Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Thursday pressed one of the Colorado lawyers arguing to remove former President Donald Trump over whether a state has the power to remove a national candidate from the ballot under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot for the 2024 election over the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 “insurrectionist” clause in December. Kagan posed the question to lawyer Jason Murray, who argued on behalf of Colorado alongside the state’s Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson (RELATED: California Secretary Of State Keeps Trump On Ballot As Dems Call For His Removal)
LISTEN:
“Maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Kagan said. “In other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again … Just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means.”
“If you weren’t from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan, and … what the Michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between whether candidate A is elected or candidate B is elected, that seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it?” Kagan asked.
…Kagan’s question is what the disqualification advocates did not want to hear from her. She could be key in securing a heavy majority or unanimity in rejecting this decision…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 8, 2024
Murray responded that is not the correct characterization.
“No, Your Honor,” he answered. “Because ultimately it’s this Court that’s going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.”
“Well I suppose this court would be saying something along the lines of that a state has the power to do it,” Kagan responded. “But I guess I was asking you to go a little bit further and say why should that be the right rule? Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”
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
Murray said section II under the 14th Amendment gives states the right to appoint its own electors.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.