New Market Perspective
  • Business
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • World
  • Business
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • World

New Market Perspective

Politics

Legal experts rally around Supreme Court ruling keeping Trump on ballot: ‘Stern warning’ to ‘radicals’

by admin March 5, 2024
March 5, 2024
Legal experts rally around Supreme Court ruling keeping Trump on ballot: ‘Stern warning’ to ‘radicals’

Reactions from legal experts are pouring in after the Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of former President Trump and against the effort to remove him from the Colorado ballot for allegedly taking part in an ‘insurrection.’

‘The Court showed a divided nation that we remain bound by shared constitutional values,’ George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley said on Fox News immediately after the decision was read, adding that this was a ‘critical moment for this court in history.’

‘After all of the years we have spent in this Republic we came to a point where these states claimed that they could unilaterally bar the leading presidential candidate from ballots to prevent people from voting for Donald Trump,’ Turley said. ‘The court here struck with a strong, and it appears unanimous, voice at least on the result that that’s not going to happen. Voters will vote. They’ll make their own verdict regardless of cases that happen involving President Trump. They will cast the most important verdict of all. They will vote for the next President of the United States.’

‘So much for the long list of people who weighed in on this case to declare that Colorado’s position was the only constitutionally acceptable one and suggesting that any idiot could see that,’ Judicial Network President Carrie Severino posted on X. 

‘Obviously, they were not making legal arguments, but political ones.’

Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital that the ‘unanimous Supreme Court got it right.’

‘States can’t create a patchwork of ways for disqualifying candidates for federal office,’ Shapiro added. ‘There’s disagreement among the justices about which federal actors can do so, and according to which procedures, so perhaps it would be a good idea for Congress to clarify these issues by enacting a new version of the Enforcement Act of 1870.’

‘But regardless, in a polarized time of record-low societal trust in institutions, it’s a good thing that voters will decide whether Donald Trump can return to the White House, not Colorado’s supreme court, Maine’s secretary of state, or any other state or local officials.’

‘The Supreme Court justices brought order to what could have become a chaotic election season by shutting down this partisan, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional effort in Colorado,’ Heritage Foundation legal fellows Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson wrote in a press release. ‘They found a ‘combination’ of constitutional grounds that ‘resolves this case,’ and that explains why the Colorado court got it wrong.’

‘Activist courts and partisan bureaucrats should not be able to take away American voters’ right to choose the president. This ruling, which came together with amazing speed for the Supreme Court, should serve as a stern warning that radicals cannot interfere in our election process and, as the justices say in the opinion, ‘nullify the votes of millions and change the election result.’’

All nine justices ruled in favor of Trump in the case, which will impact the status of efforts in several other states to remove the likely GOP nominee from their respective ballots. 

The court considered for the first time the meaning and reach of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders who ‘engaged in insurrection’ from holding public office again. Challenges have been filed to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot in over 30 states. 

‘We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,’ the Court wrote.

‘A great win for America. Very, very important!’ Trump told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview Monday morning. 

‘Equally important for our country will be the decision that they will soon make on immunity for a president — without which, the presidency would be relegated to nothing more than a ceremonial position, which is far from what the founders intended,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘No president would be able to properly and effectively function without complete and total immunity.’ 

He added, ‘Our country would be put at great risk.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Galloper Gold: At the Forefront of Newfoundland’s ‘Gold Rush’
next post
Pro-Palestinian protesters accost AOC outside movie theater, demand she call Israel-Hamas war a ‘genocide’

Related Posts

Federal judge denies Trump admin’s effort to ban...

March 27, 2025

Ex-Obama official predicts Harris will seek new Iran...

August 28, 2024

Former British PM reveals which Trump department is...

February 22, 2025

House overwhelmingly passes $26 billion aid to Israel,...

April 21, 2024

Trump, Harris locked in dead heat in 7...

October 11, 2024

Trump makes endorsement in ‘important’ Wisconsin Supreme Court...

March 24, 2025

SCOTUS to hear straight woman’s discrimination case that...

February 26, 2025

With 6 days until voting starts, ‘election season’...

August 31, 2024

Biden’s teleprompter ability not enough, Scaramucci says

July 1, 2024

Susan Collins to write in Nikki Haley for...

July 13, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Latest

    • Meet ‘China’s man in Lima’ who jetted over to US to collect trains donated by Biden admin

      July 13, 2025
    • Inside Dan Bongino’s tense meeting with White House officials over Jeffrey Epstein fallout

      July 13, 2025
    • Could Butler happen again? Former Secret Service agents weigh in on political violence in 2025

      July 13, 2025
    • Trump defends embattled AG Pam Bondi, says ‘nobody cares about’ Jeffrey Epstein

      July 13, 2025
    • Bondi says all charges against doctor who allegedly destroyed COVID vaccines have been dropped

      July 13, 2025
    • Kash Patel torches ‘conspiracy theories’ about Bondi feud amid MAGA furor over Epstein files

      July 13, 2025

    Popular

    • 1

      Top 5 Junior Copper Stocks on the TSXV in 2023

      December 22, 2023
    • 2

      Crypto Market 2023 Year-End Review

      December 22, 2023
    • 3

      Canada Silver Cobalt Begins Drilling at Lowney-Lac Edouard in Quebec, Targeting Nickel-Copper-Cobalt Mineralization

      December 22, 2023
    • 4

      10 Top Oil-producing Countries (Updated 2024)

      October 19, 2024
    • 5

      Powered by rain, this seed carrier could help reforest the most remote areas

      December 19, 2023
    • 6

      Top 10 Uranium-producing Countries (Updated 2024)

      April 18, 2024
    • 7

      A troubling theory about traders profiting from Hamas’ attack on Israel drew much attention. Why it may not be so simple.

      December 13, 2023

    Categories

    • Business (1,407)
    • Investing (3,494)
    • Politics (4,571)
    • World (4,461)
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: newmarketperspective.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.


    Copyright © 2025 newmarketperspective.com | All Rights Reserved