The former president’s final written statement before the justices hear oral arguments this week is anticipated to accuse his challengers of pursuing a “anti-democratic” legal case against him. On Monday, he urged the Supreme Court to preserve his name on Colorado’s ballot.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers stated, “He is the presumptive Republican nominee and the leading candidate for President of the United States.”. “The next President of the United States should be chosen by the American people, not by courts or election officials.”
Legal challenges to Trump’s eligibility to vote have been likened by his team to anti-democratic campaigns in Venezuela.
Voters requesting the Supreme Court’s intervention are claiming that it is hypocritical for the US to threaten sanctions against Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship for blocking the presidential candidature of the leading opposition candidate.
In a landmark case challenging Trump’s ability to vote due to his involvement in the events leading up to the assault on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday. Some Coloradans think his acts constitute an insurrection and that he is thus unfit to serve as governor because of it.
As he seeks reelection, Trump is embroiled in a number of legal battles, including an appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the ballot in Colorado. The trial in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case was delayed last week from March 4th to a later date as an appeals court continues to consider Trump’s claim of immunity.
To dissuade the high court from getting bogged down in the details, the groups contesting Trump’s ballot eligibility are arguing that the president’s remarks at a campaign-style rally outside the White House instigated the riot that assaulted the Capitol. However, Trump’s legal team is quick to point out potential “off-ramps” that the court could utilise to rule in his favour based on little arguments.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment forbids some elected officials, including a “officer of the United States,” from continuing to hold any office in the future if they have “engaged in insurrection.” This interpretation is crucial to Trump v. Anderson. It is Trump’s contention that the president is not a “officer” and that Section 3 cannot be enforced until a bill is passed by Congress.
