(Mises)—This week’s decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to ban — for now — Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot is the latest escalation in the broader theatre of deteriorating political norms in America. The four-three decision is grounded in the Court’s opinion that Trump’s actions on January 6 represent culpability in an attempted “insurrection” and therefore disqualify him under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The response to the court’s decision was predictable. On the left, political leaders in other Democrat-controlled states immediately called for their own disqualification efforts. Most amusingly, and an excellent illustration of the current state of American politics, a letter by the California Lt. Governor proclaimed: “The constitution is clear: you must be 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist.” The Constitution’s age requirement is, of course, 35.
On the right, the response was varied. While a minority of Republicans desperate for a return to a pre-2016 GOP celebrated the decision, many rank-and-file Republican voters responded with understandable anger, viewing the court’s decision as an outrageous attack on political determination and further indication of the lengths the government will go to undermine their desired political leader. Others viewed the decision as a net positive, a demonstration of the rising probability of Trump’s re-election, and ultimately a form of political theatre that would eventually backfire with voters.
This assumption, however, is predicated on the widely held belief that the Colorado decision will quickly make its way to the US Supreme Court, which will strike it down. The timing of Colorado’s decision, which has been threatened by Democrats for months now, will help clarify this process early and remove this threat from next November’s contest.
Supporting this view is one piece of precedence the Supreme Court has to work from: a Civil War-era case where a man, Caesar Griffin, challenged a criminal conviction on the basis that the presiding judge was disqualified from his position due to serving as a legislator in the Virginia Confederate government. At the time, the Court found that the relevant section of the 14th Amendment was not self-enforcing and, therefore, required an act of Congress to disqualify the judge in question.
But what if the Supreme Court does not overturn Colorado’s ruling?
Afterall the Colorado verdict engaged with the Griffin Case, arguing that the Court’s decision at the time simply reflected the unique issues regarding the particular circumstance of state secession, which maintained its pre-federal legislative bodies. In the Colorado court’s eyes, Trump’s encouragement of January 6 is a separate matter entirely. They granted their ability to judge Trump guilty of insurrection, regardless of the opinion of any other legal body.
This dynamic highlights one of the many limitations of any “constitutional order” that any legal system is ultimately only limited by the judgments of those responsible for enforcing it. As Ryan McMaken has noted, rather than some form of neutral institution charged with acting within the narrow limits of the law, “In practice, the Supreme Court is just another federal legislature, although this one decides matters of public policy based on the opinions of a mere five people, most of whom spend their time utterly divorced from the economic realities of ordinary people while cavorting with oligarchs and other elites.”
By looking beyond the romantic lens with which far too many conservatives hold regarding their assumptions about how the Constitution should function, the question is, what are the motivations of the current US Supreme Court?
Particularly in the current political environment, beginning with a simple partisan breakdown of the court is natural. This dynamic may better explain the confidence of conservative pundits more than confidence that the Constitution guarantees their desired outcome, given that six of the nine current judges were nominated by Republicans, including three from President Trump himself.
While this six-three split likely will be the favorite result on political gambling websites, the history of the modern court is more nuanced. We have “Republican” judges who frequently rule in ways that have hurt the political calculation of their associated party, from Chief Justice John Roberts’s infamous decision to uphold Obamacare to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s vote in a voting rights decision that forced the Alabama state legislature to bend to the will of the Democrat Party and create a reliably blue voting district earlier this year. Similarly, Justice Amy Comey Barrett joined in a separate case involving voting maps in North Carolina, as well as a case challenging controversial changes to 2020 election law.
As such, partisanship alone cannot be relied upon to carry the day. Further, commentary by legal scholars at the Cato Institute, such as Ilya Somin celebrating the Colorado Court’s decision, demonstrates that the appetite of “Constitutional lawyers” to justify the logic utilized in the case is not limited simply to progressive activists.
What individuals like Somin and the Colorado majority have in common is an underlying hatred of Donald Trump individually and their belief that he is a uniquely grotesque and dangerous figure to wield the office of the presidency. In the formers’ words, he is a “menace to liberal democracy” whose “rhetoric echoes that of twentieth-century fascists.” If one holds this view, the aim to retroactively rationalize any attempt to prevent his return to power becomes internally justified, even if disqualifying political opponents violates the principles of liberal democracy in a way twentieth-century fascists would have supported.
Could nominally Republican justices hold similar views?
A potential clue could be considering the academic affiliations of the Colorado Court. While Democrats appointed all seven of the state’s Supreme Court, three of the four in the majority justices were from Ivy League products, and DC clerkships shaped their careers. The three dissenters went to the University of Denver. Of the three potential swing votes at the federal level, two are Ivy Leaguers with similar pedigrees: Roberts and Kavanaugh.
While it is overly simplistic to predict the ruling of a judge like Kavanaugh simply because he was a part of that whole Yale thing — after all, the same could be said for Clarence Thomas — his pre-Supreme Court experience was very much spent as part of the political system that views Trump as a particularly vulgar threat. Similarly, the Harvard-trained Roberts was a reliable foil to President Trump during his first term. Various Supreme Court watchers have argued that some of his decisions were made from a position of trying to defend his court’s place in history from accusations of it being a Trump Court.
What better way for these two to win historical fame from their beloved institutions than being those responsible for ending the Trump political threat once and for all? Particularly if the result is a lifeline to a potential Nikki Haley takeover of the Republican banner, a candidate who some reasonably view as “Dick Cheney in 3-inch heels.”
As Murray Rothbard identified in his classic Anatomy of the State, the best way to understand the government’s behavior is from the viewpoint of defending its legitimacy and preservation. If the principle of political self-determination must be sacrificed to preserve the regime, then so be it.
With this understanding in mind, it would be a mistake for conservatives to believe their team will bail out “their guy.” In the end, most of those wearing robes are closer to their enemies than their friends.
If the Supreme Court saves Trump, it will not be due to their rejecting the belief that Trump is guilty of insurrection, but a calculated decision that the political fallout from the right will spark a danger to the Court’s credibility — and by extension the regime as a whole — then four more years of MAGA.
For those who desire to see the regime threatened, one’s preferred outcome in this case should be shaped by which of those two threats they view as most likely to deliver.
About the Author
Tho is Editorial and Content Manager for the Mises Institute, and can assist with questions from the press. Prior to working for the Mises Institute, he served as Deputy Communications Director for the House Financial Services Committee. His articles have been featured in The Federalist, the Daily Caller, Business Insider, The Washington Times, and The Rush Limbaugh Show.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.