The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments in the Case of Trump V. Anderson, regarding Donald Trump being ruled ineligible to appear on the Colorado Presidential ballot because of his part in the INSURRECTION. Our Nina called that case a “grotesque use of lawfare”. The oral arguments today reinforced that sense of grotesque lawfare.

If you are like me, you are still feeling salty that six voters filed suit in Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot, that the Colorado Supreme Court heard the case, and that four of the seven Colorado Justices ruled that Trump could be barred from the ballot as an insurrectionist. We remember that he has never been charged, tried, or found guilty of INSURRECTION. This whole thing seems anti-Republic.

The good news is that oral arguments were heard in the Supreme Court today in Trump V. Anderson. You can listen to the arguments here. For much of the arguments, they could have been arguing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. The arguments were that much in the weeds.

From every corner, the television lawyers thought the Supreme Court cast a gimlet eye towards Colorado’s arguments.

The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 8, 2024

From CBS News (???):

Washington — The Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the idea that Colorado can exclude former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, with justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum warning during oral arguments of the consequences of ruling him ineligible for the White House.

The case, known as Trump v. Anderson, involves whether Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency again because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. The dispute puts the nine justices into new legal territory, and their opinion could have sweeping implications for the 2024 presidential race.

The case hinges on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars officials who have sworn to support the Constitution from serving in government if they engage in insurrection. The provision was enacted in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from holding office, and laid mostly dormant for more than 150 years.

Maybe the provision should law dormant for another 150 years. Especially when an event has NEVER been adjudicated an insurrection.

A 4-hour protest that got out of hand with a couple bad actors That's what we call it. Colorado's plaintiff today said that if the Supreme Court doesn't rule in their favors then Congress has to do it by withholding electoral votes… That's exactly what Dems called insurrection

— Kathy Dalpiaz (@DalpiazKathy) February 8, 2024

The last hour of the SCOTUS arguments was fraught with the word “INSURRECTION”. It was infuriating and anti-American to listen to that kind of gaslighting. Ketanji Brown-Jackson was firm, but fair with Trump’s lawyer:

“Why would this not be an insurrection?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked lawyer Jonathan Mitchell as the nine justices of the Supreme Court were hearing oral arguments in a landmark case over whether Trump — the GOP frontrunner — can remain on Colorado’s primary ballot ahead of the 2024 election.
Mitchell responded, “For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence.”

Brown shot back, “And so, the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?”

Mitchell went on to say, “We didn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either,” and chalked up the deadly events of January 6 to a “shameful” and “criminal” day.

“None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but did not qualify as an insurrection as that term is used in Section 3” of the 14th Amendment, Mitchell said.

Almost felt sorry for Jason Murray, the lawyer for Colorado. When Gorsuch says, “Put it aside, I am not going to say it again, put it aside, it sounded like Gorsuch was scolding an errant child:

This is just a bloodbath.

Justice Gorsuch spends two minutes slapping around Colorado's lawyer.

You almost gotta feel bad for the guy. pic.twitter.com/SYcFJLM1EA

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 8, 2024

And, the protestors were out at SCOTUS because Trump is a White Man:

The SCOTUS will have this, hopefully, 9-0 ruling back before Super Tuesday on March 5, 2024.

Featured Composite: Fred Schilling/Wikimedia Commons.org/Public Domain/Quick Spice/flickr.com/cropped/Creative Commons