, [the absence of examples] That’s not surprising, because that wouldn’t have happened – the state wouldn’t have the authority to break up the sit-ins,” Murray said before being interrupted by Thomas.
“So what was the purpose of Section 3? Each state was sending people. The concern was that the former Confederate states continued to be the bad guys, and it was an effort to stop that.” ” Thomas said. “And you’re saying…this also gives states the power to disqualify candidates. So what I’m asking you to do is make sure you’re right. Ba, [is] What is an example? ”
Mr. Murray alluded to examples of states excluding candidates from state office, but Mr. Thomas again interrupted, saying, “We understand that states control state elections and state positions. We’re talking about national candidates. …Will you do that?” Do you have an example of this? ”
Murray apparently didn’t.
Judge Kavanaugh hinted at Colorado’s overreach by suggesting there are already mechanisms in place to prevent insurrectionists from holding public office.
“Part of the rhetoric of your position, I don’t think it’s your position, but part of the rhetoric of your position is that unless the states can do this, insurrectionists will hold federal office. “It seems to suggest that no one can stop that from happening,” Kavanaugh said. “But clearly Congress has enacted laws, including laws that are still in effect.
Title 18 Section 2383 Prohibit rebellion. It’s federal criminal law. And it says that if you are convicted of that, you are, “disqualified from holding any office.” Therefore, although there is a federal law, President Trump has not been charged with that crime. So what should we make of it? ”
Kavanaugh too
was suggested He said efforts to remove Trump from the ballot “have the effect of severely disenfranchising voters.”
Judge Brown questioned whether the framers intended Section 3 to be used as Murray claimed.
“I’m really wondering if presidential elections were like that. The framers actually said that states should be concerned with presidential elections, as opposed to more local concerns, such as Senate races or Congressional elections. “Were they intending to enforce Article 3 with respect to this?” Brown said.
“My point is more broadly that history makes it very clear that the framers of the Constitution were concerned about charismatic rebels who could rise to the position of president of the United States. “That’s what happened,” Murray said.
“But then why didn’t they include the word ‘president’ in the highly enumerated list in Section 3?” Brown asked. “What really bothers me is, I understand your point, but they had a list of people who were banned from entering the country, and the president wasn’t there. So maybe they’re the president. I think I’m just worried that maybe I wasn’t focusing on it.” ”
Brown added, “The fact that the vice presidential and presidential electors are there is an indication of what’s really going to happen.” [the Framers] The idea was that “if we’re worried about a charismatic person, we’re going to shut out insurrectionist electors, so that person will never run.”
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here!
