Justice Thomas Speaks Up, Puts Anti-Trump Lawyer On the Spot

Anti-Trump Lawyer GRILLED - SCOTUS Unleashed!


The Colorado Supreme Court has determined that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the primary ballot. Following oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, along with the majority of his fellow justices, expressed skepticism regarding the case.

During the proceedings on February 8, Jason Murray, serving as Colorado’s legal representative, advocated for the court to affirm the state’s decision regarding Trump’s eligibility for the ballot. Murray contended that Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, constituted a violation of Section Three of the 14th Amendment. However, the justices appeared hesitant to accept the state’s authority to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot.

Justice Thomas requested the attorney to furnish instances of states disqualifying national candidates, yet Murray was unable to provide any such examples. Instead, Murray asserted that states possess the authority to administer elections. Thomas remained unconvinced and highlighted that individuals associated with the Confederacy were still participating in elections, suggesting that there should be some instances of national candidates being disqualified if such actions were permissible.

Murray asserted that Congress had indeed disqualified national candidates in the past, but the justice promptly refuted this claim, stating it was inaccurate. Thomas was not alone in his skepticism; the majority of justices shared the sentiment that the state should not be involved in determining a presidential candidate’s eligibility for a state ballot under the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted that the essence of the amendment was to limit the authority of the states after the Civil War and to ensure their compliance. He expressed doubt that the states, particularly those associated with the Confederacy, would have been granted the authority to oversee the presidential election process. Additionally, he anticipated that affirming the Colorado decision could enable partisan individuals at the state level to remove their party’s rivals from the ballots, potentially leading to electoral disorder.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s three liberal justices, seemed skeptical of Murray’s argument as well. She questioned why the framers of the 14th Amendment would establish a framework allowing states to abruptly disqualify candidates when elections were already underway.

A decision on the case is anticipated within the next few weeks.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here