Do Donald Trump’s actions during the storming of the Capitol make him unelectable? The judges of the American Supreme Court appeared Thursday keen to defuse this explosive issue by raising multiple objections to the disqualification of the ex-president.
Less than nine months before the presidential election, the arch-favorite in the Republican primaries is asking for the annulment of the decision in December by the Colorado courts ordering his removal from the ballots in this state in the west of the country.
Legal commentators argue about the validity as well as the political expediency of such a procedure. But everyone agrees that the court with a conservative majority, burned by its controversial decision in 2000 giving victory to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, is keen to avoid being open to suspicions of electoral interference.
For nearly two hours, most of the judges, regardless of their orientation, were careful not to venture into the minefield of qualifying the actions of Donald Trump during the assault on the Capitol, but insisted on the obstacles legal and the potential fallout from a confirmation of the Colorado decision.
In this hypothesis, the President of the Court, the conservative John Roberts, was concerned about a possible chain reaction in which states controlled by Republicans would in turn disqualify the Democratic candidate.
“A handful of states would find themselves deciding the outcome of the presidential election. This would be a particularly frightening consequence,” he said.
“Why should a single state decide who will be president of the United States? » also objected progressive Justice Elena Kagan.
Of the thirty states in which ineligibility appeals were filed against Donald Trump, only two were successful, in Colorado and Maine. Several states are nevertheless waiting for the Supreme Court to rule definitively.
“Escape”
Trump’s lawyers call the Colorado decision an “anomaly” and call on the Supreme Court to overturn it to “protect the rights of tens of millions of Americans who want to vote for President Trump.”
Colorado’s decision declaring Donald Trump ineligible under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution amounts to imposing an “additional condition” to run, his lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, argued before the Court.
This amendment, adopted in 1868, then targeted supporters of the Southern Confederacy defeated during the Civil War (1861-1865). It excludes from the highest public functions anyone who has engaged in acts of “rebellion” after having taken an oath to defend the Constitution.
The Colorado courts considered that the actions of Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 fell within the 14th Amendment.
That day, hundreds of supporters of the outgoing president, heated in particular by his unfounded allegations of electoral fraud, stormed the Capitol, the sanctuary of American democracy, to try to prevent the certification of the victory. of his Democratic opponent Joe Biden.
The person concerned reaffirmed Thursday that he had nothing to reproach himself for his actions during the assault on the Capitol and said he was “referring” to the Supreme Court, hoping that the arguments of his lawyers would be heard.
“Remove Trump” and “Trump led a conspiracy” could be read on posters brandished Thursday by demonstrators Thursday in front of the Supreme Court.
The largely unprecedented nature of the case complicates any prediction, but many experts attribute to the nine judges the temptation to find a “loophole” to keep Donald Trump’s name on the ballots.
“In such a politically hot case, the court wants to appear as apolitical as possible,” Steven Schwinn, professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told AFP.
“The most likely escape route for her would be to assert that only Congress has the authority to remove a candidate from the ballot for the presidential election,” she adds.
An argument invoked by Donald Trump’s lawyers, but contested by jurists who emphasize that no intervention from Congress is required to apply other eligibility conditions, such as the minimum age of candidates or their place of birth.
Three renowned jurists from different political backgrounds urged in a brief the nine judges to rule on the merits and not on questions of form, in order to definitively cut the Gordian knot before voting day, November 5.
Otherwise, “with a country more polarized than ever in recent history”, warn Edward Foley, Benjamin Ginsberg and Richard Hasen, to “take the risk of political instability not seen since the Civil War”.