Former President Donald Trump has made his final written arguments to the Supreme Court, urging them to allow his name to remain on Colorado's ballot. Trump's attorneys claim that the challengers are pursuing an "anti-democratic" case against him, arguing that the American people should have the right to choose their next President, not the courts or election officials.

In the legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Trump's attorneys compared the efforts to remove him from the ballot to those seen in Venezuela, claiming that they are seeking to impose an "anti-democratic measure" in the United States. They emphasized that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee and the leading candidate for the presidency.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Thursday in the high-profile challenge to Trump's eligibility for the ballot. The case arises from his alleged role in the events that led to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. A group of Colorado voters asserts that these actions amounted to an insurrection and that Trump should be barred from holding office based on constitutional grounds.

Trump's appeal in Colorado is just one of the legal entanglements he faces as he campaigns for another term. A trial in the election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith was set for March 4 but was postponed due to ongoing consideration by an appeals court regarding Trump's claim of immunity.

The challengers aiming to remove Trump from the ballot want the Supreme Court to focus on the bigger picture, arguing that his words at a campaign-style rally incited the mob that attacked the Capitol. On the other hand, Trump's lawyers are eager to highlight possible "off-ramps" that could lead the court to decide the case in his favor on narrower grounds.

The central issue in Trump v. Anderson is how the court will interpret Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits certain elected officials from holding office if they have engaged in insurrection. Trump contends that the term "officer" does not apply to presidents and that Congress must pass a law before Section 3 can be enforced.

As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh the arguments in this contentious case, the outcome will have significant implications for Trump's candidacy and the broader interpretation of constitutional eligibility for future presidents.