Possible Trump ballot decision on Monday: Supreme Court drops hints
The Supreme Court Teases Decision on Trump’s Ballot Eligibility
The Supreme Court is expected to release a ruling on former President Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility as soon as Monday, but the high court appears to have already teased some aspects of the pivotal decision.
The case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump was ineligible to run for president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the insurrectionist clause. How the court decides to address the question of Trump’s ballot access will have ramifications in several other states, including Maine and Illinois.
As the country eagerly awaits the justices’ verdict on states’ ability to remove candidates from federal office ballots, there are a few intriguing signs that suggest Trump is likely to appear on ballots this year.
Expedited Timeline
The Supreme Court typically takes months to handle a case and issue a decision, unless urgent action is required. However, in the case of Trump’s eligibility, the high court has moved swiftly. After the former president appealed the Colorado court’s December decision, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in January, held oral arguments in February, and could now issue a decision in March.
The court announced on Sunday that it would release at least one opinion on Monday, although the justices would not be present. While the court has not disclosed which case(s) the opinions will pertain to, it seems probable that the Trump case will be among them.
The Supreme Court will issue its opinion(s) less than 24 hours before polls open for the presidential primary on Super Tuesday in Maine and Colorado. Both states have allowed Trump on the ballot as he appeals the question of his eligibility. However, some parties, such as the Colorado GOP, have urged the high court to decide on the case before Super Tuesday.
Supreme Skepticism During Oral Arguments
Based on the oral arguments before the court on Feb. 8, it appears likely that Trump will avoid being removed from the ballot. However, the specific ruling and margin of decision remain to be seen.
The justices expressed skepticism towards the side seeking to disqualify Trump from the ballot. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned who determines what constitutes an “insurrection” that warrants disqualification under the 14th Amendment.
“What if in another case where that wasn’t a procedure that was filed, somebody — maybe they’ve got a stack of papers saying, ‘Here’s why I think this person is guilty of insurrection,'” Roberts asked during the oral arguments.
Justice Clarence Thomas also inquired about precedent for a state disqualifying a federal office under the constitutional clause, challenging the lawyers representing the Colorado voters seeking to disqualify Trump.
Bipartisan Blowback
Justices questioning Colorado’s argument did not align solely with one ideological side. Democratic-appointed Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan shared concerns about the potential problems of allowing states to remove Trump or any other candidate, just as their Republican-appointed counterparts did.
Jackson, in particular, questioned whether Trump, as a former president, qualifies as an “officer of the United States” as outlined in Section 3.
“Why didn’t [the framers] put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in Section 3?” Jackson asked on Feb. 8. “The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there.”
Kagan appeared uneasy with the idea of one state having the power to influence a nationwide contest.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Supreme Court’s decision will play a crucial role in shaping the 2024 election, as Trump and President Joe Biden seem to be heading towards a rematch of the 2020 general election.
How could the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s ballot eligibility impact future presidential candidates and states’ power in determining eligibility
Is still unclear.
During the arguments, the justices expressed skepticism towards the interpretation of the insurrectionist clause. Some justices questioned whether the clause should be applied to a former president, while others raised concerns about the potential implications of removing a candidate from the ballot based on interpretation of a state court ruling.
Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, pointed out that the interpretation of the insurrectionist clause could lead to a situation where states could remove any candidate from the ballot based on their own interpretation of a federal provision. This raised concerns about the potential abuse of power by states in determining ballot eligibility.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also questioned the reasoning behind the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that it seemed to be based on a “broader interpretation” of the insurrectionist clause rather than a narrow interpretation. This suggests that Kavanaugh may lean towards a more limited interpretation of the clause, which could favor Trump’s eligibility.
Overall, the skepticism expressed by the justices during oral arguments indicates that the Supreme Court may be inclined to allow Trump to remain on the ballot. However, it is important to note that oral arguments do not always accurately predict the court’s final decision.
Potential Ramifications
The Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s ballot eligibility will have significant ramifications, not only for Trump’s political future but also for other states facing similar questions.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump, it would establish a precedent that could protect future presidential candidates from removal from the ballot based on state court rulings that interpret federal provisions. This could potentially prevent the abuse of power by states in manipulating ballot eligibility.
On the other hand, if the court upholds the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and removes Trump from the ballot, it would set a precedent that could be used to restrict the eligibility of future candidates based on state interpretations of federal provisions. This could give states significant power in determining who is eligible to run for federal office.
Additionally, the court’s decision will have immediate implications for the upcoming presidential primaries in Maine and Colorado. If Trump is removed from the ballot, it could significantly impact the primaries’ outcomes and potentially change the course of the presidential election.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s impending decision on Trump’s ballot eligibility carries significant implications for the former president’s political future and the wider issue of states’ power in determining ballot access. While signs suggest that Trump is likely to appear on ballots this year, the specific ruling and its potential ramifications remain uncertain. As the country anxiously awaits the court’s decision, the outcome will undoubtedly shape the political landscape for the upcoming presidential election and beyond.
" 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...