Open in full screen mode
The Court Supreme Court of the United States
The actions of Donald Trump during the assault on Capitol make him ineligible? The judges of the American Supreme Court appeared anxious Thursday to defuse this explosive question by raising multiple objections to the disqualification of the ex-president.
Less than nine months before the presidential election, the arch-favorite of the Republican primaries is demanding the annulment of the decision rendered in December by the courts of Colorado which ordered his removal from the ballots in this state of Canada. #x27;west country.
Legal commentators argue over validity as well as appropriateness policy of such a procedure. However, everyone agrees that the conservative majority Court, burned by its controversial decision in 2000 which gave victory to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, is keen to avoid giving in to the suspicions of electoral interference.
For nearly two hours, most of the judges, regardless of their orientation, were careful not to venture into the minefield of qualifying the actions of Donald Trump during the assault on the Capitol, but they insisted on the legal obstacles and the potential fallout of an upholding of the Colorado decision.
Azeb Wolde's report- Giorghis
In this hypothesis, the President of the Court, the conservative John Roberts, was concerned about a possible chain reaction in which the states controlled by the Republicans would in turn disqualify the Democratic candidate.
A handful of states would find themselves deciding the outcome of the presidential election. This would be a particularly frightening consequence, he estimated.
Cuts at Bell: a “rotten” decision, says Trudeau, “furious”
ELSEWHERE ON INFO: Cuts at Bell: a “rotten” decision, says Trudeau, “furious”
Why should a single state decide who will be President of the United States? also objected to progressive Justice Elena Kagan.
On thirty years&# x27;States in which ineligibility appeals were brought against Donald Trump, only two were successful, namely in Colorado and Maine. Several states are nevertheless waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in order to rule definitively.
Its lawyers call the Colorado decision a & #x27;anomaly and call on the Supreme Court to invalidate it to protect the rights of tens of millions of Americans who wish to vote for President Trump.
Colorado's ruling that declared Donald Trump ineligible under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution amounts to imposing an additional condition for running, argued before the Court's advisor, Jonathan Mitchell.
This amendment, adopted in 1868, then targeted supporters of the Southern Confederacy defeated during the Civil War (1861-1865). It excludes from the highest public offices anyone who has engaged in acts of rebellion after having taken an oath to defend the Constitution.
The Colorado court considered that Donald Trump's actions on January 6, 2021 fell within the 14th Amendment.
Isabelle Richer: interview with Stephen Dreyfuss, former New York County prosecutor
That day, hundreds of supporters of the outgoing president, heated in particular by his unfounded allegations of electoral fraud, stormed the Capitol, the sanctuary of American democracy, in an attempt to prevent the certification of the victory of his Democratic opponent Joe Biden.
The person reaffirmed Thursday that he ;#x27;has nothing to reproach himself for his actions during the assault on the Capitol and said he would defer to the Supreme Court, hoping that the arguments of his lawyers would be heard.
Remove Trump and Trump hatched a conspiracy, could we read on posters brandished by demonstrators Thursday in front of the Supreme Court.
The largely unprecedented nature of this case complicates any prediction, but many experts believe the nine judges are tempted to find a loophole to keep Donald Trump's name on the ballots.
In such a politically hot case, the Court wants to appear as apolitical as possible. The most likely escape route for her would be to assert that only Congress has the authority to remove a candidate from the ballot for the presidential election.
A quote from Steven Schwinn, professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois at Chicago
This argument is invoked by Donald Trump's lawyers but is contested by jurists who emphasize that no intervention from Congress is required to apply other eligibility conditions, for example the minimum age or the place of birth of the candidates.
Three renowned jurists from&# x27;different political horizons urged in a brief the nine judges to rule on the merits and not on questions of form in order to definitively resolve the Gordian knot before voting day, November 5.
And this, under penalty, with a country more polarized than ever in recent history, warn Edward Foley, Benjamin Ginsberg and Richard Hasen, to take the risk of political instability not seen since the Civil War.