Favorable time for Trump and his attorneys.

Spread the love

It appears that the Supreme Court is prepared to grant Donald Trump his first significant legal triumph of the campaign season.

The justices indicated that they were likely to reverse a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that removed Trump from the state’s presidential ballot under a 157-year-old provision of the 14th Amendment, following more than two hours of argument today.

Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, made two main points that the justices agreed with in order to overturn the lower court’s decision. The first was that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that insurrectionists can not run for office, was not “self-executing” and needed a separate act from Congress to be put into effect. The second was that the provision did not apply to presidents.

RELATED VIDEO YOU MIGHT LIKE TO WATCH : 

Notably, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, two of the three liberal justices on the court, concurred with their conservative counterparts in expressing skepticism regarding Colorado’s ruling.

Justice Kagan voiced apprehension that permitting the removal of Trump from the Colorado ballot might establish a precedent wherein specific states are granted “extraordinary” authority to influence national elections.

As noted by Justice Jackson, the phrase “president” was not expressly included in the list of offices that could be disqualified for participating in insurrection within the text of the amendment.

She argued that the original intent of the amendment was not to prohibit Southern rebels from running for president but rather to prevent them from utilizing their popularity in their home states to pursue local office and reestablish themselves in power by running for Congress.

Favorable time for Trump and his attorneys.
a favorable time for Trump and his attorneys.

 

Trump has vehemently opposed efforts by multiple states to disqualify him from the electoral roll, labeling such actions as endeavors to manipulate the election in his favor. Furthermore, some justices expressed concern audibly during the hearing that if the Colorado ruling stood, it could spark a greater disorder that threatens the integrity of American democracy.

For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts foresaw the “daunting consequence” that other states might attempt to remove Democratic candidates in retaliation for the removal of Trump from the ballot. Justice Samuel Alito reaffirmed these concerns by stating that the Colorado decision might have “unmanageable consequences.”

However, the Colorado voters’ attorney who sought to disqualify Trump from the race, Jason Murray, stated that acts of insurrection—such as the one he attributed to Trump at the Capitol on January 6, 2021—were “extraordinary” and “rare” to the extent that he could not conceive of a wave of partisan 14th Amendment challenges.

In addition, Murray rejected Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s claim that excluding Trump from the ballot would be detrimental to democracy by effectively disenfranchising those who desired to vote for him.

Murray countered, “We are here because President Trump attempted to disenfranchise eighty million Americans who cast their ballots against him, despite the fact that the Constitution does not mandate that he be granted another opportunity.”

The justices discussed the case in a remarkably short amount of time, but they gave no indication of when they might make a decision. A stay of its ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court is pending the outcome of a higher court decision; therefore, Trump’s name continues to appear on the ballot for the March 5 primary in the state.

The repercussions of the verdict are anticipated to extend well beyond Colorado, as Trump’s eligibility for the ballot has been contested in a minimum of 35 states.

Favorable time for Trump and his attorneys.
a favorable time for Trump and his attorneys.
Immunity assertion

The discussions pertaining to the 14th Amendment transpired in the days leading up to a potentially pivotal case before the Supreme Court concerning Trump: whether or not to review his petitions for immunity from prosecution on charges of attempting to rig the 2020 election.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington rejected those accusations and stated that “citizen Trump,” as the judges referred to him, was equally subject to federal criminal law as any other American.

The panel, in reaching its verdict, implemented a measure intended to limit Trump’s capacity to extend his appeal regarding the issue of immunity. Trump has consistently utilized this strategy to postpone his trial for election interference until after the upcoming autumn election.

The panel granted Trump until Monday to petition the Supreme Court for an extension of the suspension that has been in effect since December regarding the underlying case. In the event that he and his attorneys neglect to do so, or if they elect to pursue an intermediate review by the full appeals court, the case will be remanded to Tanya Chutkan, the trial judge.

Judge Chutkan, who has demonstrated a clear inclination to expedite the case to trial, would subsequently possess the authority to recommence all proceedings and filing deadlines that have been postponed for several weeks.

The panel’s action was evidently calculated to persuade Trump to appeal his immunity directly to the Supreme Court, thereby positioning the court for a landmark decision. The timetable for Trump’s trial on the election subversion charges, which could begin this spring or continue until next year, post-election, is contingent on the court’s decision to consider the case and the speed at which it is resolved.

Favorable time for Trump and his attorneys.
a favorable time for Trump and his attorneys.
Your inquiries

We are inquiring whether readers are interested in learning more about the charges, procedure, key actors, or any other aspect of the Trump cases. We can receive your inquiry through the completion of this form.

What occurs if Trump is elected president despite losing one or more cases? Will he be capable of forgiving himself, and if so, what are the consequences? — Sweden, Magnus Liedholm, Stockholm

Alan: Should Trump be elected president, he may attempt to exonerate himself from a conviction in either of the two federal cases he is confronting. However, it is worth noting that the concept of a presidential self-pardon has not been previously implemented and is expected to face legal challenges.

Trump would be precluded from seeking a pardon for the guilty verdicts he received in the two states’ cases. Nevertheless, certain constitutional principles may prohibit local prosecutors from further prosecuting a sitting president on criminal charges.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE : A rare occurrence in the realm of American politics, Joe Biden has just taken a stand against the oil business.


Spread the love