'That’s a win!' Trump supporters celebrate as Supreme Court indicates ex-POTUS to stay on 2024 ballot

WASHINGTON, DC: In a pivotal session on Thursday, February 8, a significant majority of the Supreme Court justices signaled their inclination to overturn a Colorado ruling that barred former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state's Republican presidential primary ballot.

The decision by Colorado's Supreme Court, rendered on December 19, declared Trump ineligible for the March 5 GOP contest, citing his alleged violation of the Constitution's "Insurrection Clause" during the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021.

Trump, accompanied by his legal team, vehemently contested the Colorado ruling on various grounds. They argued that the responsibility of enforcing the Insurrection Clause lay with Congress, rather than individual states.

Furthermore, they asserted that the clause did not apply to the presidency, and Trump's actions during the Capitol riot did not meet the threshold for insurrection.

Supreme Court's arguments about Trump

During the oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed apprehension about the potential ramifications of upholding the Colorado ruling. He voiced concerns that doing so might empower states to arbitrarily remove candidates from the ballot based on partisan considerations, thereby undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

“It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts said. 

“Your Honor, the fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision isn’t a reason,” attorney Jason Murray, representing some Colorado voters who sought to remove Trump from the ballot, argued.

“The question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States," liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Murray at another point in his argument.

Justice Samuel Alito posed a thought-provoking hypothetical scenario, questioning whether a state could disqualify a candidate based on their foreign policy decisions. “Could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore keep that person off the ballot?” Alito asked, clearly referring to the Obama-Biden policy toward Iran.

Murray insisted that a state could not since the Constitution’s language defining treason is precise.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates, “No person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…[who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” However, the amendment also grants Congress the authority to lift such disqualifications.

Despite differing viewpoints among the justices, there was a consensus regarding the necessity of clarifying Trump's eligibility not only to run but also to serve as president if elected. Both sides urged the court to address the substantive issues at hand rather than merely determining ballot access, per the New York Post.

“I think it could come back with a vengeance because ultimately members of Congress may have to make the determination after a presidential election,” Murray argued. “Trump himself urges this court in the first few pages of his brief to resolve the issues on the merits and we think that the court should do so as well.”

Internet celebrates Donald Trump's win 

Following the court session, however, Trump's supporters celebrated the development on social media platforms.

"That’s a win!" one posted on X.

"That’s 1 for Trump, finally," another wrote.

"I’ll drink to that," someone else quipped.

"We the people put Trump on the ballot," another offered.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.