McConnell joins 45 GOP senators backing Trump in Colorado ballot fight

[mystery-ak]

McConnell joins 45 GOP senators backing Trump in Colorado ballot fight
By
Kaelan Deese
January 18, 2024 2:42 pm

The fate of former President Donald Trump‘s primary ballot access in Colorado got a boost Thursday from 46 Republican senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), calling on the Supreme Court to keep him on the ballot.

More than two dozen amicus briefs have been filed to the public docket for the Supreme Court case over whether Trump, the Republican front-runner for the 2024 presidential election, is disqualified from appearing on the Centennial State’s primary ballot under a 14th Amendment provision barring anyone who engaged in insurrection from holding office again.

In the latest brief, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), 177 Republican lawmakers joined in supporting Trump’s effort to remain on the state’s ballot and raised doubts about whether Trump holds any responsibility for the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The lawmakers pointed to the former president’s remarks before and after the riot began that day, noting in their brief that “t is hard to imagine an actual insurrectionist quickly asking for peace and encouraging disbandment.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2804199/mcconnell-backs-trump-in-colorado-ballot-challenge/

[Fishrrman]

The Supreme Court's decision re Colorado may not squelch this issue "across the board".

That's because The Court tends to keep its rulings as narrow as possible -- at least the current Court, vis-a-vis the era of the Warren Court, which issued expansive rulings with the object of changing America.

If The Court's ruling IS "on the narrow side", even if it stops Colorado it may not stop anti-Trump actions by other states.

So I'm thinking that the Court will be forced to "re-visit" the ballot issue at least one or two times more this year, before the justices finally get tired and put their collective feet down. Or perhaps not even then.

Which is why we may see at least one state in which Mr. Trump's name will not be on the ballot in November...

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The Supreme Court's decision re Colorado may not squelch this issue "across the board".

That's because The Court tends to keep its rulings as narrow as possible -- at least the current Court, vis-a-vis the era of the Warren Court, which issued expansive rulings with the object of changing America.

If The Court's ruling IS "on the narrow side", even if it stops Colorado it may not stop anti-Trump actions by other states.

So I'm thinking that the Court will be forced to "re-visit" the ballot issue at least one or two times more this year, before the justices finally get tired and put their collective feet down. Or perhaps not even then.

Which is why we may see at least one state in which Mr. Trump's name will not be on the ballot in November...

The Court is very aware of the prospect of a flood of these cases, and they're not going to want to address them one at a time.  I'll bet it will be on a ground that covers all of them.

[christian]

On a side note Trump took 70% in the Iowa caucus!  Odd how the stooges went silent, eh?