Former Presidential Candidate Applauds Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling on Trump’s Ballot Removal, Warns of Potential Consequences
In a recent unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the 2024 ballot in Colorado, much to the praise of former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. However, Ramaswamy also warned about the potential consequences that could arise from this decision.
Ramaswamy commended the Supreme Court for its decision, stating that it represented a “case of national unity.” He argued that the United States cannot truly be united if individual states have the power to unilaterally decide a national candidate’s eligibility beyond age and tenure requirements. “That doesn’t work if we’re one nation. So that’s what this case was really about,” he emphasized. He further stated that this ruling was not just about President Trump but also about the future unity of the country itself.
Although Ramaswamy praised the unanimous ruling, he expressed concerns about the subtext within the written decision, particularly in the concurrence written by liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. He believed that these justices were granting themselves political latitude to handle future Trump-related cases that may come before the Supreme Court.
“What you see from the liberal justices is – the three of them did swing over for the 9-0 unanimous ruling here, but they say other actors in the federal government, even outside of Congress, could have had that authority anyway,” Ramaswamy explained. He believed that this was a strategic move to allow the court to take a different direction in other cases related to Trump.
Ramaswamy also highlighted two upcoming cases that could potentially affect Trump. The first case, known as Trump v. United States or the Trump immunity case, will determine whether the former president should be immune from allegations stemming from the events of January 6, 2021, including those from Special Counsel Jack Smith. The second case involves former North Cornwall police officer Joseph Fischer and his obstructing-an-official-proceeding charge during the Capitol riot, which could also impact Trump’s charges.
Commenting on the John Roberts era of the Supreme Court, Ramaswamy noted that the court has been focused on maintaining its institutional legitimacy. He believed that the unanimous ruling in this case was a positive outcome in that regard. However, he cautioned that the concurrence by the liberal justices could pave the way for future decisions that may deviate from the current consensus.
In conclusion, Ramaswamy warned that attempts to remove Trump from the ballot could have negative long-term consequences for the nation. He argued that such actions would undermine the democratic principles that the country was founded upon and called it a move towards a monarchy rather than a democracy. Ramaswamy emphasized the importance of settling differences at the ballot box and ensuring that every person has a voice and a vote in the democratic process.
