In a stunning rebuke to leftist attempts at lawfare, the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected efforts to prevent former President Donald Trump from running in future elections. This is a major blow to Democrats who have been desperately trying to remove Trump from the ballot using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Liberal legal experts and prominent politicians have been smugly declaring that Trump’s disqualification was “unassailable in every single respect.” They were convinced their wild theory would finally be the nail in the coffin for Trump’s political career. But once again, the so-called “experts” were proven wrong.
The Court’s decision is a victory for the Constitution and the will of the American people. It’s a resounding message that states cannot use vague interpretations of the law to manipulate our political system.
As Justice Samuel Alito put it, “Under our system, courts are not free to invent new exceptions to clear statutory text.” This is a clear and decisive rejection of the left’s attempts to weaponize the 14th Amendment.
According to Dailywire,
CNN senior legal analyst and New York Magazine columnist Elie Honig blasted Democrats for trying to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot, saying that the effort was “doomed to fail” from the start and it will only help him moving forward.
“The justices differed a bit on how exactly a federal candidate can be disqualified in the future, but the bottom-line vote was a stinging, unequivocal rejection of the state-by-state approach,” he said. “It’s not often we see justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the same page as justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, but the 14th Amendment challenges were so obviously flawed that they ended up creating a cross-ideological consensus.”
“This is one of Trump’s unique political gifts: He inspires such visceral hatred in his opponents that he provokes them to self-destruct,” he concluded.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court has delivered a powerful message: the 14th Amendment cannot be used as a tool for political gain. This should have been obvious from the start, but it took a unanimous decision from the highest court in the land to make it clear.
