Even the liberal justices seem to agree that Colorado’s Supreme Court went too far in removing Trump from the ballot. How will the court rule on this critical issue?

From Breitbart. Former President Donald Trump appears to be headed for a massive victory at the Supreme Court on the Colorado case over his eligibility to be the on the 2024 ballot, after the beating the lawyers against him received Thursday from the justices.

View Comments (23)

Visit your state page to pray.

The liberal Colorado Supreme Court sided with Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold by a 4-3 vote, holding that Trump engaged in insurrection and that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment thus disqualified him from running for president in 2024. …

It appears clear that Trump is about to win big, likely either 8-1 or even a unanimous 9-0 decision. …

One point several justices appeared to agree with is that the president is not an officer of the United States. That term instead refers to federal officers appointed by a president, not the president himself. …

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the lawyer representing the Colorado voters seeking to disqualify Trump what historical examples they could point to about state officials or state courts declaring national candidates ineligible on the ballot. That lawyer, Jason Murray, had none.

“I’d like to sort of look at Justice Thomas’s question sort of from the 30,000-foot level. I mean, the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to restrict state power, right?,” Chief Justice John Roberts said as a follow-up, listing various protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. “States shall not abridge [citizens’] immunity, they won’t deprive people of property without due process, they won’t deny equal protection. And on the other hand, it augmented federal power under Section 5. Congress has the power to enforce [the Amendment through legislation].”

Murray later argued the point that states have the power to disqualify presidential candidates and that the Supreme Court need not be concerned about setting a dangerous precedent because this provision has gone virtually unused for 155 years.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have none of it. Referencing a court decision from the year after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1868, Kavanaugh pushed back:

On your point it that it’s been dormant for 155 years, I think the other side would say the reason for that is Chief Justice Chase’s opinion in 1869 in Griffin’s Case to start, which says that Congress has the authority here, not the states. … I think the reason it’s been dormant is because there’s been a settled understanding that Chief Justice Chase … was essentially right, and the branches of the government have acted under that settled understanding for 155 years. … And Congress does have [18 U.S.C. § 2383], of course, the Insurrection Act, a criminal statute. But Congress could change it, but they have not, in the 155 years, in relevant respects for what you want here today, at least. …

For her part, Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about adopting a view of the Constitution that might allow a single state to determine the outcome of a presidential election. As she explained her concern:

But maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. …

Justice Neil Gorsuch drilled down on other problems with the arguments made by Colorado and Democrats, specifically the argument that Section 3 is “self-executing” on such a level that it immediately takes effect when triggering events occur. If that were true, Gorsuch said, then Trump was no longer the commander-in-chief for his last two weeks in office after January 6, 2021, and none of his actions had legal authority. …

Some were surprised when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern over the point that the office of president is not named among the various positions like senator or representative that are listed as positions from which a person is disqualified if they engaged in insurrection. …

As Jackson put it:

But then why didn’t they put the word “president” in the very enumerated list in Section 3? 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. …

For her part, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concern about the lack of due process in the proceedings that declared Trump invalid. Of all nine justices, only Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not offer a hint of which way she was leaning.

If this victory is as lopsided as Thursday’s argument would suggest, it presents an interesting question for Chief Justice Roberts. The senior justice in the majority assigns who writes the court’s opinion, and the chief is the most senior member of the court. …

[If] he assigns it to a liberal justice in the majority … it would completely shut the door on attempts to characterize this decision as any sort of partisan or ideological decision, satisfying all but the most wide-eyed activists on the Far Left. …

The case is Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court’s ruling here could greatly impact the presidential race in 2024, as well as future presidential elections. Share this article to encourage people to pray for our justices.

(Excerpt from Breitbart. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America – This file has been extracted from another file, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)