Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Ballot Disqualification Case

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media while attending his trial in New York State Supreme Court in New York City on Dec. 7, 2023. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

 

The U.S. Supreme Court accepted a petition for immediate review regarding a Colorado Supreme Court decision to strike former President Donald Trump from the 2024A presidential ballot.

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted,” reads the procedural order.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 8.

Petitioners’ and amicus briefs are due by Jan. 18, and respondents’ and amicus briefs are due by Jan. 31, with any reply briefs due by Feb. 5.

The Colorado Supreme Court had disqualified President Trump as a candidate on Dec. 19 in an order that left little chance for the actual removal of his name from the ballot.

On Dec. 27, the Colorado GOP filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking three separate questions regarding the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and political parties’ First Amendment rights to primary their candidate of choice.

On Jan. 3, President Trump filed a separate petition with a simpler question: Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in its ruling?

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up President Trump’s petition, and has yet to accept to reject the Colorado GOP’s petition.

‘Chaos’

Colorado was the first state to disqualify President Trump, and the first state to hold hearings regarding the merits of a Section 3 challenge at all.

The legal theory that President Trump can be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment rests on the premise that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, constituted an insurrection, and that President Trump actively participated in or instigated it. It also assumes that individual state courts at various levels have the authority to adjudicate the eligibility of a presidential candidate under Section 3.

There have been at least 60 of these challenges across the country in recent months, according to President Trump’s attorneys.

However, the majority of these challenges have been dismissed for a wide range of reasons, with several courts citing lack of jurisdiction.

Officials and some judges have argued that if individual state courts were meant to be able to rule if a presidential candidate engaged in insurrection and whether that affected his eligibility, it could result in “chaos,” with upwards of 50 different rulings.

In several amicus briefs filed with both the Colorado GOP and Trump petitions, experts and concerned voters argued much the same.

The Colorado decision has already created a ripple effect, with legislators in other states calling for disqualifications of President Trump as a candidate on their own ballots, as well as other states calling for the disqualification of President Joe Biden from state primaries in retaliation.

Soon after the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows similarly disqualified President Trump as a candidate in a decision phrased as having little chance of actually removing him from the ballot. That decision is being appealed in state court, and marks the third jurisdiction that has found that President Trump engaged in an insurrection—without him, or any Jan. 6 defendant, having been charged with such.

The lawsuits and wide range of rulings have raised a host of legal questions: Does the Constitution allow states to define “insurrection” individually? Does Congress hold sole authority over disqualifying candidates under Section 3? Does the disqualification from holding office allow states to prohibit candidates from running in primary elections, or can a candidate be disqualified or exempted via a vote by Congress as late as Inauguration Day?

As such, several amicus brief authors have requested the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicate more than what the appellants have asked, including to hold a full hearing on the merits of the case.

A group of 45 Colorado voters had filed an amicus brief on the Colorado GOP petition, urging the Supreme Court to do more than merely reverse the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.

Such a ruling “would solve nothing and actually makes matters worse,” they wrote. “The Colorado court has unleashed harms which will creep beyond Colorado’s borders.”

As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases
-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
anon a moos
anon a moos
January 6, 2024 9:06 am

More really bad theatre

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  anon a moos
January 6, 2024 11:23 am

I think they’re serious. It’s a serious battle to preclude any chance that he regain the presidency. What I don’t understand is why they are bothering. His first term suggests that all he would do is appoint a bunch of foxes to guard the hen house, and even if he tried to do anything significant like close foreign bases or put a stop to the never-ending coup and color revolution racket, they would just ignore him like when he ordered all troops out of Syria. A second Trump term would almost certainly just mean a slight delay in the implementation of globalist control measures. A delay is better than no delay, but not by much. TPTB must be real impatient. That pending World Health Organization treaty is probably a big part of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-PL-KG_TR8

Greg
Greg
  Iska Waran
January 6, 2024 4:04 pm

Trump wins in a massive landslide victory then everybody gets to figure out if a right boot is better on your neck than a left boot is.

Tex
Tex
  Iska Waran
January 6, 2024 11:54 pm

How so a “slight delay”? The idiot spoke at the WEF last go ’round.

Ed
Ed
  Tex
January 7, 2024 11:23 am

I don’t know why the democrats should be worried. Trump would probably keep most of Biden’s cabinet and all of his other appointees.

Tex
Tex
  Ed
January 16, 2024 10:46 am

Point well taken. Of course many TrumpRetreads in total DENIAL. SMDH. I look forward to Jared and Ivanka “running” the damn country too.

k31
k31
January 6, 2024 7:08 pm

Legal questions? This is the narrative being smuggled in here. This is blatant lawlessness, not questions of legality. This is a fucking coup, not a “legal theory”(notice how that phrase was recently smuggled in as a neologism). And I am not even talking about the fake election.

Tex
Tex
January 7, 2024 12:00 am

The Colorado decision has already created a ripple effect, with legislators in other states calling for disqualifications of President Trump as a candidate on their own ballots, as well as other states calling for the disqualification of President Joe Biden from state primaries in retaliation.

And the country mesmerized by clown acts and lunatics all.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Tex
January 7, 2024 12:07 am

TDS

Tex
Tex
  Anonymous
January 16, 2024 10:48 am

Trump Defensive Sickness.

Any questions?