SCOTUS ruling on Trump ballot access undermines media’s legal ‘experts
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling on Trump’s Presidential Ballot
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a groundbreaking ruling on Monday, unanimously declaring that states lack the constitutional authority to remove former President Donald Trump from the presidential ballot. This decision puts to rest the opinions of so-called “legal experts” who argued otherwise.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s Initial Decision
In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Democrats could exclude Trump from the Centennial State’s 2024 primary ballot. Trump appealed this decision, leading to the case reaching the highest court in the land. Corporate media pundits spent months debating whether the Supreme Court had the power to override the will of voters and uphold the Colorado ruling.
Rachel Maddow reacts to Trump getting kicked off the Colorado ballot and where this is heading.
“If the Supreme Court were to affirm this ruling, he could be disqualified not just in Colorado but in multiple states. So, the stakes could not be higher.” pic.twitter.com/DhiXoL91JL
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) December 20, 2023
David French, a self-proclaimed “principled conservative,” argued in a New York Times opinion article that “The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong.” French’s viewpoint was echoed by various corporate media outlets, including The Atlantic, The New Republic, The Intelligencer, and MSNBC.
Legal Analysis and Support for the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision
Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe amplified an article from the New York Review, calling it a “devastating demonstration of how disgracefully dumb and anti-democratic the pundits’ case for keeping Trump on the ballot in democracy’s name truly is.” Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig praised Colorado’s move as a “masterful” interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Other notable figures, such as George Conway III, Brian Beutler, Tristan Snell, and Robert Reich, expressed support for the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing its legal soundness.
Reactions and Criticisms
Even after the Supreme Court’s ruling, supporters of the decision in blue states refused to concede defeat. They criticized the “final arbiter of the law” for not further aiding their efforts to undermine U.S. rule of law.
CNN “legal scholar” Norm Eisen suggested that because the Supreme Court did not explicitly challenge Trump’s classification as an insurrectionist, the case for disqualifying him from future public office remains alive.
" 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...