Listen to the audio version of the article
After almost an hour and a half, the US Supreme Court concluded the hearing in which it heard the arguments of the parties for and against the eligibility of Donald Trump after the Colorado Supreme Court excluded him from the state vote for his role in the assault on the Chapter under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The majority of judges, not just conservative ones, appeared inclined to reject the ban.
The January 6 protest at the Capitol was “peaceful and patriotic”, said Donald Trump speaking from Mar-a-Lago after the Supreme Court hearing on his eligibility, where his lawyer had instead defined that protest as “a riot”, a “shameful, criminal and violent” event but “not an insurrection”.
The 14th Amendment
Doubt and skepticism prevail among the nine Supreme Court justices over arguments against Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment, introduced in 1868 to prevent any civilian or military official who had served in the United States before the Civil War from regaining positions of authority. authority if he had betrayed his country by supporting the Southern Confederacy. This can be seen from their questions and comments. One above all was President John Roberts, who made it clear that he did not share the conclusion that the 14th Amendment was intended to allow states to determine whether a candidate was an unelectable insurrectionist. “The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to limit state power, right?” he said to the lawyer representing some Colorado voters. “Yours is a position that flies in the face of the entire thrust of the 14th Amendment,” he added, noting that such a position would give former Confederate states the power to assess whether a candidate could be disqualified from holding federal office.
The judges perplexed
The amendment was passed to limit states’ rights and empower the federal government, Roberts continued, and this is “the last place one should look for authority for the states, including the Confederate states, to implement the presidential electoral process”. Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed this by reinforcing the point in a series of questions that challenged the Colorado plaintiffs’ argument. The skepticism of Roberts and Kavanaugh is not a good sign for the challengers, because they are the two conservative judges considered most “contestable” to overturn the right-wing majority of the court. Justice Elena Kagan went on to suggest that it would be “extraordinary” for a single state to effectively influence the entire nation’s presidential elections.