On Wednesday, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, responded to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to exclude Donald Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate and 45th President, from the 2024 primary ballot in the state.
Gingrich likened the court’s decision to the actions of authoritarian governments in Latin America, such as Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua.
Do you understand how they have us waring with each other over Trump?
Listen to “The War Within: Neocons vs Paleocons” on Spreaker.
Gingrich began by expressing his concern, stating, “Colorado is teetering on the brink of becoming the next Venezuela. Four lawyers have arbitrarily decided that their opinions outweigh the 1,364,607 Coloradans who voted for Donald Trump in 2020.”
He criticized the court’s decision, asserting that preventing a political opponent from running reflects dictatorial behavior, not democratic principles.
Gingrich called on Coloradans to demand the removal of the four partisan individuals responsible for what he described as an assault on democracy.
In addition to Gingrich, El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele, a leader from Latin America, criticized the decision, stating, “The United States has forfeited its right to lecture any other country about ‘democracy.'”
Bukele, who has tackled issues of cartel violence and corruption in his own country, voiced his opinion on the ruling.
Amazing interview with the Late Jessie Lee Ward
The Colorado Supreme Court, in a narrow 4-3 decision, determined that President Trump should be excluded from the state’s primary ballot.
The court argued that Trump’s actions, particularly his comments leading up to the January 6 Capitol Riot, amounted to an “insurrection” against the United States. The court’s opinion emphasized Trump’s continued support for the Capitol siege and his efforts to persuade Vice President Mike Pence and Senators to disrupt the electoral vote counting.
Despite the court’s decision, many legal scholars, including former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, criticized the ruling as a scandal and a partisan maneuver. Dershowitz argued that the decision violated the explicit terms of the Constitution and urged the Supreme Court to promptly address the matter to ensure that presidential elections align with the will of the people, rather than the preferences of partisan judges. He emphasized that the 14th Amendment was intended for specific historical contexts and not as a replacement for the Constitution’s impeachment provisions.
