Supreme Court will decide if Trump can stay on 2024 ballots

Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox Get our free Inside Washington email Please enter a valid email address Please enter a valid email address SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing president.” The Constitution, she said, “does not tolerate an assault on the foundation of our government.” Mr Trump’s attorneys have also appealed that decision to Maine’s superior court, claiming that the process was “infected by bias and pervasive lack of due process” and “is arbitrary, capricious, and characterized by abuse of discretion” and “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record.” House Democrats have urged Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, left, to recuse himself from a case involving Donald Trump’s ballot eligiblity, citing his wife, Ginni Thomas, right, who promoted false election claims. A question of whether the American experiment could survive against “an internal attempt to overthrow it” remained in dispute, according to Lincoln, and “it is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets, and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal except to ballots themselves at succeeding elections.” Section 3’s authors argued during congressional debate that the rules apply to anyone who took an oath of office, including the president, which attorneys for Mr Trump and right-wing legal analysts have disputed, by pointing to language that he is neither an “officer under the United States” nor an “officer of the United States”. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr Trump’s attorneys argued that “the question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide.” “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority,” they wrote. But after arguments on appeal to the state’s highest court in December, Colorado justices wrote in a 4-3 majority opinion that Mr Trump’s “direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary.” Two parallel criminal cases – one in a state court in Atlanta, Georgia and another at the federal level in Washington DC – have charged the former president with engaging a criminal enterprise to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating in his refusal to stop the mob from breaking into the halls of Congress to do it by force.