Upon taking his place at the heart of the Supreme Court bench, Chief Justice John Roberts hinted at a potential majority, if not unanimity, among the justices to overturn a Colorado ruling that had prevented Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot.
Unlike the usual ideological divisions, the questioning carried a tone of political expediency and comity, signaling a unique alignment among the six Republican-appointed conservatives and three Democratic liberals on the bench.
Roberts found himself in a favorable position, not requiring personal persuasion efforts to garner support from his colleagues. The atmosphere in the courtroom suggested a shared inclination to reverse the Colorado decision.
John Roberts and Trump (Credits: CNN)
However, the impending challenge lies in how swiftly the nine justices can concur on legal grounds and deliver an opinion to resolve the national uncertainty surrounding states’ authority to bar Trump from ballots under a 14th Amendment section addressing insurrectionists.
As primary election contests unfold and Super Tuesday looms just a month away, the urgency to reach a decision has become apparent. This situation marks a significant moment for the Supreme Court, reminiscent of the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, where the Court played a pivotal role in an election battle of substantial magnitude.
The courtroom witnessed a full attendance, with justices’ spouses, including Jane Roberts, and notable figures like lawyer Mark Paoletta present in special guest sections.
Journalists filled their usual seats, with overflow sections accommodating additional reporters behind marble pillars. The live-streamed audio of the arguments reached a wide audience through platforms like CNN.
Early in the two-hour hearing, any potential scenario of the leading Republican presidential candidate being excluded from state ballots seemed to dissipate.
Roberts’ critique of the Colorado Supreme Court decision found resonance among his colleagues, who, while differing in their constitutional grounds, aligned in questioning the ruling.
