On Tuesday a divided Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump ineligible for a spot on the state's presidential primary ballot under the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause. The decision by the state's highest court sets up a likely legal showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Trump will be allowed to remain on Colorado's ballot.

The Colorado justices are the first judges in U.S. history to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to disqualify a presidential candidate.

The decision to remove Trump from the ballot has set off a firestorm of debate over whether this decision was legal and correct, and whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene. Predictably, Conservative and Republican Trump supporters are framing the ruling as the latest effort to derail the ever popular presidential candidate's chances for winning in 2024. The Democrats and Left-leaning opposition to Donald Trump are celebrating what they hope will indeed be the end of Trump's campaign.

However, not all left-leaning thinkers are supportive of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. Lester Lawrence Lessig III, an American legal scholar, political activist, and no friend of Trump, outlined why he believes upholding the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is not the right move.

"There is no argument from absurdity that justifies stretching the words of the 14th Amendment to cover this extreme case" Lessig writes.

"For the sake of the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, I hope it rejects the judgment unanimously. One does not need to like Donald Trump in order to see that the law does not preclude him from being a candidate. Or at least, such must be true, if the rule of law is indeed about law, and not about this awful man."