This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68470315#0

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
US Supreme Court strikes down effort to disqualify Trump from Colorado primary election - BBC News US Supreme Court strikes down effort to disqualify Trump from Colorado primary election - BBC News
(32 minutes later)
Sam Cabral From a podium at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Trump describes the Supreme Court ruling as a "very important decision, and very well crafted".
US reporter He says "it will go a long way towards bringing our country together".
There should be no surprise that the court unanimously rejected this effort, because the justices' scepticism was clear at last month's hearing, says Ray Brescia. The decision will "be spoken about 100 years from now, 200 years from now", according to Trump.
The Albany Law School professor tells the BBC there were "enough off ramps" for the court to choose not to engage with the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. "You can't take someone out of a race because an opponent would like it that way," Trump adds.
Instead they focused on "a denial of due process" that would result from an individual state taking unilateral action and creating the danger of "a patchwork of states with different processes", he says. Voters can take a person out of a race very quickly, says Trump, but a court shouldn't be doing that.
"If the court was to allow Colorado to proceed in this way, what's to stop some rogue prosecutor in another state from saying that a candidate from a different party is not a viable candidate because they engaged in insurrection?" he asks.
Brescia adds that Justice Barrett's opinion - emphasising their unanimity over amplifying their disagreement - "was squarely aimed at her liberal colleagues" who made clear they agreed with the judgment but not all of the opinion.
But, he says, "less than a week after they took the immunity case, on a non-accelerated schedule, I think that that was quite rich of her".
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.
Copy this linkCopy this link