OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
CNN analyst and New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman revealed that former President Donald Trump is “not happy” about being associated with a “charge of insurrection,” but his camp views the ballot ban in Colorado as “a gift.”
During an interview on CNN with host Kaitlan Collins, Habberman spoke about the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to disqualify Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, claiming that he is an ineligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
Haberman said that Trump’s advisers see the ruling as a “gift” that will help his 2024 campaign.
In response to a question about the ruling, Habberman said: “They generally see it, Kaitlan, as a gift. I mean, Trump is not happy about any of these cases, particularly cases that tie him, to a charge of insurrection. But they see the way that they anticipate this will play out. As you know, they are going to appeal. They’re going to ask the Supreme Court to take it up. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to. If they don’t, it’s affirming the decision, which I think becomes complicated, although they could always affirm it.”
“They feel pretty good about their chances that it will get overturned. And either way, they see this as something that they can use, to argue that he is being victimized. It’s easy, for voters, to understand, Kaitlan, which is, effort to throw someone off the ballot. Some of these legal cases, the criminal cases that he’s facing are more complicated,” Haberman added.
Kayleigh McEnany, a former White House press secretary in the Trump administration, also recently tore into the Colorado Supreme Court over its recent decision.
McEnany slammed the left’s shameless attempt to delegitimize the Supreme Court.
Separately, the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request to have Trump removed from the ballot in 2024 on allegations that he violated the “insurrectionist ban” in the U.S. Constitution.
This decision stands in stark contrast to the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent decision, which removed Trump from the state’s primary ballot due to his involvement in the riot that occurred on January 6th in the Capitol, CNN reported.
Given these contradictory rulings, the anticipated appeals to the US Supreme Court take on even greater significance, particularly as the country gears up for the 2024 primaries. The lawsuit in Michigan, in contrast to the one in Colorado, was dismissed before it ever reached trial. A court that heard appeals from lower courts affirmed the dismissal of the case.
According to the judge who initially heard the case from Michigan’s Court of Claims, there is no room in state law for election officials to verify the eligibility of candidates for the presidential primary. He went on to say that the courts had no business deciding the case because it posed a political question.
The Michigan Supreme Court did not release a vote count, and the order was unsigned.
The courts in Michigan, in contrast to their Colorado counterparts, dismissed the case entirely due to procedural issues. They skirted the issue of whether or not Trump participated in the January 6 insurrection.
In a Wednesday piece, one of the justices from Michigan explained how their state differs from Colorado.
“The anti-Trump challengers have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office,” Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote, drawing a comparison between Michigan law and Colorado’s election code.
Post-Civil War ratification of the 14th Amendment prohibits “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office for officials who pledge allegiance to the Constitution. Disqualified were thousands of former Confederates under the provision.
The vague language does not even refer to the presidency, and there have only been two applications since 1919.
Free Speech For People, an advocacy group, sued the state of Michigan in September on behalf of certain voters. Additionally, it has lately filed a case in Oregon and attempted to challenge Trump’s eligibility for the presidency in Minnesota, but was unsuccessful.
