Trump Critic Explains Why SCOTUS Will Unanimously Overturn Colorado’s Unconstitutional Ruling

Former White House Lawyer and Trump Critic, Ty Cobb, Explains Why Supreme Court Will Unanimously Overturn Colorado’s Unconstitutional Ruling

In a recent appearance on CNN with Erin Burnett, former White House lawyer under President Donald Trump, Ty Cobb, provided his legal perspective on a controversial ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.

Ty Cobb was the former high-powered Washington attorney who represented the White House as dirty cop Robert Mueller expanded his unconstitutional witch hunt into Trump-Russia collusion,“ an American hero.”

During the interview, Cobb expressed his belief that when the case is brought to the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices will reach a unanimous verdict to overturn the Colorado court’s decision, with an emphasis on the definition of “officer of the United States” in constitutional terms.

“I was struck by the majority opinion and the amount of verbiage devoted to the sort of ‘straw men arguments.’ The real key issue in this case is, ‘Is Trump an officer of the United States in the context in which that term is used in Article III of the 14th Amendment?'” Cobb said.

According to Cobb, historical and legal precedents suggest that this refers to appointed officials, not elected ones like the President or Vice President.

Cobb pointed out the precedent set in a 2010 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, which delineated the definition of ‘officers of the United States’. This distinction, according to Cobb, forms a strong basis for the Supreme Court to act quickly and decisively in Trump’s favor.

“In 2010, Chief Justice Roberts explained in Free Enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.”

“Article Two: Officers of the United States is commonly understood in the Constitution to refer to appointed officials. And to the extent that the president or the vice president are included as an officer or included within the admonitions of the Constitution, they are typically highlighted, like in the impeachment clause, which specifically says president, vice president. So, I think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump.”

Cobb stated that, regardless of personal views on Trump, legal scholars have revised their opinions after evaluating all sides of the argument. He cited Steve Calabresi of Northwestern University as a prominent example of someone who, despite a critical view of Trump, concluded that electoral defeat, rather than a court ruling, should be the means to challenge Trump.

“I do believe it could be 9-0 because I think the law is clear,” said Cobb. “And as you’ll recall, I was once an advocate of this position.”