The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.
Is already part of the court record
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it’s a huge deal for these reasons:
It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling.
No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn’t control their own election as the current law states.
That’s not the point here. Appeals courts, including SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts. They do not usually reexamine facts agreed upon by the lower courts. Here, SCOTUS could say that the office of the president wasn’t contemplated by section 3 of the 13th amendment. But, if they want to overrule the factual findings of the lower court, they will have to basically overrule all federal election law which is clear that states have nearly total control over how to conduct their elections. These precedents and the legal theories they support are at the heart of conservative justice’s recent successful attempts to erode the protections of the Voting Rights Act; that federal oversight of how the states conduct elections can be severely circumscribed.
You are, of course, right that SCOTUS has ignored long established precedents whenever convenient, but this puts them in the position of having to either back Trump and undermine the broader Republican effort to undermine democratic voting at the state level, or come down against Trump while leaving invaluable conservative legal structures in place.
Edit: speelling
Trump and undermine the broader Republican effort to undermine democratic voting at the state level, or come down against Trump while leaving invaluable conservative legal structures in place.
can you specify this ultimatum a little more? I want to understand the wider scope.
That’s not the point here. Appeals courts, including SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts. They do not usually reexamine facts agreed upon by the lower courts. Here, SCOTUS could say that the office of the president wasn’t contemplated by section 3 of the 13th amendment. But, if they want to overrule the factual findings of the lower court, they will have to basically overrule all federal election law which is clear that states have nearly total control over how to conduct their elections. These precedents and the legal theories they support are at the heart of conservative justice’s recent successful attempts to erode the protections of the Voting Rights Act; that federal oversight of how the states conduct elections can be severely circumscribed.
You are, of course, right that SCOTUS has ignored long established precedents whenever convenient, but this puts them in the position of having to either back Trump and undermine the broader Republican effort to undermine democratic voting at the state level, or come down against Trump while leaving invaluable conservative legal structures in place.
Edit: speelling
I’ll try. Basically conservatives have been leading a multi decade effort to get rid of the Voting Rights Act. They’ve largely accomplished this without repealing it by winning SC cases which ruled that basically all restrictive and enforcement measures contained in the act were unconstitutional.
In broad strokes, they can do this because federal law is clear (as in, I think it’s in the Constitution itself) that the states get to enact and enforce the laws controlling their elections, even state-held elections of federal government officials. You can read this as just another appearance of the “state’s rights” argument used by conservatives since the civil war to weaken federal enforcement of civil rights and liberties at the state level.
These state’s rights arguments are also at the heart of the independent legislature theories currently making the rounds. Conservatives have worked very hard to ensure that they can stay in power even if the lose democratic majorities. They can do this by exercising plenary state control over elections.
Largely, conservatives have succeeded in these efforts. This case, however, would require them to go against this decades long effort to place state control of elections out of reach of the US Constitution. My belief is that the Republicans don’t need Trump to continue undermining democratic norms; he’s very useful in that regard, but they have been doing this successfully since at least Reagan (and that’s just because I’m being generous). The Republicans were winning this battle before Trump and they will continue to win after 2024 if people don’t get serious about the party’s fascist aspirations. I don’t think they will find it worthwhile to protect Trump at the risk of weakening their state level control of voting rights.
Sorry for not being brief. How this helps.
Edit: speling
Trump and undermine the broader Republican effort to undermine democratic voting at the state level, or come down against Trump while leaving invaluable conservative legal structures in place.
can you specify this ultimatum a little more? I want to understand the wider scope.
Amazing insight. So they are basically in a situation where.
If they help trump, they undermine decades long precedents and setup for these fascist aspirations to accidentally maintain democracy in a reluctant way but securing a more election power maintain in federal government where a moderate or liberal electorate could use against Republicans and conservatives.
If they don’t help trump, they piss off a wave of MAGA voters, splinter the republican party, maintain the “states rights” leans election towards a seemingly Biden or Haley/Desantis victory, and MAGA errode the republican party from the inside am I right?
So either ways they slice… Republicans are screwed? The only thing they have to decide whether restart with MAGA, or continue onward of what came before while possibly abandoning their most active voter base in history.
This is what i was trying to say. Though, unless the dems stop 2024 and take election reform seriously, defeating Trump will only delay these anti-democratic measures.
Amazing insight. So they are basically in a situation where.
If they help trump, they undermine decades long precedents and setup for these fascist aspirations to accidentally maintain democracy in a reluctant way but securing a more election power maintain in federal government where a moderate or liberal electorate could use against Republicans and conservatives.
If they don’t help trump, they piss off a wave of MAGA voters, splinter the republican party, maintain the “states rights” leans election towards a seemingly Biden or Haley/Desantis victory, and MAGA errode the republican party from the inside am I right?
So either ways they slice… Republicans are screwed? The only thing they have to decide whether restart with MAGA, or continue onward of what came before while possibly abandoning their most active voter base in history.
Really useful insights, thanks for taking the time to share them!
While I also appreciate the insight, your ultimatum is premised on intellectual honesty, of which this supreme court has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack. The most likely route for them to take (since they already obliterated any standard for standing when they allowed TX’s bullsh** suit on medication-based abortion to go forward) is just to go with the district court’s finding that the president isn’t an officer.
“Without addressing the ancillary issue of whether Mr Trump engaged in an insurrection, we hold that section 3 does not encompass the office of the presidency in its application to officers of the United States.”
This is what i was trying to say. Though, unless the dems stop 2024 and take election reform seriously, defeating Trump will only delay these anti-democratic measures.
While I also appreciate the insight, your ultimatum is premised on intellectual honesty, of which this supreme court has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack. The most likely route for them to take (since they already obliterated any standard for standing when they allowed TX’s bullsh** suit on medication-based abortion to go forward) is just to go with the district court’s finding that the president isn’t an officer.
“Without addressing the ancillary issue of whether Mr Trump engaged in an insurrection, we hold that section 3 does not encompass the office of the presidency in its application to officers of the United States.”
This is what i was trying to say. Though, unless the dems stop 2024 and take election reform seriously, defeating Trump will only delay these anti-democratic measures.
I’d like to point out that republicans aren’t screwed either way, they’re just slightly slowed down, which means almost nothing in this longer decades long effort.
Amazing insight. So they are basically in a situation where.
If they help trump, they undermine decades long precedents and setup for these fascist aspirations to accidentally maintain democracy in a reluctant way but securing a more election power maintain in federal government where a moderate or liberal electorate could use against Republicans and conservatives.
If they don’t help trump, they piss off a wave of MAGA voters, splinter the republican party, maintain the “states rights” leans election towards a seemingly Biden or Haley/Desantis victory, and MAGA errode the republican party from the inside am I right?
So either ways they slice… Republicans are screwed? The only thing they have to decide whether restart with MAGA, or continue onward of what came before while possibly abandoning their most active voter base in history.
I’d like to point out that republicans aren’t screwed either way, they’re just slightly slowed down, which means almost nothing in this longer decades long effort.
Well, it doesn’t mean nothing though. The wars for the future are fought today. We have to understand the long-term fight, but focus on the fights of the here and now.
[deleted] [Added filler text to meet minimum character requirement.]