A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this month.

A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban, and it has been applied only twice since the 1800s.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Lovely as that sounds I can’t imagine this Supreme Court ruling against Trump. Maybe if you could somehow erase their memory so they make a ruling without consideration of current politics.

    • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The interesting bit is that it’s members of the federalist society arguing that Trump shouldn’t run.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html

      Trump doesn’t really understand law, and it’s the federalists that provided him with a list of right-wing judges to pick from, and it’s really federalists rather than Trump supporters who ended up capturing the supreme court.

      Normally they’re both extremely right-wing so the gap doesn’t matter, but if the federalists turn on Trump you could see some supreme court judgements go against him.

    • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sadly, I’m forced to agree with you. In spite of their claim to be “Originalists” they have a curious habit of ignoring both law and precedent whenever it suits them. I don’t trust them to accurately name the color of the clear sky at noon.