It’s Not Bush v. Gore; It’s Truth v. Gorsuch.

(Colorado attorney Jason Murray argues before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the State of Colorado, on February 8, 2024. Artwork by William Hennessy.)

9-0. That’s my prediction for how overwhelmingly the U.S. Supreme Court is going to deny Colorado the right to kick the insurrectionist Donald Trump off their State’s ballot.

The Court never wanted to kick Trump off the ballot, and the terrible lawyering of Colorado’s attorneys, gave them an easy way out.

Colorado’s attorneys never made their case; never told the High Court how and why the Colorado Supreme Court found that Trump had participated in the January 6, 2021, attempt to overthrow the US Government, and fell under the Article 3 definition of an insurrectionist; never seriously advanced the premise of a State’s right to conduct its own system of elections, and never, ever, even once challenged the Supreme Court justices on their previous State’s Rights dogma on Abortion, Voting Rights, and Gun Regulation.

Not even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who, 12 years ago, wrote an opinion that a State’s right to run its own elections was sacrosanct, was confronted with how this case differed, and the hypocrisy of his present position. Instead, the Colorado attorneys let Gorsuch and everyone else off the hook. The question was never raised how alleged Constitutional “textualists,” could so easily abandon the clear text of the Constitution.

How could Colorado not hire former Republican federal Judge J. Michael Luttig to argue the case before the Supreme Court the way he, and Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Laurence Tribe, brilliantly argued it in print and in public? Why did Colorado throw two attorneys, with zero Supreme Court experience, up in front of the nine justices and millions of Americans, only to have them fall flat, and fail to scratch the surface on such profoundly important constitutional issues?

The question of what constituted insurrection under the U.S.Constitution and whether Trump committed it was never weighed, yet we know that Trump will twist the outcome to say he was “exonerated from being an insurrectionist.” Nothing could be further from the truth, but the Colorado attorneys failed to drill down on that possible outcome.

All the Trump Court will decide, when they hand down their overwhelming verdict, is that the State of Colorado–from an administrative and ministerial standpoint–has no right to kick Trump off the ballot. Then, we’ll have to watch–and throw the Justices own arguments right back at them–when the Texas v. US case concerning Border Control comes to the Supreme Court, and the Right Wing justices jump through hoops to find that Texas has the authority to defy the US Government on the matter of immigration security.

I’d like to hear Justice Clarence Thomas—whose spouse supported Trump’s January 6th attempt to overthrow the U.S. government—wring his hands again about “the confederacy” and “segregation” when the Texas case comes before him. Maybe he’ll enlighten us on the rights of Southern states to secede, and the latest “Lost Cause.”

Will the Supreme Court give this Colorado decision to Trump on a technicality? Will the Justices avoid the determination of Trump’s central role in the January 6th insurrection, and then rule against Trump on his bogus claims of blanket immunity to balance the scale?

Or, will The Trump Court take a pass on that one, too, by simply waving it off, and letting the DC Appeals Court’s unanimous decision stand? That to me, is the High Courts’ safest, most likely outcome: give former President Trump Colorado (which he’ll lose in the general election anyway, and let the Appeals Court deny “citizen Trump” any claims of immunity for his criminal actions.

But until then, the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment’s Article 3, forbids “insurrectionists” from holding public office–and whether Trump’s directing of his followers—including Ginni Thomas— to stop the proper functioning of the U.S. government and attack the Capitol Building qualifies under the definition of insurrection–remains unanswered.

It’s not quite Bush v. Gore; it’s Truth v. Gorsuch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *