The Michigan judiciary recently dismissed an appeal to disqualify former President Donald Trump from contention in the 2024 election, based on claims that he breached the 'insurrectionist ban' detailed in the U.S. Constitution.

This ruling appears notably diverse from the recent judgment by the Colorado Supreme Court, which excised Trump from their state's primary ballot, citing his purported role in the Capitol disturbance on January 6th. As the nation prepares for the 2024 primary elections, these opposing outcomes illuminate the paramount importance of any upcoming appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case brought before in Michigan, unlike its Colorado counterpart, was discarded without ever proceeding to trial. Michigan's court of appeals - an institution tasked with reviewing decisions made by lower courts - substantiated the original dismissal of the case.

According to the initial judge, from Michigan's Court of Claims, the state's election regulation does not account for enabling electoral authorities to authenticate the eligibility of presidential primary aspirants.

The judge further hinted that the legal system had no jurisdiction over this issue as it was fundamentally a political one. Interestingly, the Michigan Supreme Court did not publicize any voting tally and left the decision unsigned. Unlike Colorado's judiciary, Michigan's courts fully rejected the case on procedural grounds without broaching the topic of Trump's alleged involvement in the January 6 insurrection.

The Michigan judiciary recently dismissed an appeal to disqualify former President Donald Trump from contention in the 2024 election, based on claims that he breached the 'insurrectionist ban' detailed in the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling appears notably diverse from the recent judgment by the Colorado Supreme Court, which excised Trump from their state's primary ballot, citing his purported role in the Capitol disturbance on January 6th. As the nation prepares for the 2024 primary elections, these opposing outcomes illuminate the paramount importance of any upcoming appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case brought before in Michigan, unlike its Colorado counterpart, was discarded without ever proceeding to trial. Michigan's court of appeals - an institution tasked with reviewing decisions made by lower courts - substantiated the original dismissal of the case.
According to the initial judge, from Michigan's Court of Claims, the state's election regulation does not account for enabling electoral authorities to authenticate the eligibility of presidential primary aspirants.
The judge further hinted that the legal system had no jurisdiction over this issue as it was fundamentally a political one. Interestingly, the Michigan Supreme Court did not publicize any voting tally and left the decision unsigned. Unlike Colorado's judiciary, Michigan's courts fully rejected the case on procedural grounds without broaching the topic of Trump's alleged involvement in the January 6 insurrection.

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Real News Now Podcast

Real News Now Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

<a href="https://realnewsnow.com/">Real News Now</a> Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

Advertisement