In a recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, the state's election outcome is brought into question and the possibility of a legal battle looms. Former U.S. Attorney General and former counsel to President George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, weighed in with his thoughts on the matter.
The case revolves around the denial of due process in the state of Colorado. Eight former Attorney Generals, including Bill Barr, have expressed concern regarding the application of the 14th Amendment by the states through ad hoc proceedings. Barr argued that the denial of due process is a fatal flaw in the legal process.
While due process is undoubtedly a significant concern, Gonzales makes an intriguing point about the potential politicization of the case. He suggests that the court must weigh the possibility of it being considered a political question that should be left to the states. This presents a dilemma for the court as conflicting state Supreme Court opinions could create chaos in the already tense post-election period.
Gonzales also expresses his thoughts on the merits of the case. He believes that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, citing the findings of the trial court judge in Colorado and the work of the January 6th Congressional Committee. Gonzalez sees this as sufficient evidence to meet the standard of engagement in insurrection. However, he acknowledges the difficulty faced by the court in deciding on such a politically charged case.
Twitter Post On Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Predicts Supreme Court Will Take Election Case
Regarding the question of whether the court will take up the case, Gonzales suggests that it is likely they will, given the weight of the issues at hand. He recognizes the challenges faced by Chief Justice John Roberts and the other members of the court, who must consider the current perception of the court as a political institution.
Addressing the criticism that Trump has not been officially charged with inciting insurrection, Gonzales highlights that the language of the Constitution uses the word 'engaged' rather than specific legal terms like charged or convicted. He believes that one can credibly argue that Trump was involved and engaged in insurrection based on this definition.
As we await the court's decision on whether they will take up the case, it is important to note that the outcome, no matter what it tends to be, will only serve to amplify the perception of the court as a politicized institution. The difficult choice facing the court underscores the complexity of the issue and the challenges involved in navigating the current political landscape.
