Colorado Republican State Central Committee, Petitioner v Norma Anderson, et al. (Supreme Court docket #23-696), certiorari granted in #23-719 Trump v Anderson, to be argued 02/08/24

NOTE: Given the current threads on the overall subject, I ask that you limit discussion solely to the Supreme Court case and how the Justices might handle this. I will give the links to the docket and petition as well as the questions presented, then I will comment on it.

Link to Supreme Court docket #23-696, Colorado Republican State Central Committee, Petitioner v Norma Anderson, et al.

Link to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.


The Supreme Court of Colorado held that states possess authority, regardless of the lack of congressional authorization, to determine that a presidential candidate is disqualified under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified as an insurrectionist. The Questions Presented are:

1. Whether the President falls within the list of officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing to the extent of allowing states to remove candidates from the ballot in the absence of any Congressional action authorizing such process?

3. Whether the denial to a political party of its ability to choose the candidate of its choice in a presidential primary and general election violates that party’s First Amendment Right of Association?

If I know John Roberts and I think I do, he will try to take the most pragmatic exit possible in this situation and the conservative and perhaps liberal Justices will likely join him.

Question 1. The Supreme Court will punt.

Question 2. The Supreme Court will punt.

Question 3. The Supreme Court will craft a narrow decision, applicable to the primary election only, that a party’s selection of its nominee is a private, not public, affair and will uphold Trump’s status on the ballot on freedom of association grounds.

The Supreme Court will defer the status of Trump in the general election to future litigation, which they will likely find a way of punting without deciding the status of Section 14.3 in any way.

Again, please limit your comments to the Supreme Court case only and leave other comments to the existing threads.

The answer to number 3 makes no sense: what is the point of allowing him to run In the primary but then excluding him in the general? Wouldn’t it be better to nip it in the bud, so to speak?

Actually, I believe they will find a way to let him run in the general election as well. They will simply limit the current case to the primary.

In both cases, they will find a way to decide without directly interpreting Section 14.3.

1 Like

SCOTUS always tries to craft a narrow opinion as to not set a precedent in controversial cases.

trump will be on the ballot i will agree.


I think Justice Thomas will be critical to the final decision…

…… …. …… Once she is ready she’ll let Clarence know.



of course he does. They will however side step the issue by using the next one.

absolutely positively no. Neither states nor courts have war powers. Insurrection is an act of war putting the US in a de facto state of war. Recognizing that state of war requires Congressional action.

no, you can’t use one constitutional provision to negate another (that would be for the general). The primary question is interesting and you may be right about that.

In fact, while I won’t revise my opinion, I will say that your analysis does seem to fit this court. Throw it out with the dummy question, and say you don’t need to decide the others because they are then moot.

The real question is not whether he could be on the ballot, its whether he could take office if he won.

1 Like

Serious question.

I know that primaries are for the party.

But who provides the infrastructure and who pays for the election:

  • The State,
  • The Party, or
  • Both, the costs are split.


Right, so why not just dispose of the whole mess right now?

Might be logical, but not how the Chief Justice rolls. :smile:

1 Like

It’s frustrating

Side stepping issues is exactly what the SCOTUS has done throughout the modern era of the court (which I measure from the day they surrendered to FDR). When they don’t sidestep, they are only about 50/50 on whether they get it right.

Supposedly Colorado and some other Democrat dominated states would rule in their state courts that Trump was not the President if he won while most states would recognize Trump as the President.
Sounds sort of like a real insurrection, doesn’t it?

Lots of scared people with zero idea of the havoc they’ve uncorked.



They are completely destroying US jurisprudence.

This is an embarrassment forcing the supreme Court to decide the very basics of a representative Republic.


They certainly didn’t sidestep Roe v Wade.

1 Like

they did for 50 years. kind of the point, when they first ruled on it, instead of side stepping, they screwed up big time. took 50 years for them to fix it


Trump has filed his own Petition.

Link to the Supreme Court docket #23-719, Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. Norma Anderson, et al.

Link to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this case.

From the table of contents of the Petition:

Reasons for granting the petition … 18

I. The issues presented in this petition are of exceptional importance and urgently require this court’s prompt resolution … 18

II. Disputed questions of presidential qualifications are reserved for Congress to resolve … 19

III. Section 3 is inapplicable To President Trump … 23

IV. President Trump did not “engage in insurrection” … 26

V. The Colorado Supreme Court violated the electors clause by flouting the statutes governing presidential elections … 29

VI. Section 3 cannot be used to deny President Trump access to the ballot … 31

He really does not need to open this can of worms. The Supreme Court RARELY overturns factual findings of a trial court. Trump engaging in insurrection (or providing aid and comfort) is a factual finding, not a legal conclusion, and thus Trump is climbing unneeded ground in bringing this issue up. As I explained earlier, IF he wins, it will be because John Roberts will find a procedural way to let him win. Likely, for this particularly primary election stage, it will be the First Amendment that gives Robert’s the “out” he needs to give Trump a free pass.


(ORDER LIST: 601 U.S.)




The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024.
Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.

The justices will rule the removal of trump was asinine .

And when trump wins again, the promised liberal mass exist to other countries will be welcome.

Lets make America great again.