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:
The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 8, 2024
...Most notable were the questions from Justice Jackson who seemed to push the idea that the president may not have been intended to be one of those covered by the provision.— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 8, 2024
It is clear SCOTUS' decision will not even be close.— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) February 8, 2024
And it will represent a TOTAL HUMILIATION to so many "legal experts" and "historians" who filed amicus briefs to defend Colorado's actions. pic.twitter.com/yDGR29KmWT
This is just a bloodbath.— Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 8, 2024
Justice Gorsuch spends two minutes slapping around Colorado's lawyer.
You almost gotta feel bad for the guy. pic.twitter.com/SYcFJLM1EA
SEE IT: Justice Clarence Thomas obliterates Colorado lawyer Jason Murray. Every time you use too many words to respond to a direct simple question, you're probably lying or trying too hard. Are you in love with her/him? Yes or No? Should be simple. WATCH pic.twitter.com/tciCaFyqpB— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) February 8, 2024
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.