Donald Trump completely blindsided by what the Supreme Court just did for him

Former President Donald Trump is relying on a big win in the courts. He may get just that.

Because Donald Trump was completely blindsided by what the Supreme Court’s doing for him.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan posed a challenging inquiry on Thursday to the Colorado lawyer advocating for the removal of former President Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In a 4-3 ruling in December, Colorado had decided to exclude Trump from the state’s ballot for the 2024 election based on the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, often referred to as the “insurrectionist” clause. Kagan delved into the matter, questioning attorney Jason Murray, who represented Norma Anderson & Group of Colorado voters, on the implications of allowing a single state to dictate the eligibility of a national candidate for the presidency.

Expressing her concerns, Kagan highlighted the significant national ramifications of such a decision. She emphasized the overarching question of why a state should wield the authority to determine who can run for president, pointing out the inherently national scope of the issue. Kagan challenged the notion of granting a single state the power to influence the presidential election, suggesting that the enforcement of such provisions should entail federal or national mechanisms.

“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,” Kagan surprisingly asked.

“In other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again… Just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means,” Kagan continued.

“If you weren’t from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan, and … what the Michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between whether candidate A is elected or candidate B is elected, that seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it?” the liberal justice added.

“No, Your Honor,” the anti-Trump lawyer responded. “Because ultimately it’s this Court that’s going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.”

The justice further probed the matter by presenting a hypothetical scenario, questioning the extraordinary nature of a state’s decision potentially altering the outcome of a presidential election.

She underscored the gravity of the situation, particularly in cases where the actions of one state official could sway the results on a national scale. Kagan sought clarification on the rationale behind granting such decisive authority to individual states, thereby impacting not only their own citizens but the entire nation.

In response to Kagan’s inquiries, Murray contested the characterization of the situation, asserting that the ultimate decision on federal constitutional eligibility rests with the Court itself.

He emphasized the Court’s pivotal role in settling matters of national significance, including questions of presidential candidacy. However, Kagan pressed further, questioning the underlying principle behind granting a single state the prerogative to determine presidential eligibility for the entire nation.

Murray cited Section II of the 14th Amendment, which grants states the right to appoint their own electors, as the basis for state authority in this matter. Despite this assertion, Kagan continued to challenge the notion, seeking a deeper understanding of why such a rule should govern.

The exchange underscored the complex interplay between state and federal authority in matters of national importance, prompting critical examination of constitutional principles and their practical implications.

A ruling on the matter is expected within the next two weeks.

The most recent surveys of legal experts suggest Donald Trump will likely not face a disfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court Justices, especially not when you consider these comments from Justice Kagan.

Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.

Email Newsletter

Sign Up for our Newsletter

Enter your best address below to receive the latest cartoons and breaking news in your email inbox:
Please wait...
You are successfully subscribed!
There was an error with subscription attempt.