Throughout the years, various US Supreme Court justices have emphasized that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. This notion underscores the importance of interpreting the Constitution in a way that safeguards the nation and its democratic principles. Presently, concerns arise as the right-wing supermajority on the Supreme Court may rush to prevent states from excluding Donald Trump from the ballot. This potential decision raises fears of transforming the Constitution into a suicide pact, welcoming an insurrectionist candidate who openly disregards constitutional traditions.
Anticipating the historic Colorado case that questions whether a state can disqualify Trump from the ballot, legal experts express concerns that the focus may be misplaced. The worry is that conservative justices might prioritize appeasing right-wing voters over upholding the Constitution, potentially neglecting the insurrectionist nature of Trump's actions.
The heart of the Colorado case lies in the 14th amendment, designed to ensure equal protection under the law, especially for formerly enslaved individuals. Section 3 of this amendment aims to bar those who engaged in insurrection against the United States from holding office. The insurrectionist actions of Donald Trump on January 6, as evidenced by the House select committee, clearly fall within the scope of this disqualification.
The Supreme Court's responsibility is to enforce the Constitution and preserve democracy, irrespective of political ramifications. Some scholars suggest potential legal maneuvering to keep Trump on the ballot, but deviating from textualism and originalism would undermine the Court's principles.
Trump's claims of a leftist plot against him are refuted by respected conservative constitutional scholars. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Trump is lauded as "unassailable" by jurists such as J. Michael Luttig. The Supreme Court should not shy away from decisions that may anger a portion of the population, as witnessed in historical cases like Brown v Board of Education or Roe v Wade.
Contrary to claims that seeking to disqualify Trump is undemocratic, it is an effort to enforce the Constitution against a prominent insurrectionist. Trump's track record of challenging democratic results and threatening to be a dictator raises concerns about the long-term impact on democracy.
While barring a popular candidate may seem anti-democratic, the greater risk lies in electing a candidate who openly threatens constitutional and democratic norms. Allowing Trump to remain on the ballot could be a regrettable step toward compromising the Constitution and undermining the very democracy it seeks to protect. The Supreme Court's duty is clear: not only did Trump engage in insurrection, but he has signaled a willingness to disregard constitutional norms, making his candidacy a potential threat to the nation's democratic fabric.