The Supreme Court Urged to Keep Donald Trump Off the Ballot
A former conservative federal appellate judge is urging the Supreme Court to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, arguing that the ex-president's attempt to cling to power after the 2020 election loss was broader than South Carolina's secession from the US that triggered the Civil War. The case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on February 8.
The Argument Against Trump's Candidacy
In a compelling and unprecedented legal move, a former conservative federal appellate judge has made a fervent plea to the US Supreme Court, urging the justices to bar Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for any future elections. This bold stance is based on the judge's assertion that Trump's post-election conduct was more far-reaching and consequential than the historic secession of South Carolina from the US, which led to the Civil War.
E. Jean Carroll appears on "CNN This Morning" on January 29, 2024.
According to J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Trump's efforts to prevent the newly-elected President Biden from governing across the entire United States were tantamount to inciting an armed insurrection against the Constitution's fundamental principles. This, in turn, disqualifies Trump under Section 3 of the Constitution, as argued in the friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court.
Luttig's stance is significant considering his conservative background, marking him as one of the most prominent figures to contend that Trump engaged in an insurrection following his election loss in 2020. The judge's pivotal role in the heated battle over the certification of the 2020 presidential election, where he provided legal support to then-Vice President Mike Pence, adds weight to his current stance against Trump's candidacy.
The Legal Battle and Supreme Court Review
The legal battle has escalated to the highest judicial level, with the US Supreme Court agreeing to review the unprecedented decision from the Colorado Supreme Court that removed Trump from the state's ballot. The state court's 4-3 ruling, citing the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding office, declared Trump constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 due to his conduct on January 6, 2021.
The upcoming oral arguments set for February 8 in Washington will be pivotal in determining the outcome of this historic case. The brief submitted to the Supreme Court on Monday, supported by several notable lawyers including conservative attorney George Conway, emphasizes the need for a textualist approach in examining the issue, particularly focusing on the words of the disputed constitutional provision.
The brief strongly rebuts Trump's argument that the enforcement of the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban' can only be carried out by Congress after a candidate is elected. Instead, it asserts that the enforcement of this provision falls within the purview of the courts, ensuring that voters can make informed decisions and avoid potential chaos during the transition of power.
Implications and Concluding Remarks
The implications of this legal battle are far-reaching, with the outcome holding significant consequences for the future of American politics and governance. The brief's argument underscores the critical importance of upholding the Constitution's principles, particularly in the aftermath of contentious elections and the peaceful transfer of power.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on this historic case, the nation awaits a decision that could reshape the landscape of political eligibility and accountability. The outcome of this legal battle will undoubtedly reverberate through the corridors of power and the consciousness of the American electorate.
