in ,

U.S. Supreme Court Set to Deliberate Trump’s 2024 Colorado Candidacy

Trump’s 2024 Ambition Under Spotlight: U.S. Supreme Court Steps in for Final Decision


The nation’s top legal institution, the U.S. Supreme Court, has chosen to review an urgent appeal surrounding the potential participation of past President Donald Trump in the 2024 Colorado elections. The Colorado Supreme Court previously made a decision not to permit Trump on their state’s ballot which spurred this flurry of legal activity, with the U.S.

Supreme Court now taking center stage. Essentially, all legal teams involved have been asked to present their final statements or briefs, furnishing the necessary information and arguments, by January 31st. Afterward, the esteemed justices will engage in a round of oral arguments and discussions on February 8th.

Don't Forget to get your Covid Shot! HAHA

In the official pronouncement, it was said ‘The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024.’ The balance of power in this case, suddenly and unexpectedly, is shifting in the political landscape as this Supreme Court decision may have far-reaching effects.

In an interesting twist, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a provisional stay of Colorado’s initial order, instructing the Colorado secretary of state to restore Trump’s candidacy until a final court conclusion is reached.

This counters the earlier Colorado Supreme Court ruling that refused Trump’s candidacy based upon the 14th Amendment, a Constitutional provision that forms an integral part of this case. This amendment speaks to the barring of ‘officers’ of the United States who have partaken in ‘insurrection’ from vying for elected office.

The key sticking point in this debate is the interpretation of the phrase ‘engaged in insurrection.’ The Supreme Court justices will undeniably examine the subtleties and implications of this phrase as a focal part of their deliberations. This phrase, seemingly straight-forward, may hold different meanings and connotations to different parties.

Have the best Christmas Gift this year with these SHot Glasses!

In a parallel case out west, a judge in a district court in Wyoming made the decision to throw out a case intended to strip Trump and incumbent Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis of their spots on future ballots. This unexpected move resulted in much jubilation for Wyoming Republican Secretary of State Chuck Gray. This case is suggestive of the wider landscape of arguments and discussions surrounding Trump’s potential participation in the 2024 elections.

The unsuccessful Wyoming lawsuit, Newcomb v. Chuck Gray, was initiated by retired lawyer Tim Newcomb in the Albany County District Court. He raised the question of whether Trump and Lummis could be considered ‘traitors’ to the Constitution in light of the happenings on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol Building. This interconnectedness of events and politically charged allegations fuels the intensity of the national debate surrounding this matter.

Get these NEW Trump Calendars

Following the dismissal of Newcomb’s case, Chuck Gray, the vocal Wyoming Republican Secretary of State, came forth with a public statement. He expressed profound satisfaction with Judge Westby’s ruling to reject what he referred to as an ‘outrageously wrong and repugnant’ lawsuit. In a statement disseminated to Fox News Digital, Gray stated, ‘I have been working to ensure that Donald Trump will be given the chance to be on the ballot, and I am glad that our motion to dismiss this case was granted.’

Gray asserted his determination to stand against this type of attempt on a national level to guard the integrity of electoral proceedings and secure the right for Wyoming residents to elect representatives of their choice. Gray’s commitment to battle against this nationwide trend could signal a greater discourse and pushback against these types of legal actions. Growing debates about the integrity and validity of election results are clearly eliciting powerful responses.

In a forthright statement to the Cowboy State Daily the previous month, Gray asserted that Newcomb’s lawsuit was a manifestation of ‘the ravings of a radical left-wing madman.’ He further argued that this represented another ‘example of the tactics of lunatics of the radical Left’ who are trying to interfere in elections in inappropriate ways. It’s clear that the language of this quarrel has grown heated and the stakes high.

The 14th Amendment, ratified post-Civil War, tangles its roots deep into this case, with its stipulation that anyone having ‘engaged in insurrection’ is prohibited from occupying public office if they pledge allegiance to the Constitution. Despite the ambiguous wording and no specific mention of presidential roles, the Amendment has been invoked twice since 1919, lending additional weight to these present-day deliberations.

The seven justices who sat on the Colorado Supreme Court were entirely appointed by Democratic governors. They sit on the bench following statewide retention votes, with six of these justices winning their respective votes. However, the seventh justice who was appointed last year (2021) hasn’t faced a vote yet. A balance of political power and the way it shapes interpretations of the law are clear factors at play.

The Colorado ruling was by no means a clear-cut decision, with the final tally coming in at a close 4-3. This division in the judicial ranks spells out the complexity and loaded nature of this case. The intrigue and significance surrounding this case continue to deepen.

Trump has firmly rejected the use of the 14th Amendment in these cases, branding it an exploitation of legal procedures. Trump is strenuous in his denial regarding any illicit actions in relation to January 6, entering a plea of not guilty to both federal and state charges relating to attempts to contest the 2020 election results. Trump’s stance and counter-arguments form an integral part of the broader narrative of this case.

Prior to this groundbreaking ruling, an array of parties and over a dozen attorneys general from Republican-led states had filed briefs in anticipation of a legal challenge to the constitutional eligibility of Trump for Colorado’s 2024 ballot. The landscape is abuzz with multiple actors, stakes, and arguments, creating a charged and dynamic machination to watch unfold.


Like the products we sell? Sign up here for discounts!