Former President Donald Trump has appealed the Colorado ruling that barred him from the state’s primary ballot to the Supreme Court.
The ruling was based on the claim that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, invoking a post-Civil War provision.
Trump’s legal team argues that the judiciary should not prevent voters from choosing the major-party presidential candidate, asserting that only Congress can determine presidential eligibility. (Trending: Sports Icon Dies Suddenly At 56)
Trump’s lawyers wrote that Trump’s ballot ban would “mark the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate.”
Conservative attorney George Conway said, “This is a bizarre document, and I think it reflects the weakness of Trump’s position.”
“He is throwing stuff up at the wall, or throwing stuff up in a zoo cage, and seeing what would stick,” continued Conway.
“The fifth point in this brief, point five, Roman numeral five, is he didn’t engage in insurrection. It is not number one. The reason is, it’s because his arguments are very, very weak. If you look at the question in terms of President Trump should be removed from the ballot, it’s kind of a shocking notion to those of us who haven’t lived, until now, in an era where public officials engage in insurrection. But it was familiar to the people who enacted the 14th amendment,” he said.
“When you go through the issues one by one by one, the way lawyers are supposed to, his case looks terrible,” he added.
Legal experts have criticized Trump’s filing, with some calling it a weak and legally flawed argument.
The Supreme Court’s potential consideration of Trump’s arguments and their implications remains uncertain.
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, said, “First on the facts but second, the Supreme Court’s not going to touch that.”
“They’re not a fact-finder, they don’t do trials. They generally won’t make that kind of finding,” she continued.
“And then the fourth argument is this claim that the term ‘officers,’ as it’s used in the insurrection clause, doesn’t include the president. I tend to side with Colorado and [the plaintiffs] on that one. You can carve that up linguistically either way but just [on] common sense, how could it not apply to the president?” asked Honig.
“All of this is new… whatever happens here, we’re all going to learn together,” said Honig.
Most Popular:
Obama Judge Issues Shock Ruling Against Democrats
Donald Trump Breaks His Silence After Major Court Win
Transgender Actor ‘Purposefully Misgendered’ By Airline Employee
