On the Role of the Colorado Supreme Court in Obstructing Abtressing Treatment for the Young, High-Energy Genres
Patients can get prescriptions through a doctor’s office or by mail if they choose, thanks to the Food and Drug Administration. Most people now use medication abortions as their most popular abortion method.
The court’s decision to overturn Wade in June of 2016 has resulted in a major topic on the campaign trail. That’s not the last word the court will have on abortion, either.
“The Colorado Court’s decision isn’t formally binding in other states but its reasoning may influence them,” Rosen said. “Nevertheless, once the Supreme Court weighs in, it will settle any disagreements that emerge among the lower courts one way or the other.”
The high court already is considering two legal questions related to former president and current GOP front-runner Donald Trump. Trump plans to appeal a third Colorado case, which could prevent him from running for president in that state, because he tried to overturn the last election.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the court majority wrote. We are aware of the magnitude of the questions that are before us. We are aware that our duty is to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to ban Trump from his 2024 primary campaign in the presence of a federal judge’s office and a congressional prosecutor’s assistant
A divided Colorado Supreme Court ruled late Tuesday that Trump could be barred from that state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot since he took an oath of office and then engaged in insurrection, in violation of part of the 14th Amendment. Congress passed an amendment during the Reconstruction era to make certain that members of the confederacy are held accountable.
But prosecutors have deployed that law against more than 300 other Capitol rioters — and it forms the basis of two charges against Trump in the D.C. federal case, leading to questions about whether the court might upset dozens of other convictions and sentences.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the case of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer, charged with obstruction of an official proceeding at the Capitol building. He said that the Justice Department overreached when it criminally charged him under the corporate fraud statute.
Special counsel Jack Smith says no one is above the law — not even a former president. Earlier this month, Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed, ruling Trump is not entitled to a ” ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” Prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to step in and decide once and for all — an apparent effort to try to preserve a March 2024 trial date, or at least an attempt to ensure Trump faces trial in Washington, D.C., before the next election.
That issue has never reached the Supreme Court. No US president has ever been charged with a crime.
Trump is advancing a bold argument to defend himself against conspiracy charges related to his efforts to cling to power in 2020. His lawyers say he’s entitled to absolute immunity — a complete shield — from federal criminal prosecution, because he was president at the time.
Public confidence in the court has plunged amid ethics scandals and the move to overturn a landmark abortion case last term. The number of issues that are related to Trump could make for more intense scrutiny.
The Supreme Court is poised to play a key role in the next presidential election and it’s less than a year away.
The election of 2024 is going to be difficult. So the sooner we know what the fundamental rules are the better off we are going to be,” he said.
No matter how the justices proceed, it is “critical for the court to resolve this as soon as it possibly can,” said Guy-Uriel Charles, a Harvard law professor who specializes in election law.
“We now have a definitive, for the first time, state supreme court ruling on those questions. Bonifaz said that it’s applicable to other states.
He said that the lawsuits all had the same legal questions, including whether the 14th Amendment applies to the president and whether courts could enforce it without congressional legislation.
The Colorado Supreme Court Decision on Insurrection and Reionization vs. the Colorado Free Speech For People (CREW)
John Bonifaz said that the Colorado decision will have a major impact on the group’s other challenges.
There are two notable suits in Michigan and Oregon. The supreme courts in state are considering the cases of Free Speech For People. (The group also filed a challenge in Minnesota, which was dismissed; the state court there said political parties have the right to put ineligible candidates on their primary ballots.) The group plans to file more challenges in the future.
The Colorado lower court’s finding that Trump committed insurrection on January 6 is relevant in other states as well, he said.
In Colorado, CREW “brought the right case in the right place at the right time in order to prevail on the merits,” said Donald Sherman, the group’s executive vice president and chief counsel.
They argue that Trump’s actions around the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters swarmed the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent Congress from formalizing Joe Biden’s presidential election victory, constituted an insurrection.
The lawsuits all focus on the clause from the 14th amendment that says anyone who engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States can’t hold office.
Some aspects of American election law are perfectly clear — like the rule that prohibits candidates from becoming president before they turn 35 — but many others are invitations to judges to resolve uncertainty as they see fit, based in part on their own politics. Take Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which blocks insurrectionists from running for office, a provision originally aimed at former Confederates in the wake of the Civil War. There may well be some instances in which the very survival of a democratic regime is at stake if noxious candidates or parties are not banned, as in West Germany after World War II. But in this case, what Section 3 requires is far from straightforward. Keeping Mr. Trump off the ballot could put democracy at more risk rather than less.
Part of the danger lies in the fact that what actually happened on Jan. 6 — and especially Mr. Trump’s exact role beyond months of election denial and entreaties to government officials to side with him — is still too broadly contested. The bench trial that the Colorado court chose to place on facts, was not seen by a jury and many Americans still believe that Mr. Trump didn’t do anything wrong. A Supreme Court that affirms the Colorado ruling would have to succeed in constructing a consensual narrative where others — including armies of journalists, the Jan. 6 commission and recent indictments — have failed.