Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the state of Colorado cannot disqualify former President Trump from voting under the 14th Amendment after the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that He noted that the court was furious.
“There was a contradiction today at the Supreme Court,” Toobin told CNN anchor John King on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” clip Highlighted by Mediaite. “They were unanimous, which is unusual for this Supreme Court in a controversial case. But there were also furious justices, if you look at the paper in which the opinion was written. You’ll find out soon enough.”
“Three justices, three liberals, didn’t dissent, but instead of just saying, ‘What Colorado did was wrong,’ they wanted to lay out a roadmap for how this law applies.” “We have thoroughly pursued five people for stating what should be done,” he said. Added.
His comments came after the high court unanimously ruled that the Centennial State cannot prevent a former president from participating in the primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause. Ta.
Four Republican voters and two independent voters in Colorado, backed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), filed a lawsuit last year seeking to remove Trump from the primary ballot. In their filing, they argued that the former president’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol triggered their disqualification.
In Monday’s 9-0 ruling, the court said states do not have the unilateral power to disqualify federal candidates from voting, but five conservatives argued that this provision could only be enforced by a statue in Congress. Specified.
The three liberal justices on the court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Justice Elena Kagan, and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separate opinions that the majority needed more. He claimed to have stepped into the
They said in a joint opinion that the majority “improperly decided new constitutional issues that insulate this Court from the Court.” [Trump] From future controversies. ”
“In a sensitive case that calls for judicial restraint, the judiciary would abandon its course,” the justices wrote for the majority.
Barrett wrote that the court “resolved a politically charged issue during the volatile period of a presidential election.” Especially in this situation, writing about the court needs to lower the public’s temperature, not raise it. ”
“For present purposes, our disagreements matter far less than unanimity. All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That’s the message Americans should take home.” she added.
President Trump said in a statement following the news that the ruling was “unifying and inspiring.”
A historic ruling by the Supreme Court on Monday preserved the ability of the top Republican candidate to seek a second term as president.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
