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.
Imagine if Trump was a dark skinned Muslim, I bet his head would be on a pike and all the confederate statues would be replaced by his murderer(s) in red states.
Now the Supreme Court would have to overrule colorado district, colorado appeals, and and colorado Supreme Court.
The appellate court did not fuck around and acquitted Him saying that it would not disqualify him from entering the primary. But still found him responsible for insurrection, which was out of her wheelhouse, so it was kicked up to colorado Supreme Court to decide…. Because he was found guilty (in colorado) of being in violation of the 14th, which was out of her wheelhouse for consequences. In other words, I cannot bar you from primaries at my level, but the higher court can bar you from the level above (general) and I find you guilty of election interference/ Jan 6th.
These morons talk about 4D chess? Plaintiff just did that by only following the letter of the law. Judge knew the seriousness, the scrutiny, so she punted to the higher, where it would end up regardless.The arguments (the plaintiffs) were done and laid out like a roadmap, exactly, surgically, and to the letter of the law.The Judge is smart, she knew the facts, the law, and the outcome. Now scotus has to overrule 3 courts, if that happens? Well it’s over anyway. Every one involved knew the arguments, knew the law, knew precedent. If SCOTUS intervenes? Than none of it matters anyway. The next 12 months are going to be wild. Buckle up.
I could be wrong on a lot of points here. To the non legal folks, it’s the equivalent of as scary as the teacher or cop is that snatched you for shenanigans in middle school, it’s not as near as scary when your parents find out what you did. This was a big deal and possibly the first domino to fall. It was done by the book.
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.
The Supreme Court isn’t bound by that and can reverse it, just as the Colorado Supreme Court just reversed a lower court finding that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the presidency.
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.
The point is that the US Supreme Court isn’t going to question the part where Trump’s part in the insurrection was decided, their job in this case would be to decide on whether the US Constitution applied in this instance to prevent him from being on the ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the decision on the Constitution, not the ruling about his place in the insurrection.
The Supreme Court isn’t bound by that and can reverse it, just as the Colorado Supreme Court just reversed a lower court finding that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the presidency.