Key Takeaways From Supreme Court Arguments in Trump Ballot Case

Contact Your Elected Officials

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a pivotal case on Feb. 8 surrounding whether a state court could effectively remove presidential candidates from ballots over their alleged engagement in an insurrection.

The decision will likely be historic in that it could provide a new interpretation of a relatively untested area of law. Oral argument alone raised a series of important constitutional questions for the country while also indicating the justices’ inclinations on key legal issues.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the Feb. 8 hearing:

  1. Colorado Voters Who Brought The Lawsuit Face a Steep, Uphill Battle
  2. The Court Is Concerned About States Being Too Powerful in National Elections
  3. Events of Jan. 6 Seemingly Less Important Than Legal Questions Surrounding the Constitution’s Phrasing and Federalism
  4. The Court Faces ‘Very High Stakes’

1. Colorado Voters Who Brought The Lawsuit Face a Steep, Uphill Battle

Oral argument indicated it will be difficult for the Colorado voters challenging former President Trump to get a Supreme Court ruling in their favor. The justices’ comments suggested that they thought many important legal hurdles had to be cleared for the court to uphold Colorado’s ballot disqualification.

Although their questions tended to focus on the balance between state and federal power, they cast doubt on numerous aspects of the voters’ case. That included whether President Trump was “an officer of the United States” under Section 3, whether he received adequate due process, how practical a ruling empowering states would be, and if the voters’ arguments conflicted with other aspects of the Constitution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed most sympathetic to the Colorado Supreme Court ruling. She told Jonathan Mitchell, who represented President Trump, that “there’s a whole lot of examples of states relying on Section 3 to disqualify insurrectionists for state offices, and you’re basically telling us that you want us to go two steps further … You want us to say that self-execution doesn’t mean what it generally means.”

“Self-execution” refers to the idea that courts can enforce Section 3 without prior guidance from Congress.

“You want us now to say it means that Congress must permit states or require states to stop insurrectionists from taking state office … and so this is a complete preemption in a way that’s very rare, isn’t it?”

While Mr. Mitchell faced pointed questions from other justices, the court’s skepticism seemed to be heavier in response to Mr. Murray.

Multiple times during questioning the justices appeared doubtful in response to arguments advanced by him. For example, Justice Ketanji-Brown Jackson seemed incredulous when asking Mr. Murray about ambiguity in Section 3: “So let me just say so your point is that there’s no ambiguity with—with having a list and not having ‘president’ in it, with having a history that suggests that they were focused on local concerns in the south, with this conversation where the legislators actually discussed what looked like an ambiguity, you’re saying there is no ambiguity in Section 3?”

Justice Jackson also said what was “really … troubling” to her was that Section 3 listed several types of officials who could be disqualified, but not the president. Several justices—Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—suggested that Mr. Murray wasn’t responding to their questions.

“I’m not going to say it again, so just try and answer the question,” Justice Gorsuch said, seemingly frustrated. He had been asking Mr. Murray whether a lower-level federal official would be justified in disobeying President Trump during his remaining time in office after Jan. 6, 2021. Mr. Murray’s position was that President Trump had disqualified himself on that day, but that some kind of procedure was needed to validate that disqualification.

By Sam Dorman

Read Full Article on TheEpochTimes.com

Read Supreme Court Argument Transcript

The Epoch Times
The Epoch Timeshttps://www.theepochtimes.com/
Tired of biased news? The Epoch Times is truthful, factual news that other media outlets don't report. No spin. No agenda. Just honest journalism like it used to be.

Kamala, Please Run Again

Kamala Harris hinted she wants to run for President in 2028, despite poor poll numbers and her loss in 2024. If she runs, the big winners will be the GOP.

Rosie O’Donnell vs. Her Therapist

Rosie O’Donnell's therapist attempted to artfully introduce to her client to the possibility that Rosie's outrage might be performative. It didn’t take.

Hamas’s Stubborn Grip on Arms Signals No Desire for Genuine Peace

Hamas’s rhetoric reflects its founding ideology, prioritizing armed resistance over civilian welfare or diplomatic progress.

Off the radar

In the longstanding and brutal ledger of religious persecution, Nigeria now occupies its own grim chapter with its enduring pogrom against Christians.

The New Jackboots? A Wake-Up Call on Antifa and Fascism

An analysis of whether Antifa truly opposes fascism by comparing its tactics and behavior to historical signs and movements of fascist regimes.

Louisiana GOP State Lawmaker Announces Run Against Incumbent U.S. Senator

Louisiana Rep. Julie Emerson launches a campaign against Sen. Bill Cassidy, entering the state’s first Republican primary race in 50 years.

Trump Says His MRI Test Performed at Walter Reed Was ‘Perfect’

“I did,” Trump confirmed. “I got an MRI. It was perfect. I gave you the full results. We had an MRI, in the machine … the whole thing.”

Fox News to Air First TV Interview With Erika Kirk Following Husband’s Assassination

Erika Kirk, new CEO of Turning Point USA, will give her first TV interview next month, two months after the assassination of her husband, Charlie Kirk.

Judge Rules Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect Can Wear Civilian Clothes in Pretrial Hearings

A judge ruled on Oct. 27 that the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk last month can appear in civilian clothing during all pre-trial hearings.

Trump Hikes Canada’s Tariffs by 10 Percent for Not Pulling Anti-Tariff Ad Immediately

Trump announced he will increase tariffs on Canada by 10% after ad by provincial government of Ontario misrepresented President Reagan’s speech on tariffs.

Trump Rolls Back Emissions Rules on Copper Smelters

President Trump issued a proclamation aimed at reversing a Biden-era environmental rule that enforced stricter air emission standards on copper smelters.

Donor Gives $130 Million to Cover Shortfall in Troop Pay During Shutdown

Trump announced on Oct. 23 that an anonymous donor sent $130M to cover military pay during the ongoing government shutdown.

‘Frustration’ With Canada Led to Trump Scrapping Talks, Not Just Ontario’s Ad: US Official

President Trump cited Ontario’s TV ad as the reason for halting Canada trade talks, but officials say it stems from rising U.S. frustration with Ottawa.
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

MAGA Business Central