(FixThisNation.com) – Following the recusal of two of their peers, the justices maintained that the primary election process serves the internal functions of a political party and that securing the nomination does not equate to being a candidate in the general election.
They further explained that no state law prevents a political party from endorsing or allocating delegates to a candidate who may not be eligible for office. Last week, some justices expressed reservations about the legal challenge on jurisdictional grounds, with suggestions that it might fall under Congressional authority instead.
A progressive organization initiated the legal action in September, part of a broader national effort to disqualify Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, which bars individuals from office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath to support the Constitution.
The court refrained from deciding on Trump’s potential ineligibility for the 2024 general election ballot, stating that the claim was not yet pertinent or imminent. They indicated that should Trump secure the nomination, the petitioners could raise their concerns regarding the general election.
Similar legal challenges under the 14th Amendment are ongoing in various states, including an active trial in Colorado, while others are still in preliminary phases.
Responding to the ruling, Trump’s campaign declared it indicative of the 14th Amendment challenges being politically motivated efforts to disrupt the electoral process. According to Trump’s campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, these challenges, which they refer to as the “Democrats’ STEAL Curtain,” are funded by left-leaning organizations posing as impartial entities. Cheung asserts that these organizations, supported by major Democratic donors such as George Soros, act as proxies for the Biden campaign, arguing that their challenges are baseless and should be dismissed wherever they arise next.
Copyright 2023, FixThisNation.com