A new column from Washington Post associate editor Ruth Marcus argued that the U.S. Supreme Court “should toss” the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Trump is not allowed on the state’s presidential primary ballot this year.
Marcus declared that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which the state court invoked in making its ruling, “should not be used” in this case, as it denies voters’ choice in the upcoming election.
She went on to say that the “best outcome” of the Colorado decision would be for most, if not all, U.S. Supreme Court Justices to rule against it and quickly, to prevent legal “chaos” in America going forward.
The online headline for the story read, “The Supreme Court should toss the Colorado case.”
Marcus began her piece by insisting that no matter how political and partisan the conservative court might look in doing so, they need to press on with tossing out the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that was made Tuesday evening.
She wrote that “the Supreme Court should take this case, which Trump has already announced he will appeal. Yes, once again, whatever the justices do will be interpreted through the distorting lens of partisanship. A decision that allows Trump to remain a candidate despite his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection — the most likely result, in my view — will be derided as the work of ‘partisan hacks.’”
Marcus admitted, “That skepticism would be understandable, given the record of this court’s aggressive conservative majority. But it would also be wrong, because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should not be used to prevent Americans from voting to elect the candidate of their choice.”
The author claimed that the “best outcome, for the court and the country, would be for a unanimous court — preferably an 8-0 court with Justice Clarence Thomas recusing himself — to clear the way for Trump to run.”
Going into the state court’s 4-3 decision, Marcus cited dissenting Justice Carlos Samour Jr., who argued that blocking Trump could create “chaos” in the country. She cited his opinion, which read, “More broadly, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section Three disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis.”
“Surely, this enlargement of state power is antithetical to the framers’ intent,” Samour Jr. declared, a notion Marcus agreed with.
“Chaos indeed, which is why the high court needs to step in,” she declared.
The author concluded her point, claiming that “there is no world in which the justices are going to empower states to throw Trump off their ballots.”
She also reiterated how the court needs to appear unified in its decision: “This is a moment it should aspire to be the unanimous court of Brown v. Board of Education, not the splintered, party-line body of Bush v. Gore.”