After the Colorado Supreme Court decided 4–3 to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot in 2024, Trump did not waste any time in replying, pointing to the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
Trump blasted the decision and other opinions from various legal experts and pundits in a series of posts on his Truth Social platform.
“This court is essentially tossing matches at a powder keg of a nation.Constitution expert Jonathan Turley, a law professor at Georgetown University, remarked, “This is hands down the most anti-democratic opinion I’ve seen in my lifetime for people that say they are trying to protect democracy.”
After watching what transpired in Colorado tonight, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said, “Maybe we should remove Joe Biden from the ballot in Texas because he has allowed 8 million people to cross the border since he became president, disrupting our state far more than anything anyone else has done in recent memory.”
This is how election rigging works.Without a doubt, this is an attempt to deny American voters the ability to choose who should be president. It opposes democracy. Gregg Jarrett, a legal commentator for Fox News, remarked, “It’s the same as stuffing the ballot box.”
“They want this to be decided by voters, not by them.Ned Ryun, the founder and CEO of the conservative American Majority organisation, stated that “there is obviously this deep fear of Donald Trump potentially winning the White House back.”
Fox contributor Charlie Hurt continued, “Democrats in Colorado are willing to do extra-judicial things in order to thwart the people’s choice from being on the ballot because they are so afraid of allowing American voters to vote and pick the next president.” To them, maintaining democracy necessitates
destroying democracy.”
In a subsequent interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Turley said of the ruling: “It is a strikingly anti-democratic holding, in my view. The court literally faced a series of interpretive barriers to get to where it ended up. It adopted the most sweeping, broadest possible interpretation to get over every one of those hurdles. So throughout this opinion, it had to adopt interpretations that could encompass a wide array of statements.”
Ingraham, who is an attorney herself, responded: “And there have been other rulings in other state supreme courts, correct? Or federal courts that have come to the opposite conclusion here. So this is an outlier, which, again, because of what’s at stake, it’s going to have to be expedited to the court, the Supreme Court.”