'Needs to be up to the voters': 'The View' hosts reluctantly agree with SCOTUS Colorado ruling but criticize partisan court

MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY: On March 4, the co-hosts of 'The View' acknowledged that the Supreme Court's unanimous decision against removing former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado was the correct one.

Sunny Hostin, one of the co-hosts, agreed with the decision but criticized the justices for what she perceived as a "partisan" approach.

'The View' hosts discuss the SCOTUS' Colorado ruling

Sunny Hostin particularly highlighted the concurring opinion authored by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who argued that the court's decision went too far.

Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by Trump, also penned her own concurring opinion, suggesting agreement that the court may have overreached in its ruling.

"They are saying the Supreme Court went too far here because they answered a question that wasn’t before them. The only question that was before this court was, can a state do this? Instead, what they did was they insulated all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office," Hostin said.

"I have far too much hope that the court would be united in this and not overstep in favor of Donald Trump, and I think what we saw was a court where justices that behaved in a partisan manner and that disappointed me," she added. 

Co-host Sara Haines expressed reassurance at Justice Barrett's alignment with Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor, noting their frequent discussions about partisanship on the court.

"It didn’t surprise me. I started to gain faith as Sunny would tell us, like, this is going to get him", Haines said.

She added, saying, "But seeing it, I now get the chaos which would ensue and I think it’s important when you don’t like the outcome, which I’m not saying I don’t, but that you look at the states that you would disagree with, and what they could do in turn."

Ana Navarro and Whoopi Goldberg reflect on SCOTUS' ruling

Co-host Ana Navarro concurred with the SCOTUS ruling but made a notable clarification, emphasizing that the court's decision did not address whether Trump was deemed an "insurrectionist."

"I agree with this. I think it needs to be up to the voters. I think it was opening up a Pandora’s box, and one of the things that John Roberts said earlier was, you know, how do we know that then elections don’t end up being decided by just a few states?" she said further. 

Before delving further, she argued that Justice Clarence Thomas should be obligated to recuse himself from cases related to Trump.

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg responded to the ruling during the second segment, acknowledging that it was "probably the right decision." However, she expressed disdain at the normalization of Trump's actions.

"The thing that bothers me about this, and I know it’s probably the right decision, but I don’t like that we’ve normalized this man," she said.

She added, "It has really irritated the poo out of me that we have normalized him and his bad behavior. I get that the law says, listen, it would be really rough and it should be the Congress that makes these decisions, and yet that’s not how we have been acting."

Former Donald Trump aide Alyssa Farah Griffin reacts to SCOTUS' decision

Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump aide who has emerged as one of his most vocal Republican critics, acknowledged that while the decision was the right one, it wasn't a "welcome one."

In a unanimous ruling, all nine justices sided with Trump in the case, which will have implications for similar efforts in various other states seeking to remove the probable GOP nominee from their respective ballots.

The court, in its first evaluation of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits former officeholders who "engaged in insurrection" from holding public office again, deliberated over its interpretation and scope.

Challenges have been lodged in more than 30 states seeking to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot.

In its ruling, the Court asserted, "We determine that States possess the authority to disqualify individuals from holding or seeking state office. However, States lack the constitutional authority to enforce Section 3 in relation to federal offices, particularly the Presidency."