In the current environment of uncompromising fractious bickering along partisan lines that passes for political debate, consisting more of haranguing than of the open exchange of competing ideas, it is refreshing, indeed, to see nine justices of the Supreme Court, making up the entire political spectrum, speaking with one voice in defense of fundamental principles, the Constitution, and its essential components.
Here, with the actions of the Colorado Supreme Court, which had sought to bar former President Donald Trump from participating in the state’s Republican primary, the justices chose to send a clear and consistent message that could not be mistaken or misinterpreted. The state cannot overrule the will of the people. Pure and simple, meddling in federal elections for political gain will not be tolerated in this constitutional democracy. So spoke the court—so spoke all the justices of the court—demonstrating that they have a level of integrity not previously recognized.
The court’s clear message, expressed in an unsigned slip opinion—indicating that all justices concurred in the result—is now all the more significant in view of the diminished respect accorded to the court and its decisions—and accorded to the Constitution itself—by many politicians and academics, who view the institution and the document as relics of a bygone age, worthy perhaps of study but not of significant value as an expression of the limits of governmental authority, nor as a roadmap to the preservation of democratic values.
The Colorado court’s ruling had proved to be novel in numerous respects. In a display of what could be interpreted as hubris on a large scale, this state court had interpreted a section of the U.S. Constitution in a highly original manner, essentially substituting its own legal reasoning for that which would more appropriately be within the purview of the U.S. Supreme Court. Typically, the highest court of any state will defer to the highest court of the United States on federal questions that require interpretation and clarification of constitutional issues. And pertaining to the highest in this case, the Colorado court had seen fit to create its own original determination, ruling that President Trump would be ineligible to participate as a candidate in the state primary elections.
The danger posed by such unilateral action is self-evident: the risk of a patchwork quilt of interpretations leading to uncertainty from state to state as to which candidates would pass state muster and which candidates would not, leading to a vastly increased degree of intermeddling in federal elections by state courts applying partisan standards. Already, two additional states, Maine and Illinois, had followed suit. The other novel aspect was the essentially extrajudicial determination by the Colorado state court system that the former president was guilty of committing acts of insurrection, acts for which he had not been formally charged, much less convicted.
Although the ruling nullifying the Colorado decision was unanimous, concurring opinions were submitted by several of the justices. These opinions reflected differing determinations with regard to the scope of the rationale for the ruling, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan arguing that a narrower basis should have been sufficient to reach a unanimous decision.
The fact that the justices were capable of reaching consensus in their decision while applying differing standards is strong evidence of a capacity for healthy debate, along with the capacity for the application of sound constitutional principles. This bodes well for the future of the court and the federal judiciary providing a basis for public confidence in controversial decisions and findings of significance by the court.
