Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas exhibited his usual astuteness during the oral arguments on Thursday, probing attorney Jason Murray, representing Colorado voters, over the state’s decision to exclude former President Donald Trump from the ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, commonly referred to as the “Insurrection Clause.”
While some justices expressed reservations about Colorado’s authority to remove a presidential candidate from its ballot, Justice Thomas delved deeper into this issue during his exchange with Murray. Murray argued that states possess the power to disqualify national candidates, but when pressed for examples by Justice Thomas, he faltered.
SEE IT: Justice Clarence Thomas obliterates Colorado lawyer Jason Murray. Every time you use too many words to respond to a direct simple question, you’re probably lying or trying too hard. Are you in love with her/him? Yes or No? Should be simple. WATCH pic.twitter.com/tciCaFyqpB
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) February 8, 2024
Murray asserted states’ jurisdiction over elections, but Justice Thomas swiftly countered, highlighting historical contexts such as Reconstruction and the Compromise of 1877. He noted that with numerous Confederates still active during those times, there should have been instances of disqualifying national candidates.
Despite Murray mentioning cases where Congress refused to seat national candidates, Justice Thomas emphasized the specificity of the current case.
If you want to know what the Colorado/Trump case was all about to begin with, notice they are all focusing on Clarence Thomas now that they know, and have always known, they were going to lose this.
It’s always been about painting SCOTUS as a corrupt, insurrectionist branch of…
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 8, 2024
Addressing the purpose of Section Three, Justice Thomas underscored concerns about former Confederate states disrupting governance and questioned Murray’s assertion regarding states’ authority to disqualify candidates.
In response to Justice Thomas’s persistent queries for examples, Murray failed to provide any, citing differences in historical election processes and the subsequent evolution of laws.
Clarence Thomas to libtard lawyer: Do you have any historical examples that back up any of this?
Libtard: *stammering, shaky, sputtering out*
Clarence: So no examples like this, even from the Civil war?
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) February 8, 2024
Chief Justice John Roberts intervened, offering a broader perspective on the Fourteenth Amendment’s intent to limit state power while bolstering federal authority. He questioned the notion of states, especially Confederate ones, having implicit authorization to regulate the presidential election process.
In essence, Justice Thomas’s rigorous line of questioning illuminated the complexity of balancing state and federal powers, especially concerning electoral procedures.