top of page
  • snitzoid

As Dershowitz predicted Trump's election goes to the US Supremes.

Back in Aug, Dershowitz suggested the Trump litigation was likely going to the US Supreme Court. Looks like he was correct (see link below for his analysis).

Do I think the Supremes will rule against Trump depriving the electorate of its ability to vote for the front-runner? Don't think so. Nixon did far worse stuff and Ford correctly pardoned him to preserve people's faith in our form of government and the office. The fallout from Trump's ballot removal is to my mind unthinkable. BTW...I pray the American public has the common sense to vote him off the Island. When the democratic process (voting) stops working we're in trouble.

BTW While I think Trump is unfit for office, I don't think his behavior was necessarily criminal (while necessarily it did render him an unfit candidate to my mind among other things).

Trump Disqualified From 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

State high court says GOP front-runner barred by 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding office

By Mariah Timms, WSJ

Updated Dec. 19, 2023

Donald Trump can’t appear on the 2024 presidential primary ballot in Colorado because of his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday.

The first-of-its kind decision sided with a group of Colorado voters who argued in a lawsuit that the Republican front-runner was disqualified under a clause in the 14th Amendment. Enacted after the Civil War, the provision disqualifies from public office those who swore to defend the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S.

“President Trump incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power,” the Colorado Supreme Court said in a 4-to-3 ruling.

The Colorado case to date has focused on the Republican primary but the court’s ruling would apply with equal force to the general election. The decision could force the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene quickly and resolve for the nation an issue that could destabilize the 2024 battle for the White House. While Colorado isn’t central to Trump’s electoral prospects, similar challenges have been filed in other states.

A spokesman for Trump called the ruling “completely flawed” and said the campaign would swiftly appeal to the nation’s highest court.

The high court is separately being asked to decide whether Trump has presidential immunity from prosecution for his actions on Jan. 6. The justices could say soon whether they will take up that question immediately or wait instead for a lower appeals court to consider it first. Trump is facing a federal trial on charges related to efforts to overturn the November 2020 election.

The Colorado court stayed the effect of its ruling until Jan. 4 to give the former president a chance to appeal. If Trump does so, it would likely keep him on the state primary ballot while legal proceedings continue.

The state plaintiffs alleged that Trump’s speeches, social-media posts and other statements in the run-up to Jan. 6 incited the riot, in which Trump supporters attempted to block Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential election.

Trump’s legal team has argued the challenge and others like it are an antidemocratic attempt to prevent voters from deciding the next occupant of the White House.

Former President Donald Trump is facing four separate indictments at both state and federal levels. WSJ breaks down each of the indictments and what they mean for his 2024 presidential campaign.

The former president didn’t win Colorado in 2016 or 2020. The ruling against him, however, could provide new momentum for challenges in more crucial states.

Trump had prevailed in a handful of early rulings in other states. In Minnesota last month, that state’s supreme court rejected a bid to keep Trump out of the primary, saying the Republican Party was free to put Trump on the primary ballot because that election served “internal party purposes.” A judge in Michigan ruled the issue was a political question that couldn’t be resolved by the courts, at least not until closer to the election.

In the Colorado case, a state district judge ruled last month that Trump engaged in insurrection but stopped short of blocking him from the ballot, saying she didn’t believe the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause applied to the presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court majority recognized that its ruling traveled “in uncharted territory” but said both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado’s legislature authorize state courts to assess potential presidential candidates’ qualifications.

“Were we to adopt President Trump’s view, Colorado could not exclude from the ballot even candidates who plainly do not satisfy the age, residency, and citizenship requirements,” the majority wrote in the unsigned opinion.

The court said it reviewed evidence from a week-long trial court hearing in the case, including the House’s Jan. 6 select committee’s final investigative report.

In dissent, other judges on the court argued the state’s election code was a faulty avenue for finding guilt of insurrection, an allegation for which Trump has never been criminally charged, and warned the ruling could violate his due process rights.

“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past—dare I say, engaged in insurrection—there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” Justice Carlos Samour wrote in one of the court’s three dissenting opinions.

All seven justices on the court were appointed by Democratic governors.

Left-leaning legal watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was part of the team representing the Colorado plaintiffs. The group’s president, Noah Bookbinder, said the decision “is not only historic and justified but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country. Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government.”

Colorado’s Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she was taking a hands-off approach to the litigation and would follow guidance from the courts. Her office is due to set the primary ballot on Jan. 5, ahead of the state’s March 5 primary election.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said the former president’s team was confident that the U.S. high court “will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”

“Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls,” Cheung said. “They have lost faith in the failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American voters from throwing them out of office next November.”

Former President Donald Trump ‘incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power,’ the Colorado Supreme Court said in a 4-to-3 ruling.

Other Republicans, including some of Trump’s rivals for the nomination, were quick to denounce the decision.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, said the ruling was “based on spurious legal grounds” and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse it. At a town hall in New Hampshire, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said it was “bad for the country” if courts instead of voters prevented Trump from being president again.

Vivek Ramaswamy declared he will withdraw from the Colorado ballot if Trump is left off and called on his fellow GOP candidates to do the same, “or else these Republicans are simply complicit in this unconstitutional attack on the way we conduct our constitutional republic.”

Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said the ruling amounted to election interference. “The Republican nominee will be decided by Republican voters, not a partisan state court,” McDaniel said on X.

The White House and the Biden campaign declined to comment on the ruling.

Since 2021, courts and state election boards have heard a number of 14th Amendment eligibility challenges brought against Republican congressional and local candidates related to Jan. 6. The cases gained little traction. One notable exception came in New Mexico, where a judge ousted Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin from office. A group of New Mexico residents alleged that Griffin, who was convicted of misdemeanor trespassing during the attack, helped incite the Jan. 6 mob, a charge he denied.

Alex Leary contributed to this article.

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page