Justice Roberts Questions ‘Insurrection’ Being Used Against Trump

From the very first ballot case that was filed to remove Trump from consideration in this election, my stance has always been that the court would need to define “insurrection” as well as set the guidelines for how that could be used to remove a candidate from a ballot.

When the plaintiffs in the Colorado ballot case started to make their argument, it was clear from the outset that Justice Roberts was not buying into the idea of there being varying degrees of definition for an insurrection.

The rest of the court seemed to follow suit, with virtually every justice questioning the validity of the claim as well as the actual definition of insurrection.

Court Leans Toward Trump

The problem for the plaintiffs is that the term “insurrection” has been thoroughly abused since January 6.

Was it a riot? Absolutely. Was it embarrassing? Absolutely. Was it a true threat to the power of the government as the ruling body of this country? Absolutely not.

The most notable back-and-forth for Thursday’s arguments was been Justice Roberts and plaintiff attorney Jason Murray.

Roberts stated, “Counsel, what do you do with what would seem to me to be plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side. And some of those will succeed.”

He then added, “I would expect that a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot. And others for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot.”

Murray then responded, “Well, certainly, your honor, the fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision isn’t a reason –”

Roberts cut him off, stating, “Well now, hold on. You might think they’re frivolous but the people who are bringing them may not think they’re frivolous. Insurrection is a broad, broad term.”

Chief Justice Roberts: "Insurrection is a broad, broad term..." pic.twitter.com/ZNPCxTridU

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

Even Justice Kagan took exception to this amendment being used to remove Trump from the ballot, stating, “In other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again, is, just to say it, it sounds awfully national to me. If you weren’t from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan and … what the Michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between, you know, whether Candidate A is elected or Candidate B is elected, I mean, that seems quite extraordinary, doesn’t it?”

Comments and questions from the other justices were all along the same line, which tells me that we probably have a unanimous decision coming when the Court finally releases its opinion.

If you recall, when all this madness got started, I had stated the only way this decision would take grip in the media was if it was a unanimous decision, otherwise, Democrats and the media would say that it was a biased decision from a conservative-leaning court.

That narrative is put to bed if the decision comes down 9-0 in favor of keeping Trump on the ballot.