February 8 — Oral arguments began at 10 a.m. this morning in the United States Supreme Court on the issue of former president Donald Trump’s eligibility for the November ballot.
A month or so ago, the Colorado Supreme Court declared Trump ineligible to be on the Colorado ballot.
Attorney Clint Barkdoll said, “This is a case being brought by Republican electors and they are going to be present apparently today with their attorneys in Washington DC. Everyone’s watching this case.”
After the Colorado decision, the Secretary of State in Maine also said Trump is off the ballot there because she found he allegedly engaged in insurrection during January 6, 2021.
Other states are in a holding pattern, likely waiting to see what SCOTUS will do.
Barkdoll said, “They will decide on this very quickly and you’ll see reporting today based on the questions in the comments from the Justices where they’re likely going with this. Most of the observers, most of the experts believe you could even see a unanimous decision that keeps Trump on the ballot. The court does not want to get involved in this. They’re very uncomfortable with it. But because Colorado, they’re a Super Tuesday State which is not that far away, the Supreme Court will have to rule very quickly so that Colorado and Maine and any other state knows how to handle this moving forward.”
What would likely happen here?
Barkdoll suggested, “I think it is very likely, better than 80%, I mean, it’s not 100% but it’s better than 80% that a majority of the Supreme Court determines that he is eligible to be on these ballots. I think the Supreme Court is very sensitive to getting on this political slippery slope. Think about the ramifications if they rule he is not eligible to appear on these ballots. I mean, I think it could really create some turmoil and I think the Justices are sensitive to that. I don’t know if it will be unanimous. There could very well be a few of the judges that say Trump engaged in insurrection and it’s a violation of the 14th Amendment, but I think ultimately Trump wins in this case.”
Michele Jansen of NewsTalk 103.7FM pointed out, “It’s so frustrating to me to hear they’re very wary about this. They should never have been put in this position. Why don’t people talk about the irresponsibility of some people just saying, well, I feel like it was an insurrection. Therefore we have to apply the same standards that were applied after the Civil War. There’s the insanity as far as I’m concerned. There’s the irresponsible officials, putting our Supreme Court into this position, putting all of our mindset into this position. I’m just reading about Pakistan today and I have to laugh when I hear one of the country’s most popular politicians is in jail, as are many members and supporters of his opposition party. Pakistan has had a tenuous hold on their democracy for a long time now. How is it that the United States is starting to have parallel activities to countries like Pakistan? We’re not talking about that specific as far as Donald Trump going to jail, but there are other charges against him that could have that happen. This is where the responsibility lies of people who are willing to try to win an election based on spurious accusations of a popular opposition party candidate. How do we not make these comparisons now to countries like Pakistan in my mind?”
Barkdoll said, “I think those are the kind of things the justices are looking at. Chief Justice Roberts is apparently very sensitive and cognizant about the integrity of the institution. He realizes there’s been some erosion in public confidence of the US Supreme Court, and he likely could be the guy that shepherds these votes through,”
Today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal is suggesting a 9-0 decision to allow Trump on the ballot and let the voters sort it out.
Barkdoll noted, “And they’re no fans of Donald Trump. No doubt these Justices are tuned in and plugged in to all of that. So it’ll be really interesting to see today what they ask, and what the comments are. They’ve never heretofore waded into January 6. This is an issue that they’ve avoided, but they’ve been placed in this very awkward, impossible situation by being forced, essentially, to now take up this issue.”