[[{“value”:”All nine Justices of the Supreme Court expressed some degree of skepticism regarding the court’s decision to remove Trump from the national ballot in 2024 while listening to more than two hours of oral arguments.
The side of the court that leaned liberally was no exception.
Justice Elena Kagan criticized one state in particular for having this kind of influence over other states.
The question that you have to confront is why a second state should decide who gets to be President of the United States, according to Justice Kagan’s best Supreme Court quotation from just then. pic. twitter.com/ftN4tNV7sG
— February 8, 2024, Simon Ateba ( @simonateb)
Kagan was n’t the only liberal Justice who was upset with Colorado’s decision-making process.
Joe Biden nominee Justice Kenji Brown expressed worry as well.
According to The Washington Post:
Justice Elena Kagan expressed reluctance, saying that the decision of one state might decide the matter for others. Why should a second state be able to decide this for the entire country as well as its own citizens? She enquired.
A fundamental tenet of British politics was challenged: only a small number of swing states choose who will win the presidency. Also if a candidate is still on the ballot in another state, knocking them off in one or two crucial states could prevent them from running for office.
That certainly seems extraordinary, does n’t it? Jason Murray, the lawyer for the Colorado voters who brought the case, was questioned by Kagan.
Although Section 3 prohibits insurrectionists from running for president, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson makes no mention of presidents. She suggested that more than focusing on federal figures, those who wrote Section 3 might have done so with local and state officials.
She said,” The thing that really bothers me is that they were listing people who were barred and the president is not there.” I suppose that just raises the possibility that they were n’t paying attention to the president.
CNN went into more detail about the criticism leveled at SCOTUS Justices:
Some justices from across the intellectual spectrum expressed their worries about the Colorado voting process that led to Trump’s exclusion from the race.
Sharp remarks made by Kagan and Kavanaugh on this subject were consistent with the court’s general unease, which was evident from their questioning, and the possibility that various states might resolve this important regional issue by using a confusing variety of different procedures.
According to the Colorado election code, which governs how ballot access disputes are decided in court, the voters who contested Trump’s eligibility filed a lawsuit. More often than not, these disagreements center on straightforward issues like residency or age requirements rather than intricate legal issues involving uprisings.
Kagan told Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, who is the state’s top election official, that it is simply more challenging, contentious, and, if you want, more political.
Trump just responded to the SCOTUS hearing by describing it as a “beautiful process.”
“}]] [[{“value”:”
All nine Justices of Supreme Court expressed some form of skepticism during the over two-hour oral arguments about the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to remove Trump’s name from the presidential ballot for 2024.
The liberal side of the court was not an exception.
Justice Elena Kagan was adamant about the power that one state wielded over other states.
BREAKING: Best Supreme Court Quote Just Now By Justice Kagan: “The question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be President of the United States.” pic.twitter.com/ftN4tNV7sG
Simon Ateba, @simonateba, February 8, 2024
Kagan was not the only liberal Justice concerned with the way Colorado handled its decision.
Justice Kenji Brown (a Joe Biden nominee) also expressed concern.
The Washington Post reported that
Justice Elena Kagan expressed her reservations, saying that the ruling of one state could determine the issue for other states. “Why should one state be able to decide this issue not only for its own citizens, but also for the rest the nation?” asked Kagan.
The question tapped into a truth of American politics: presidential elections are decided by a small number of swing states. Even if a candidate is still on the ballot in other states, removing them from the ballot could make it impossible for them to run for office.
Kagan asked Jason Murray the attorney for the Colorado voter who brought the case, “That seems quite exceptional, doesn’t It?”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out that Section 3 prohibits insurrectionists to serve as presidential electors, but says nothing about presidents. She suggested that those who wrote Section 3 were more interested in local and state officials than national figures.
She said, “The thing that is really troubling to me is… they were listing the people who were barred but president is not on there.” “And I guess that makes me worry that they weren’t focusing their attention on the president.”
CNN outlined more criticisms that came from SCOTUS Justices.
Several justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed their concern over the Colorado process, which led to Trump’s disqualification.
Kagan and Kavanaugh’s sharp comments on this topic were consistent with the court’s overall unease, as made clear in their questioning, with the possibility that states could settle this national question by following a dizzying range of different procedures.
The Colorado election code dictates the way ballot access disputes in court are adjudicated. Most often, these disputes are about simple issues like residency requirements or age requirements and not complex constitutional questions involving insurrections.
“It is more complicated, more contested and, if you like, more political,” Kagan told Colorado Solicitor-General Shannon Stevenson who represents the top election official in the state.
Trump reacted recently to the SCOTUS’s hearing, saying that it was a ‘beautiful procedure.
“}]]
