Rocky Mountain sigh

I have a feeling that Colorado will not be the last state to attempt this. 

The Colorado supreme court on Tuesday ruled that former president Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot in the 2024 presidential election.

In a 4–3 ruling, the court held that Trump’s presence on the ballot “would be a wrongful act under the Election Code,” arguing that the former president is disqualified from holding the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution(.)

I've said before that these attempts via judicial fiat to undermine Trump's candidacy for 2024 better be airtight legally since it's a disaster politically for Democrats. 

If the National Review Editors are correct, the likely outcome will be for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn this ruling. 

While there are a number of subsidiary legal questions under Section 3, the biggest problem is that the Colorado court got it wrong on the merits of the case. While Section 3 was not limited to the Civil War, it was aimed to disqualify active Confederate rebels and political leaders of the Confederacy from returning to government. Those were people who made war on the United States, or materially supported armies in the field to do so. The original public meaning of Section 3, as illustrated by decisions of Congress in the late 1860s on whether to seat Southern members, barred only active participants in an ongoing rebellion, such as those who joined the Confederate military or aided its war effort – not just those who incited secession by speeches before the fact.

The Colorado court ignored the contemporaneous evidence of how Congress construed its own amendment. Even under the standard it cited from the opinions of then–Attorney General Henry Stanbery, however, “the force of the term to engage carries the idea of active rather than passive conduct.” It is a serious stretch to convert Trump’s lassitude and a few tweets during the riot into active participation in the riot. More than some vague tweets ought to be required before depriving tens of millions of Americans of a candidate who may be their choice.

Once SCOTUS tosses this ruling, the reaction from Trumpians and fervent anti-Trumpians are utterly predictable. 

The Trump cultists will of course laud the U.S. Supreme Court decision, essentially declaring it a victory for the rule of law. They will also extoll the virtues of due process and how everyone should be presumed innocent. All I say would say to the Trumpians and their sudden infatuation with due process is that they better have the same energy if their guy is POTUS again and thus repeats his mantra of "due process later."

As for the fervent non-Trumpers, a SCOTUS overturn of this ruling will fortify their maniacal claims that the high court is illegitimate and thus result in louder calls for Justice Clarence Thomas's impeachment (why do progs always have the most invective for the black guy?). They'll also continue the drumbeat for expansion of the Court itself, basically turning into it a shadow legislature. 

For as nuts as the 2016 cycle was, 2020 made it look like beanbag. The 2024 cycle now appears to be requesting that we grasp its brewed and fermented beverage. 

------------------------------------------