Kavanaugh: Dems’ bid to marginalize Trump voters seems undemocratic
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised eyebrows during oral arguments on Thursday, suggesting that the decision by Colorado Democrats to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot is undemocratic and deprives voters of their rights.
In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled to bar Trump from the ballot, citing accusations of inciting insurrection on January 6, 2021. Kavanaugh expressed his concerns about Colorado’s attempt to deny Americans the opportunity to choose their preferred candidate.
“Shouldn’t we consider the principles of democracy and the people’s right to elect candidates of their choice?” Kavanaugh questioned.
Colorado lawyer Jason Murray argued that the disqualification of Trump was justified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, Kavanaugh contended that it was Colorado’s position, rather than the events at the Capitol, that significantly disenfranchised voters.
“Shouldn’t this be a factor when interpreting Section 3? What about the fundamental principle of democracy?” Kavanaugh pressed.
“Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh told plaintiffs regarding their bid to keep former President Donald Trump off Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot. pic.twitter.com/Su3Kz4e6vj
Murray evaded Kavanaugh’s question and reiterated that Section 3, like other constitutional safeguards, was designed to protect democracy.
“The framers of Section 3 understood that those who had violated their oaths to the Constitution couldn’t be trusted with power again. They created a democratic safety valve,” Murray responded.
Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, explained to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that the events on January 6 did not meet the criteria for an insurrection under Section 3, thus Trump should not be barred from the ballot.
Justice Jackson: “So, your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?”
Jonathan Mitchell: ”We didn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either… this was a riot. It was not an insurrection.” pic.twitter.com/dq7gEX9au5
According to Murray, the only way Trump can remain eligible for office is if two-thirds of each congressional chamber remove his supposed disability under Section 3.
“This case highlights the danger of deviating from the original intent of Section 3. We’re here because President Trump attempted to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn’t require giving him another chance,” Murray argued.
As Trump’s lawyers have consistently stated, questioning the integrity of an election is protected by the First Amendment and not a crime.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University with a major in political science and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
How does the attack on the Capitol on January 6 impact the debate surrounding the disqualification of a candidate from the primary ballot?
3. He argued that the decision to disqualify Trump from the primary ballot was an overreach by the Colorado Supreme Court and undermined the democratic process.
In response, Justice Jackson questioned Mitchell about the severity and implications of the events on January 6. She pointed out that the attack on the Capitol was an unprecedented act of violence that threatened the very foundations of democracy.
Mitchell acknowledged the seriousness of the events but argued that the disqualification of Trump from the primary ballot was an excessive punishment that denied voters their right to choose.
The exchange between the justices and the lawyers highlighted the complex constitutional issues at stake in this case. On one hand, there is a strong argument for preserving democratic principles and protecting the rights of voters to choose their preferred candidates. On the other hand, there is a need to address and prevent future threats to democracy, especially ones as significant as the attack on the Capitol.
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the future of American democracy. If the Supreme Court overturns the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, it could set a precedent that limits the ability of states to disqualify candidates based on their actions or statements that undermine democratic values. On the other hand, upholding the decision could send a strong message that actions like inciting insurrection have severe consequences and should be taken into account when considering a candidate’s eligibility.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision will shape the boundaries of democracy and the extent to which states can regulate the participation of individuals in the political process. It will determine whether the principle of “one person, one vote” can withstand the challenges of a rapidly changing political landscape.
As the arguments concluded, Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson expressed their conflicting views on the matter, underscoring the deep divide within the Court and the broader society. It remains to be seen how the Court will ultimately rule and whether it will be able to strike a balance between upholding democratic principles and safeguarding against threats to the democratic process.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...