Friday, Dec. 22, 2023 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Donald Trump received an early Christmas present Tuesday, courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court.
In a move without precedent, the justices ruled 4-3 that Trump was ineligible for the state’s 2024 presidential ballot, owing to his role in the attempted Jan. 6, 2021, overthrow of the federal government.
However, the decision was stayed until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the matter — a move that seems all but certain.
The immediate impact was predictable: a headlong rush by Republicans to rally behind the party’s serially indicted presidential front-runner.
“Removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado under this theory is spurious, likely unconstitutional & a sadly predictable but outrageous form of lawfare. SCOTUS should end this,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on the social media platform X.
Before issuing his fulminating statement, Roy was last seen campaigning in Iowa on behalf of Trump’s fading rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Naturally, Democrats and Trump foes reveled in the Colorado court’s decision. Any humiliation or formal rebuke is a welcome sanction for the aspiring tinpot dictator.
But its practical effect may well be moot.
The deadline for Colorado to finalize its presidential primary ballot is Jan. 5, which makes it quite likely — given the deferred decision — that Trump’s name will be included there on March 5. Colorado will be one of more than a dozen states voting that day — Super Tuesday — to select the GOP nominee.
Of course, there is the possibility the Supreme Court will uphold Trump’s disqualification and enough states will then follow suit to nullify his dangerous bid to reclaim the White House.
But given the court’s ideological makeup and partisan inclinations, that seems as likely as Clarence Thomas stepping down and announcing his chairmanship of Retired Justices for Biden.
Thus, the most important effect may be in the short term, which is to say the days following Tuesday’s decision.
There are now just over three weeks before Iowa Republicans cast the first votes of the 2024 election Jan. 15. With time ticking, Trump rivals can ill afford a prolonged legal skirmish that consumes what little attention is paid the contest over the coming holiday break.
A perceived assault on Trump — by Democratic-appointed Colorado justices, no less — only makes the insurrectionist ex-president more sympathetic to the GOP base; his support in polls soared last April after the first of four indictments.
That, in turn, will make it more difficult for Trump’s rivals to attack the front-runner — not that they’ve been all that willing up to now.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the preternaturally pugnacious Republican hopeful, was quick with a statement calling the Colorado Supreme Court decision “un-American, unconstitutional and unprecedented.”
Even though his candidacy is headed nowhere, Ramaswamy laid down a not-insignificant marker.
“I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that (rivals) Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and Nikki Haley do the same immediately,” he said. “Or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.”
Hyperventilating aside, none of those candidates seem likely to follow Ramaswamy’s lead. But each will now be required to stand up for Trump — again — or risk the wrath of their party’s base for failing doing so.
Many Democrats, for their part, keep hoping for an easy out.
They’re counting on rulings like the one in Colorado, or legal efforts underway in California and other states, to remove Trump from the ballot and end the threat of his return to the White House.
But there’s no easy shortcut to short-circuit Trump’s comeback, notwithstanding the exultation over Tuesday’s court ruling.
Assuming Trump is the GOP nominee, Democrats will have to beat him at the ballot box, as they should. A courtroom is no place to decide a presidential election — which is exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2000.
The stain persists to this day.
Mark Barabak is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
