Insights Gained from Colorado’s Effort to Remove Trump from the Ballot

Attorneys argued Trump v. Anderson today before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  The Court appeared quite concerned about Colorado’s unprecedented actions to remove President Trump from the ballot.  Amy Howe of the center-left SCOTUS blog admitted:

“The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared ready to hold that Colorado cannot exclude former President Donald Trump from the ballot based on his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. During an oral argument that lasted for more than two hours, justices of all ideological stripes questioned the wisdom of allowing a state to make its own decisions about whether a candidate should appear on the ballot, both because of the effect that such decisions would have on the rest of the country and because of the hurdles that courts would face in reviewing those decisions.”

A number of tweets from respected legal experts and reliable political reporters consistently found the same facts and sentiment:


Following this victory in the making, valuable insights can be considered:

  • First and Foremost, these Supreme Court Justices appear to be above the Fray – They put the nation and the law ahead of any personal negative feelings for President Trump and this sets them apart from most of the Washington D.C. establishment and elite.  Given this leadership from the top, judges in lower Federal courts may feel empowered to eliminate bias against President Trump.


  • The Court remains a strong defender of the Constitution and our way of life.  The anticipated major decision on Chevron Deference and the recent Sackett decision on wetlands are critical to reversing extraordinarily costly and harmful regulations and require courage in these divisive times.  


  • The anticipated Trump v. Anderson decision indicates that the Colorado Judges that found against President Trump’s right to be on the ballot were quite far afield; so much so that it gives credence to the term Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).  Their actions should be scrutinized.


  • The case of greatest parallel to the Colorado case is Joseph Fischer v. United States – where the Department of Justice went similarly outside the bounds and misinterpreted 1512(c).  The Fischer case has enormous implications for the treatment of future protesters and democracy just as Trump v. Anderson would have impacted future candidates.  Given these realities, we can expect SCOTUS will find against the DOJ in Fischer, and upon such an action, a number of the most serious charges against President Trump would also fall away.
Sign in to comment


Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments


Get latest news delivered daily!

We will send you breaking news right to your inbox

Copyright © 2024 Conservative - All Rights Reserved
Powered by