A Colorado attorney who argued in favour of a ruling removing Donald Trump from the state’s ballot has suggested Biden is open for scrutiny.
Speaking on GB News, Eric Olson was asked by Patrick Christys about the US President’s perceived cognitive issues.
The GB News presenter asked whether the court will examine whether the US President is fit for office given his apparent mental decline.
Olson said there is a “mechanism” in place for people unfit for office to be removed, should it ever be needed.
Eric Olson says Biden could be subject to the same level of scrutiny as Trump
GB NEWS / GETTY IMAGES
He added there is no political bias in the constitution and while Trump has suffered from its guidelines on this occasion, it could be a Democrat in the future.
“Our constitution applies to everyone”, he said.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
“There is a mechanism for people to remove a sitting president if they are incapable of doing their job.
“That mechanism applies to Democrats and Republicans alike. There is no party that can exempt itself from that Constitution.”
Olson added that the ruling sets an “important legal precedent” for anybody standing for office.
“No one is above the law”, he told Christys.
Donald Trump does not need to win Colorado in the November 2024 electionReuters“Our constitution applies to all of us. That is what makes our country great.
“If Joe Biden engaged in an insurrection, absolutely he should never hold office again.”
Tuesday’s decision has been placed on hold pending appeal until next month.
The ruling only applies in Colorado, but similar attempts to boot Trump off the ballot in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Michigan have failed.
The court ruled 4-3 that Trump was not an eligible candidate because he had engaged in an insurrection over the US Capitol riot nearly three years ago.
Trump remains able to run in other states while his campaign have labelled the decision “completely flawed”.
The justices wrote in their ruling: "We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.
"We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favour, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."
