美国最高法院的周一裁决推翻科罗拉多州将唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）从该州共和党初选中除名的举动，对这位前总统来说显然是一场法律胜利，但法院也打击了特朗普总统竞选的一个核心主题:美国法律体系腐败、冲突和舞弊到了无可救药的地步。
四名法官——艾米·科尼·巴雷特（Amy Coney Barrett）和三名由民主党总统任命的法官——不同意该意见的某些方面，但法院在本案的核心问题上达成了强有力的一致:一个州是否可以将被发现参与反叛美国的总统候选人排除在选票之外。
法官们完全清楚，他们的一致意见向一个国家发出了一个信息，在这个国家，这位领先的共和党候选人将涉及他的无数法律诉讼描述为由他的政治对手精心策划的政治迫害。
“就目前的目的而言，我们的分歧远不如我们的一致重要:所有九名法官都同意这个案件的结果，”巴雷特法官在她的同意意见中写道。“这是美国人应该带回家的信息。”
巴雷特法官的赞同意见很短——只有两段——它清楚地表明，法院发出的信息超出了本案的细节。尽管最高法院一直存在分歧，深陷争议，但它可以在不考虑大法官政治观点的情况下维护法治，尤其是在一个具有如此深远政治影响的案件中。
巴雷特写道:“法院在总统选举的动荡季节解决了一个充满政治色彩的问题。“特别是在这种情况下，关于法院的文章应该降低而不是提高国家的温度。”
不出所料，特朗普称赞了周一的裁决。
“这是一个非常重要的决定，”他在宣布这一决定几小时后在Mar-a-Lago表示，称这是“非常精心的决定”。我认为这将大大有助于我们国家的团结。”
他补充说，“我非常尊重最高法院，我只想感谢他们工作如此迅速、如此勤奋和如此出色。”
正如可以预见的那样，如果法院在下一个将对他的命运（作为候选人和被告）产生影响的大案中做出不利于他的裁决，他将攻击法院——总统豁免权案，辩论定于4月22日那周进行。
特朗普的剧本已经很成熟了。当法律诉讼对他不利时，他会抨击法官、检察官、法院雇员、证人甚至潜在的陪审团。最高法院，包括他提名的大法官，在过去表现出独立性时，一直是特朗普愤怒的目标。
在我的书《背叛》中，我讲述了他2021年1月6日在国会大厦附近的集会上所说的话:“他猛烈抨击最高法院拒绝了他的法律挑战，暗示他提名的大法官们‘做出了不利于特朗普的裁决’，因为他们担心自己在‘社交圈子’中会受到怎样的对待。”"
2022年，特朗普抨击最高法院一致命令国税局将他的联邦所得税申报表交给国会委员会。
“为什么有人会对最高法院做出不利于我的裁决感到惊讶，他们总是这样做！”特朗普在其社交媒体平台Truth Social上写道。“最高法院已经失去了它的荣誉、声望和地位，已经变成了一个政治机构，而我们的国家正在为此付出代价。
“他们真可耻！”他继续说道。
特朗普在2018年抨击一名联邦法官为“奥巴马法官”后，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨采取了非常不同寻常的回应措施。
“我们没有奥巴马法官或特朗普法官、布什法官或克林顿法官，”罗伯茨当时表示。“我们有一群非常敬业的法官，他们竭尽全力为出庭者争取平等权利。”
特朗普立即回击，在推特上说:“对不起，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨，但你确实有‘奥巴马法官’，他们的观点与负责我们国家安全的人截然不同。”
今天，两名被特朗普称为“奥巴马法官”的法官和一名被他称为“拜登法官”的法官加入了其他人的裁决，这一裁决让特朗普感到满意，但合议庭认为这符合宪法。
Despite win, Supreme Court strikes blow to Trump's central campaign theme: ANALYSIS
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Monday knocking down Colorado's move to remove Donald Trump from the state's Republican primary ballot was a clear legal win for the former president, but the court also struck a blow to a central theme of Trump's presidential campaign: that the American legal system is hopelessly corrupt, conflicted and rigged against him.
Four of the justices -- Amy Coney Barrett and the three justices put on the court by Democratic presidents -- disagreed with some aspects of the opinion, but the court was forcefully unanimous on the central question of the case: whether a state can keep a presidential candidate off the ballot who is found to have engaged in insurrection against the United States.
The justices were fully aware their unanimity sent a message to a country where the leading Republican candidate has portrayed the myriad legal proceedings involving him as a political witch hunt orchestrated by his political opponents.
"For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case," Justice Barrett wrote in her concurring opinion. "That is the message Americans should take home."
Justice Barrett's concurring opinion was short -- just two paragraphs -- and it made it clear the message the court was sending went beyond the specifics of this case. The Supreme Court, as divided and as mired in controversy as it has been, can uphold the rule of law without regard to the political views of the justices even -- especially -- in a case with such far-reaching political implications.
"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election," Barrett wrote. "Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up."
Trump, predictably, praised Monday's ruling.
"It was a very important decision," he said in Mar-a-Lago hours after it was announced, calling it "very well-crafted. And I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together."
He added, "I have great respect for the Supreme Court, and I want to just thank them for working so quickly and so diligently and so brilliantly."
Just as predictably, he will attack the court if they rule against him on the next big case that will have an impact on his fate (as a candidate and as a defendant) -- the presidential immunity case, with arguments scheduled for the week of April 22.
The Trump playbook is well established. When legal proceedings don't go his way, he lashes out at judges, prosecutors, court employees, witnesses and even potential juries. The Supreme Court, including the justices he nominated to the court, have been the target of Trump's wrath when they have shown independence in the past.
In my book, "Betrayal," I recounted what he said at his rally near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021: "He lashed out at the Supreme Court for rejecting his legal challenges, suggesting the justices he had nominated 'ruled against Trump' because they were concerned about how they would be received 'in the social circuit.'"
In 2022, Trump blasted the Supreme Court for unanimously ordering the IRS to hand over his federal income tax returns to a congressional committee.
"Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do!" Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. "The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price.
"Shame on them!" he continued.
After Trump lashed out at one federal judge back in 2018 as an "Obama judge," Chief Justice John Roberts took the highly unusual step of responding.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said at the time. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."
Trump immediately hit back, tweeting, "Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have 'Obama judges,' and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country."
No such complaint came today when two Justices Trump would brand as "Obama judges" and one he would brand as a "Biden judge" joined the others in a ruling that pleased Trump but that full court believed was consistent with the Constitution.
