Trump, Supreme Court inclined to reject ineligibility

After almost an hour and a half, the US Supreme Court concluded the hearing in which it heard arguments from the sides for and against the eligibility of Donald Trump after the Colorado Supreme Court barred him from the state ballot for his role in the assault on the chapter under the 14th Amendment of the constitution. The majority of the justices, not only the conservative ones, appeared to be inclined to reject the ban.

The 6 January protest at the Capitol was 'peaceful and patriotic', said Donald Trump speaking from Mar-a-Lago after the Supreme Court hearing on his eligibility, where his lawyer had instead called that protest 'a riot', a 'disgraceful, criminal and violent event' but 'not an insurrection'.

Doubt and scepticism prevailed among the nine Supreme Court justices on the arguments against Trump's eligibility under the 14th Amendment, introduced in 1868 to prevent any civil or military officer who had served in the United States before the Civil War from regaining positions of authority if he had betrayed his country by supporting the Southern Confederacy. This is evident from their questions and comments. One of them was President John Roberts, who made it clear that he disagreed with the conclusion that the 14th Amendment was intended to allow states to determine whether a candidate was an ineligible insurrectionist. "The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to limit state power, right?" he said addressing the lawyer representing some Colorado voters. "Yours is a position that flies in the face of the entire thrust of the 14th Amendment," he added, pointing out that such a position would have given former Confederate states the power to assess whether a candidate could be disqualified from federal office.

The amendment was passed to limit states' rights and empower the federal government, Roberts continued, and this is 'the last place you should look for permission for states, including Confederate states, to implement the presidential election process'. Judge Brett Kavanaugh echoed him by reinforcing the point in a series of questions that challenged the Colorado plaintiffs' argument. Roberts and Kavanaugh's scepticism is not a good sign for the challengers, as they are the two conservative justices considered most 'contestable' to overturn the court's right-wing majority. Justice Elena Kagan went on to suggest that it would be "extraordinary" for a single state to effectively influence the presidential election of the entire nation.