HOWARD KURTZ: Justices found common ground in restoring Trump to the ballot

Let’s minimize by the authorized jargon: the Supreme Court yesterday did the solely factor it may do, and did it unanimously.

The justices rejected the notion {that a} Colorado court docket – all-Democratic appointees – may merely kick Donald Trump off the ballot. Just on the face of it, the thought was ludicrous, absurd and anti-democratic, and the court docket explicitly banned some other state from making an attempt such a stunt.

On Sunday’s “Media Buzz,” I used to be griping about the proven fact that the justices had been taking so lengthy, and mentioned they have to be honing their opinions and concurring opinions. That turned out to be the case.

In the unsigned opinion, all 9 justices declared that “nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos – arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration.”

THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF FANI WILLIS’ CASE IS ‘VERY IMPORTANT’: SUSAN FERRECHIO

A supporter of former US President Donald Trump, protests exterior the Alto Lee Adams Sr. US Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida, on August 10, 2023. (EVA MARIE UZCATEGUI/AFP by way of Getty Images)

While authorized observers say the court docket moved at rocket pace, the ruling got here on the final day earlier than voters in Colorado head to the polls, together with these in the different Super Tuesday states.

Much of the forwards and backwards had to do with the 14th Amendment, however put that apart for a second.

When Colorado’s court docket first made its ruling, a veritable military of anchors, correspondents and authorized analysts, particularly on MSNBC, cheered the transfer, saying Trump was lastly being held accountable for fomenting the Capitol riot. 

Many of the anti-Trumpers needed extra states to take away the former president from their ballots – as Maine’s Democratic secretary of state did, adopted by an Illinois decide late in the recreation.

LIBERAL PUNDITS, URGING BIDEN TO WITHDRAW, PUSHING CONVENTION SCENARIO

That means they had been all taking a hard-line stance that has now been rejected Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. That ought to inform us one thing: Who’s extra out of step with the nation?

Trump, stepping earlier than the cameras at Mar-a-Lago, calling the ruling a step towards nationwide unity:

“They worked long. They worked hard. And frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will be spoken about a hundred years from now and 200 years from now. Extremely important.”

Trump then pivoted to the different case the Supreme Court simply took, his claims of complete unity for actions taken whereas president. The authorized pundits say SCOTUS might effectively rule towards him on that one, although nobody is aware of for positive, which might quantity to a cut up resolution on the two high-stakes instances.

Trump was quickly doing the biggest hits, attacking such prosecutors as Jack Smith, Letitia James and Fani Willis, and slamming the judges listening to a number of of his instances. 

A New York Times reporter mentioned that Mario Nicolais, lawyer for the Colorado aspect, mentioned the Supremes had “abrogated their accountability to our democracy….I hope that the cowardice of the court docket at the moment doesn’t lead to bloodshed tomorrow.” Pretty gracious, huh?

Remember, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson found common ground with Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, however the critics are nonetheless carping. 

Members of the Supreme Court (L-R) Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Elena Kagan, and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States by way of Getty Images)

Jim Acosta, the anti-Trump CNN anchor, mentioned his antagonist “has sort of played the legal system like a fiddle over the last couple of years. He’s thrown the kitchen sink into the gears of America’s judicial system.”

Maine GOP director Jason Savage advised the Times that his objective is changing Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, the Democrat who dominated in December that Trump was ineligible for the Maine ballot: “One bureaucrat was trying to alter the presidential election based on her opinion.”

What triggered the complete battle was Colorado dusting off an obscure, little-used authorized provision handed after the Civil War: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It was aimed toward former Confederate officers and troopers who had rebelled towards the nation.

MEDIA DEEM TRUMP THE NOMINEE, DESPITE HALEY TYING HIM TO PUTIN

Where a few of the justices parted firm was over the scope of the unsigned opinion, with the court docket’s three liberal members saying in concurring opinions that the conservative majority went too far in trying “to insulate the court” and Trump from “future controversy….

“In a delicate case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Some of the conflicting views involve whether only Congress has the energy to make the most of Section 3 and whether or not the president is taken into account an officer of the United States.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the liberals, saying the majority mustn’t have raised “the difficult query whether or not federal laws is the unique automobile by which Section 3 will be enforced…

“This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency … Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

However you slice and cube it, it was a giant win for Donald Trump, and for individuals who imagine the voters, not partisan state officers, ought to get to choose the president.