On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in a landmark case questioning his eligibility to pursue the Republican presidential nomination in Colorado. The case centered around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, a clause that the state and others attempted to use to remove him from the ballot by claiming that it disqualified Trump because he was an “insurrectionist.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision ensures that Donald Trump will remain on the ballot as the Republican presidential nominee in all 50 states. This effectively ends the constitutional challenge against his candidacy, which had been championed by conservative legal scholars and supported by some Democrats.
Trump wasted no time celebrating the ruling, taking to his social media platform to declare it a big win for the country, stating, “It was a very important decision, very well-crafted. And I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together.”
Well, not exactly, Mr. Trump.
The left is in shambles now that another one of their cleverly crafted strategies to remove the GOP frontrunner has imploded, especially before voters in Colorado and across the nation take to the polls for Super Tuesday, one of the most important landmarks in both Democratic and Republican primaries. The stakes couldn’t be higher – for Republicans, 884 delegates (approximately 36% of all delegates) are up for grabs, while for Democrats, 1420 (also 36%) of delegates will help shape the 2024 election.
Some legal scholars expected the case to fall apart based mainly on Section 3’s wording, describing “officers” who engaged in insurrection as ineligible to hold “appointed” positions. And that, it turns out, was a critical factor in the court’s decision.
The court’s ruling, which affirmed that Congress alone possesses the authority to enforce the provisions outlined in Section 5 of the amendment, stipulated that this decision would have nationwide applicability for federal offices.
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the SCOTUS decision read, “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”
Cue the bitter tears from the left, who counted on their ability to rewrite the Constitution to ensure their chosen, if slightly brain-addled and physically diminished, warrior would ascend unchallenged to continue the destruction he started in his first four years of the presidency.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold insists that her state should be able to decide who qualifies regarding presidential candidates. “I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates,” she said in response to the ruling. “Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists from our ballot.”
One would be forgiven for thinking that because the decision was unanimous, the left would go a little easier on SCOTUS, especially the women they put on the bench, but that is not the liberal way. Keith Olbermann ranted that liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor had difficulties with “reading comprehension.”
Noah Bookbinder, President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose organization aided Colorado voters in pursuing the case against Trump, insisted that the Supreme Court’s decision did not exonerate Trump. Although the court permitted Donald Trump’s return to the ballot based on technical legal grounds, this outcome should not be construed as a victory for Trump. He notes that the Supreme Court had the “opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump,” but they chose not to.
The biggest flaw in this view is that it wasn’t up to SCOTUS to hear that part of the case. They only needed to decide if Trump could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. And, per a unanimous SCOTUS decision, he cannot.
Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) is crafting legislation in response to the ruling. Acknowledging the court’s decision, Raskin is revising a bill he introduced in 2022 to empower the Justice Department to prevent such candidates from appearing on the ballot. With many Democrats discussing a plan to withhold certification of the 2024 election results if Trump wins, it’s legislation that may backfire on liberals already planning a January 6-style insurrection of their own in January 2025.
As liberals digest the failure of what they thought was an open-and-shut case to remove Trump from the ballots, the tears will flow. After all, they repeated the term “insurrectionist” enough that they thought it would stick. But calling Trump an “insurrectionist” won’t make it true, any more than calling Joe Biden a “fit” candidate for a second term makes it true.
