"The Colorado court’s approach to Section 3 continues this tradition. To find that a president incited a violent insurrection against the United States but hold that such a president can still run for public office — indeed to return to the presidency itself — could not stand in starker opposition to the words and spirit of Section 3.
"The 14th Amendment has once again proved too bold for the judges empowered to interpret it. Political forces are at play again, this time fearful of a backlash if Trump is removed from the ballot. As this case makes its way through the appellate process and, most likely, to the Supreme Court, it should be understood in the context of how the timidity and unwillingness of judges to acquiesce to the judgment of the 14th Amendment’s framers effectively derailed our democracy’s promise after Reconstruction and until the mid-20th century. We must ensure that it does not do the same in the 21st." -- Sherrilyn Ifill, Harvard Law professor and former President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, concluding an op/ ed on the judicial branch's history of pusillanimity when it comes to enforcing the 14th Amendment. Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace's decision not to bar the insurrectionist Malignant Loser from being on Colorado's ballot, after finding that he incited an insurrection, will be appealed all the way to the Republican Supreme Court.
