So essentially the judge did what people have been doing since Trump waddled down the escalator in 2015: Lay out the tools for someone ELSE to stand up to him. Getting a little frustrated with this dynamic.
It’s possible that’s what’s going on. It’s also possible that she really does see it as an overreach for a judge to make the determination that the former president cannot be on the ballot. Either way, though, she’s teed up quite the issue.
I'm not trying to guess her intent; I'm just saying that the issues have been teed up for about eight years now, and it's getting frustrating watching everyone wait for everyone else. It's analogous to our six- and seven-figure media stars who still wake up every morning terrified that TODAY is the day Trump will take the mask off and reveal he's actually smart.
The language is actually pretty clear, the specificity of Congress members and senators is because they are not holders of an office but elected reps. Officers are anyone else that holds an office.
Further it's takes some pretty giant mental leaps to argue "support" is not synonymous with "preserve, protect and defend".
Remember this was written to disqualify ANY insurrectionist at any level, state included, that previously engaged in insurrection. The specific words of their oath might have had a different flavor, but they had to contain some air of supporting the US constitution.
It should pain any reasonable thinking person that the president, the highest office of the land, does not take an oath to support the Constitution.
I would argue the presidents oath goes further. The VP oath only includes support and defend. The president includes preserve, protect and defend. That tells me the president has a higher burden on their shoulders than to merely "support". They are custodians of our experiment, in place to ensure the Constitution isn't trampled by Wiley neerdowells or two but wanna be kings.
If any officer bears this higher burden of support, it's the President.
Well stated! And I was thinking the same thing- you can't "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution without also "supporting" it. I think support is implied but I don't have a law degree.
Agree — the OFFICE of the president bears a HIGHER obligation and burden to our Constitution. “Support” is sublimated within the higher duty. This is journalism 101. Doesn’t take a linguist to understand the clear legal hierarchy, I would suggest.
My guess is this judge is trying to protect herself, personally. We know from the record that Trump’s co-insurrectionists have threatened bodily harm against judges etc. Puts her in a terrible position.
“Support“ versus “protect and defend“ is kind of hairsplitting you get only from attorneys trying to find a semantic loophole they can sneak their client through.
“The language is actually pretty clear, the specificity of Congress members and senators is because they are not holders of an office but elected reps. Officers are anyone else that holds an office.”
That doesn’t seem particularly clear to me. Isn’t the president also an elected rep? Don’t Congress members and Senators hold an office?
I cannot see the distinction you’re trying to make.
Nope - the President is not a representative (charged with REPRESENTING the views and wishes of around 70,000 citizens) - he is an executive (charged with administering the laws passed by said reps). Article II, sec. 3 of the Constitution, which the Presidential oath of office specifically swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" specifies that the POTUS "... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" - which clause alone oughta take care of this BS, since Her Honor found as a matter of fact that he DID NOT, in fact, DO THAT on 1/6/21. Which was still his job. I do feel for a lowly district judge in a place like Colorado, who may very well be concerned for her personal safety, but she's definitely kicking the can down the road for a higher court to deal with.
Thanks. That makes some sense on the “representative“ front, although not on the “officer“
A president “not doing their job“ isn’t sufficient grounds to say they can’t re-applying for the position. That they violated the oath they took, and tried to overthrow the government with a violent coup certainly is.
Well, what I meant by "not doing his job" was "preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution" which is by definition, his job. Which is violating his oath by way of fomenting insurrection.
The logical extension of this "loophole" is that the president is above the law in one case -- insurrection -- and therefore in all cases. This places him firmly within the definition of dictator or, more apropos to the founding, an unquestionable monarch... the very antithesis of the democratic principles laid out by the founders and the fundamental reason for breaking from England.
And for this to be the correct interpretation, it would need to be clearly and consistently reflected in every rule in the constitution.
I am gonna go out on a limb 🤣 and guess this is not, in fact, reflected throughout the constitution.
The office of president serves the people and the constitution at the highest level. Yes, a servant of the people: appointed by the people, removed from office by the people. Given a salary and staff and the use of various modes of transport, and the use of a mansion, all paid for by the people.
So from this perspective it should understood that the office of president is not "above the law and the people" but, rather, subject to both.
The case can certainly be used against people running for office below presidency, if they were part of Jan 6 insurrection. Doesn't that include current Speaker?
I think it would be very hard to prove that in court, and there would be many privileges and immunities he could site, such as the Speech and Debate clause. In any event, we don’t want to get in the habit of using Section 3 to go after the other side and bar them from public office. That very quickly would devolve, and they would wind up trying the same against our candidates down the road.
Aiding Insurrection = disqualification. It doesn't seem optional in the text. It's a matter of evidence and fact, just like whether the person is of required age. And if we don't challenge on clear Constitutional grounds, the 'habit' of insurrection without consequence will only continue - exactly what Amendment is there to prevent. (Johnson continues in Big Lie even now.)
The government serves the people. The constitution is an Act of the people as per:
*******
Introduction
Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.
What about Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, who got convicted for storming the Capitol on Jan 6 and even served prison time for his role in this insurrection? Didn't he just announce that he will run for Congress? Surely he shouldn't be allowed to do so, right?
I had this thought as well, but then remembered the "having previously taken an oath" portion of the section. So I think it doesn't apply to Chansley, since he engaged in insurrection prior to taking any oath of office.
It's a really daft distinction for your constitution to have, isn't it?
A traitor can be knowingly put in office as long as they haven't broken a promise they have never had the opportunity or need to pledge. Surely this is.not the spirit (intent) of the law?
Surely the intent was to allow for tbe situation where the people could forcibly remove a truly corrupt government (eg one that refuses to hand over to the newly democratically elected government, and thereby enforcing an effective dictatorship) and those good and brave citizens who saved their country from the evil incumbent would still be eligible for election.
The logic here is simple:
If an evil government fails to serve, uphold and protect the constitution (and, thereby, serve and protect the people) it would take a LOT of people to overthrow those who control the nation's military and law enforcement. You would not want to exclude those on the side of the Constitution from subsequent election. They are likely the very type of character the nation needs in subsequent governments.
Your argument is “We don’t want to enforce the law because we might be subject to it ourselves.”
This is cowardice. It’s refusing to stand up to the bully because they might object to your doing so.
It’s doubly objectionable because it assumes “our side” is as corrupt as theirs. To the extent that’s true (it’s not) then yes, they should object to insurrectionists on “our side” being able to run fur office. But as it’s not, we should not fear facing their accusations in court.
Exactly. If you participate in an insurrection, regardless of your party affiliation, you should be barred from further office. Jay’s reluctance to use section 3 as intended (to keep insurrectionists out of office) is outlandish and morally indefensible.
He concern that in the future it would be used against “our side“ is, at best, cowardly. It’s refusing to hold the bully to account out of a fear that someday they may try to hurt you. At worst it’s tantamount to saying “I don’t want to enforce the law against others because someday I may want to break it myself.“
Elements of their side have convinced themselves this is purely political. And therefore using the clause is like any dictator keeping his opposition away. The spirit of the clause is completely reasonable. Many examples of employers creating and enforcing reasonable guardrails on who is allied to apply for a job say: If you have a terrible credit score likely you cannot handle money or trade secrets at a company.
I think what’s missing is the manner which this guardrail is applied. Why wasn’t a jury of his peers that made the finding?
Sorry, Jay, but it won't wash. The law is the law, and to say you shouldn't apply it because they might charge you with it even when you didn't violate it is nonsensical.
That said, Mike Johnson's case is quite different on the facts. Filing lawsuits, even if frivolous, is not "insurrection", and it's reasonable to argue that neither is exercising the option of voting against a slate of electors in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing. Johnson, although with despicable intent, stayed within the law, and did not act to disrupt the actual government operations.
Yes, it would. Yes, it means if we actually held Republicans to account for their actions, most of the ones currently in Congress would be kicked out of their jobs.
Good point. It would also include many of the people that Trump is likely to appoint or nominate to various offices, should he be elected. A thin reed to hang our hopes on in a second Trump administration, but there it is.
The scope of involvement of members of Congress may be developed in DOJ inquiry and the GA election probe, which in time will likely make this more than a speculative question. Of course Trump had help from Congress Members on 1-6... Question is how to prove and hold them accountable.
I felt like this was a punt as mentioned in the article. She laid out all these facts, then almost seemed to say, "This will be overturned on appeal." It would be awfully funny if the Federal Society, oops, I mean SCOTUS, said to each other in their smoky yacht, "I dunno about the rest of you, but I happen to think this here yacht is much more likely to stay in our hands if we ditch this guy. It'll take some of the light off us, don't ya think?"
One quibble - the "Framers" are technically the people who wrote the original Constitution and Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment was written by the US Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction. They obviously did not anticipate a President who would himself foment an insurrection, but I can't imagine that they would have excluded such a person from the application of Section 3.
And if you really want to quibble, the Framers also wrote the 27th Amendment, and one more Amendment that was never ratified (and never will be since it is irrelevant today).
Judge Wallace just didn't want to take the final step and rule the bastard off Colorado's presidential ballot. Granted, holding him as an insurrectionist is a big first step, but the remainder of her decision to me reads as kicking the can up to the appellate court and let them take the heat. And from there to SCOTUS, easy-peasy...stay tuned, this case has legs.
Judicial cowardice or judicial caution? This is a case with immense national implications, with little if any precedent to use in a ruling. This is not Matthew Kacsmaryk, who thinks he can make Federal law from his courtroom in Amarillo based on his voluminous prejudices. I think she simply decided that while the facts favored the plaintiffs, the implications of the decision were too far-reaching to be decided by a District Court - caution, and she punted.
This makes me think of how all the J6 trial questions have been well dealt with as Jay has mentioned previously, thus ensuring a better foundation for Trump's own J6 trial next year to be found to rest on previously determined facts. Other than the questionable hesitancy on the part of the Judge to rule the matter as a conviction it seems to me that the "factual wall" she has helped to establish will prove to be of more importance than her initial cautionary approach.
This is like a Netflix series. The viewers are all aghast that the interpretation of the term "officer" doesn't include the President. Are you kidding me? Even the writers can't make this stuff up. There are a few more episodes until we get to Scotus at which time Clarence doesn't recuse even though, well, Ginny...but we'll be ok 'cause of the new code of conduct.
Wow. Just wow. The more caution the courts are using in handling this dangerous crazy man, the crazier the entire justice system seems to be. I fully understand that the laws must be upheld and most especially in dealing with as mentioned before, this crazy man but surely we can settle on the words of the English language.
No judge wants to be the target of online abuse from tRump, or even death threats from the MAGA set, if a ruling comes down 100% against the man...this is the climate the Orange Menace has created, where it's OK to go after judges, prosecutors, or anybody else in tRump's way. Nice justice system you've got here, America, hate to see anything happen to it.
Hol' up, now. The law is the last line of defense against tyranny and, as the saying goes, "freedom ain't free." If we continue to give those in positions of power a pass because the job they do--which is, in part, making hard choices to ensure America is free from tyranny--is inherently dangerous, we are doomed.
"... surely we can settle on the words of the English language." Why start now? One of the few professions which argues as much as the legal is lexicography. Saw an article the other day about new additions of acceptable Scrabble words, and hoo boy!
As a Coloradan, I like how Judge Wallace resolved this case. Because the outcome favored Trump, he can't appeal, and therefore can't ask another court to overturn the judge's factual findings. They are not binding on any other court, but they could influence other court decisions. Of course, if the plaintiffs appeal, that will open the door to Trump challenging the factual findings. I hope they have the good sense not to do so. Jay is right that it is difficult for an appellate court to overturn a trial court's factual findings. Difficult, but not impossible. And in an appeal setting, the ultimate decider will be the U.S. Supreme Court, which finds ways to produce right-wing results, precedents be damned.
I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia is not exactly the be-all-end-all, but the Wikipedia entry on it seems to suggest, no. It seems that this may sometimes not apply when one of the parties is the US government, and also applies only if the same litigants are involved. Of course, a good lawyer will know the ins and outs much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
I'm an attorney, although I have not practiced for 20 years, since I switched to a different career path. But I practiced for over 20 years. I don't think collateral estoppel applies here.
That is a fair point. My only concern is that this will not be the block or even a speed bump on trump's road back to Pennsylvania Avenue and that unless and until he gets a definite stop, he's going to continue flooring the accelerator because it's his only hope.
I hope the plaintiffs do not appeal. I do not like the idea of this case reaching the current Supreme Court as their ruling would (supposedly) make whatever they ruled "settled law". Depending on how the majority might rule (for instance, that the President isn't an Officer thus in not subject to the criteria in Article 3), we could be in deeper sh*t than we are now.
Insanity at it's finest. Our laws seem to work against the common good for this country.....and this constant processing of interpretation on what the Framers of the Constitution "meant" is becoming tiresome. Another episode of "Kick The Can Down The Road".
SCOTUS doesn't want this case on their docket, I'm sure. Tough, it is headed there. Not sure how they will rule, but they will have a pretty tortured reason if they say the President isn't an "officer" for this section of the Constitution. I wouldn't put it past them, but it will drive opinion of the court even lower as it will be seen, rightly, as a purely political move.
Probably none, directly, since this case isn't setting any precedent. Of course, courts to pay attention to each other's opinions even if they are not bound to.
I am sorry, I don't see how it matters that another person reiterated the facts that were there before for months now. Everyone knows what he did. It doesn't matter to either side. What matters is that he doesn't get elected and that he doesn't keep wailing at the top of his lungs that he is above law. This decision is going to send EXACTLY that message to Trump and his rabid supporters - see, see, a judge said that he CAN get elected and he IS above the law.
The judge had a change to do the right thing and keep the bastard off the ballot. US President is a Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces - which makes him literally a military officer, if the judge so needed to stick to the exact wording. Sorry, this is very bad, I don't see anything positive about this.
I sympathize, but whether a presidential candidate can be kept off the ballot based on the 14th amendment is not really an issue for a District Court to determine. I would note that, as far as I have heard, this is the first actual judicial finding that Trump committed the legal definition of insurrection. Trump and all his Trumplings (including Fox News) insist it wasn't insurrection; given all the vagaries of the law and legal precedence, a judicial ruling that it actually *was* insurrection is not chopped liver.
I am shaking my head. This Amendment came approximately 8 decades after the original framers’ language and were somehow expected to still speak exactly like them?
Well, subsequent writers, when amending, are expected to have studied the original so as to make language conform (or expand or minimize). It’s not like they were writing in a vacuum.
I understand. And the Amendment is definitely in the style. But language also evolves. Judge is punting on a distinction that many language teachers would accept as synonyms.
So essentially the judge did what people have been doing since Trump waddled down the escalator in 2015: Lay out the tools for someone ELSE to stand up to him. Getting a little frustrated with this dynamic.
It’s possible that’s what’s going on. It’s also possible that she really does see it as an overreach for a judge to make the determination that the former president cannot be on the ballot. Either way, though, she’s teed up quite the issue.
I'm not trying to guess her intent; I'm just saying that the issues have been teed up for about eight years now, and it's getting frustrating watching everyone wait for everyone else. It's analogous to our six- and seven-figure media stars who still wake up every morning terrified that TODAY is the day Trump will take the mask off and reveal he's actually smart.
Do her factual findings mean anything outside of this case? For example, can it be used in other trials as fact or evidence?
The language is actually pretty clear, the specificity of Congress members and senators is because they are not holders of an office but elected reps. Officers are anyone else that holds an office.
Further it's takes some pretty giant mental leaps to argue "support" is not synonymous with "preserve, protect and defend".
Remember this was written to disqualify ANY insurrectionist at any level, state included, that previously engaged in insurrection. The specific words of their oath might have had a different flavor, but they had to contain some air of supporting the US constitution.
It should pain any reasonable thinking person that the president, the highest office of the land, does not take an oath to support the Constitution.
I would argue the presidents oath goes further. The VP oath only includes support and defend. The president includes preserve, protect and defend. That tells me the president has a higher burden on their shoulders than to merely "support". They are custodians of our experiment, in place to ensure the Constitution isn't trampled by Wiley neerdowells or two but wanna be kings.
If any officer bears this higher burden of support, it's the President.
Well stated! And I was thinking the same thing- you can't "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution without also "supporting" it. I think support is implied but I don't have a law degree.
“Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a required course in law school.” Robert Heinlein
Agree — the OFFICE of the president bears a HIGHER obligation and burden to our Constitution. “Support” is sublimated within the higher duty. This is journalism 101. Doesn’t take a linguist to understand the clear legal hierarchy, I would suggest.
My guess is this judge is trying to protect herself, personally. We know from the record that Trump’s co-insurrectionists have threatened bodily harm against judges etc. Puts her in a terrible position.
“Support“ versus “protect and defend“ is kind of hairsplitting you get only from attorneys trying to find a semantic loophole they can sneak their client through.
“The language is actually pretty clear, the specificity of Congress members and senators is because they are not holders of an office but elected reps. Officers are anyone else that holds an office.”
That doesn’t seem particularly clear to me. Isn’t the president also an elected rep? Don’t Congress members and Senators hold an office?
I cannot see the distinction you’re trying to make.
Nope - the President is not a representative (charged with REPRESENTING the views and wishes of around 70,000 citizens) - he is an executive (charged with administering the laws passed by said reps). Article II, sec. 3 of the Constitution, which the Presidential oath of office specifically swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" specifies that the POTUS "... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" - which clause alone oughta take care of this BS, since Her Honor found as a matter of fact that he DID NOT, in fact, DO THAT on 1/6/21. Which was still his job. I do feel for a lowly district judge in a place like Colorado, who may very well be concerned for her personal safety, but she's definitely kicking the can down the road for a higher court to deal with.
Thanks. That makes some sense on the “representative“ front, although not on the “officer“
A president “not doing their job“ isn’t sufficient grounds to say they can’t re-applying for the position. That they violated the oath they took, and tried to overthrow the government with a violent coup certainly is.
Well, what I meant by "not doing his job" was "preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution" which is by definition, his job. Which is violating his oath by way of fomenting insurrection.
The logical extension of this "loophole" is that the president is above the law in one case -- insurrection -- and therefore in all cases. This places him firmly within the definition of dictator or, more apropos to the founding, an unquestionable monarch... the very antithesis of the democratic principles laid out by the founders and the fundamental reason for breaking from England.
Snap!
And for this to be the correct interpretation, it would need to be clearly and consistently reflected in every rule in the constitution.
I am gonna go out on a limb 🤣 and guess this is not, in fact, reflected throughout the constitution.
The office of president serves the people and the constitution at the highest level. Yes, a servant of the people: appointed by the people, removed from office by the people. Given a salary and staff and the use of various modes of transport, and the use of a mansion, all paid for by the people.
So from this perspective it should understood that the office of president is not "above the law and the people" but, rather, subject to both.
The case can certainly be used against people running for office below presidency, if they were part of Jan 6 insurrection. Doesn't that include current Speaker?
I think it would be very hard to prove that in court, and there would be many privileges and immunities he could site, such as the Speech and Debate clause. In any event, we don’t want to get in the habit of using Section 3 to go after the other side and bar them from public office. That very quickly would devolve, and they would wind up trying the same against our candidates down the road.
Aiding Insurrection = disqualification. It doesn't seem optional in the text. It's a matter of evidence and fact, just like whether the person is of required age. And if we don't challenge on clear Constitutional grounds, the 'habit' of insurrection without consequence will only continue - exactly what Amendment is there to prevent. (Johnson continues in Big Lie even now.)
Spot on.
The government serves the people. The constitution is an Act of the people as per:
*******
Introduction
Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.
*************
Source:
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm
What about Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, who got convicted for storming the Capitol on Jan 6 and even served prison time for his role in this insurrection? Didn't he just announce that he will run for Congress? Surely he shouldn't be allowed to do so, right?
I had this thought as well, but then remembered the "having previously taken an oath" portion of the section. So I think it doesn't apply to Chansley, since he engaged in insurrection prior to taking any oath of office.
It's a really daft distinction for your constitution to have, isn't it?
A traitor can be knowingly put in office as long as they haven't broken a promise they have never had the opportunity or need to pledge. Surely this is.not the spirit (intent) of the law?
Surely the intent was to allow for tbe situation where the people could forcibly remove a truly corrupt government (eg one that refuses to hand over to the newly democratically elected government, and thereby enforcing an effective dictatorship) and those good and brave citizens who saved their country from the evil incumbent would still be eligible for election.
The logic here is simple:
If an evil government fails to serve, uphold and protect the constitution (and, thereby, serve and protect the people) it would take a LOT of people to overthrow those who control the nation's military and law enforcement. You would not want to exclude those on the side of the Constitution from subsequent election. They are likely the very type of character the nation needs in subsequent governments.
Just my musing...
Your argument is “We don’t want to enforce the law because we might be subject to it ourselves.”
This is cowardice. It’s refusing to stand up to the bully because they might object to your doing so.
It’s doubly objectionable because it assumes “our side” is as corrupt as theirs. To the extent that’s true (it’s not) then yes, they should object to insurrectionists on “our side” being able to run fur office. But as it’s not, we should not fear facing their accusations in court.
Were there Democrats involved in the insurrection?
If so, why not use this section of the amendment in court against them too?
I hope insurrections like Jan 6 don’t become a habit too. This isn’t a bipartisan issue.
Exactly. If you participate in an insurrection, regardless of your party affiliation, you should be barred from further office. Jay’s reluctance to use section 3 as intended (to keep insurrectionists out of office) is outlandish and morally indefensible.
He concern that in the future it would be used against “our side“ is, at best, cowardly. It’s refusing to hold the bully to account out of a fear that someday they may try to hurt you. At worst it’s tantamount to saying “I don’t want to enforce the law against others because someday I may want to break it myself.“
Elements of their side have convinced themselves this is purely political. And therefore using the clause is like any dictator keeping his opposition away. The spirit of the clause is completely reasonable. Many examples of employers creating and enforcing reasonable guardrails on who is allied to apply for a job say: If you have a terrible credit score likely you cannot handle money or trade secrets at a company.
I think what’s missing is the manner which this guardrail is applied. Why wasn’t a jury of his peers that made the finding?
Sorry, Jay, but it won't wash. The law is the law, and to say you shouldn't apply it because they might charge you with it even when you didn't violate it is nonsensical.
That said, Mike Johnson's case is quite different on the facts. Filing lawsuits, even if frivolous, is not "insurrection", and it's reasonable to argue that neither is exercising the option of voting against a slate of electors in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing. Johnson, although with despicable intent, stayed within the law, and did not act to disrupt the actual government operations.
and wouldnt that include half of the republican Congress like, MTG and Boebert, Gaetz, Gosar so on and so on....
Yes, it would. Yes, it means if we actually held Republicans to account for their actions, most of the ones currently in Congress would be kicked out of their jobs.
If the factual record exists to support, yes
Great idea!
Good point. It would also include many of the people that Trump is likely to appoint or nominate to various offices, should he be elected. A thin reed to hang our hopes on in a second Trump administration, but there it is.
It sounds good, but what was Mike Johnson's actual involvement on Jan 6?
The scope of involvement of members of Congress may be developed in DOJ inquiry and the GA election probe, which in time will likely make this more than a speculative question. Of course Trump had help from Congress Members on 1-6... Question is how to prove and hold them accountable.
I felt like this was a punt as mentioned in the article. She laid out all these facts, then almost seemed to say, "This will be overturned on appeal." It would be awfully funny if the Federal Society, oops, I mean SCOTUS, said to each other in their smoky yacht, "I dunno about the rest of you, but I happen to think this here yacht is much more likely to stay in our hands if we ditch this guy. It'll take some of the light off us, don't ya think?"
...hold any office Civil or Military! He’s the Commander in Chief!
One quibble - the "Framers" are technically the people who wrote the original Constitution and Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment was written by the US Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction. They obviously did not anticipate a President who would himself foment an insurrection, but I can't imagine that they would have excluded such a person from the application of Section 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Joint_Committee_on_Reconstruction
And if you really want to quibble, the Framers also wrote the 27th Amendment, and one more Amendment that was never ratified (and never will be since it is irrelevant today).
Judge Wallace just didn't want to take the final step and rule the bastard off Colorado's presidential ballot. Granted, holding him as an insurrectionist is a big first step, but the remainder of her decision to me reads as kicking the can up to the appellate court and let them take the heat. And from there to SCOTUS, easy-peasy...stay tuned, this case has legs.
Judicial cowardice or judicial caution? This is a case with immense national implications, with little if any precedent to use in a ruling. This is not Matthew Kacsmaryk, who thinks he can make Federal law from his courtroom in Amarillo based on his voluminous prejudices. I think she simply decided that while the facts favored the plaintiffs, the implications of the decision were too far-reaching to be decided by a District Court - caution, and she punted.
This makes me think of how all the J6 trial questions have been well dealt with as Jay has mentioned previously, thus ensuring a better foundation for Trump's own J6 trial next year to be found to rest on previously determined facts. Other than the questionable hesitancy on the part of the Judge to rule the matter as a conviction it seems to me that the "factual wall" she has helped to establish will prove to be of more importance than her initial cautionary approach.
This is like a Netflix series. The viewers are all aghast that the interpretation of the term "officer" doesn't include the President. Are you kidding me? Even the writers can't make this stuff up. There are a few more episodes until we get to Scotus at which time Clarence doesn't recuse even though, well, Ginny...but we'll be ok 'cause of the new code of conduct.
Wow. Just wow. The more caution the courts are using in handling this dangerous crazy man, the crazier the entire justice system seems to be. I fully understand that the laws must be upheld and most especially in dealing with as mentioned before, this crazy man but surely we can settle on the words of the English language.
No judge wants to be the target of online abuse from tRump, or even death threats from the MAGA set, if a ruling comes down 100% against the man...this is the climate the Orange Menace has created, where it's OK to go after judges, prosecutors, or anybody else in tRump's way. Nice justice system you've got here, America, hate to see anything happen to it.
If the justice system is afraid to rule honestly, then we've already lost it.
You can't rule, honestly or otherwise, if you're dead.
Perhaps, we shouldn't victim blame here?
Hol' up, now. The law is the last line of defense against tyranny and, as the saying goes, "freedom ain't free." If we continue to give those in positions of power a pass because the job they do--which is, in part, making hard choices to ensure America is free from tyranny--is inherently dangerous, we are doomed.
"... surely we can settle on the words of the English language." Why start now? One of the few professions which argues as much as the legal is lexicography. Saw an article the other day about new additions of acceptable Scrabble words, and hoo boy!
As a Coloradan, I like how Judge Wallace resolved this case. Because the outcome favored Trump, he can't appeal, and therefore can't ask another court to overturn the judge's factual findings. They are not binding on any other court, but they could influence other court decisions. Of course, if the plaintiffs appeal, that will open the door to Trump challenging the factual findings. I hope they have the good sense not to do so. Jay is right that it is difficult for an appellate court to overturn a trial court's factual findings. Difficult, but not impossible. And in an appeal setting, the ultimate decider will be the U.S. Supreme Court, which finds ways to produce right-wing results, precedents be damned.
I wonder if the finding will have more than persuasive effect. It’s been a while since I looked at collateral estoppel, but wouldn’t that apply here?
I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia is not exactly the be-all-end-all, but the Wikipedia entry on it seems to suggest, no. It seems that this may sometimes not apply when one of the parties is the US government, and also applies only if the same litigants are involved. Of course, a good lawyer will know the ins and outs much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
I'm an attorney, although I have not practiced for 20 years, since I switched to a different career path. But I practiced for over 20 years. I don't think collateral estoppel applies here.
That is a fair point. My only concern is that this will not be the block or even a speed bump on trump's road back to Pennsylvania Avenue and that unless and until he gets a definite stop, he's going to continue flooring the accelerator because it's his only hope.
I hope the plaintiffs do not appeal. I do not like the idea of this case reaching the current Supreme Court as their ruling would (supposedly) make whatever they ruled "settled law". Depending on how the majority might rule (for instance, that the President isn't an Officer thus in not subject to the criteria in Article 3), we could be in deeper sh*t than we are now.
Insanity at it's finest. Our laws seem to work against the common good for this country.....and this constant processing of interpretation on what the Framers of the Constitution "meant" is becoming tiresome. Another episode of "Kick The Can Down The Road".
not to mention that the framers intended the Constitution to be a living and fluid document, not the Ten effing Commandments.
Agree... different times 157 years ago to today. It is, in my opinion, a guideline for improving on our democracy as this country grew and evolved.
SCOTUS doesn't want this case on their docket, I'm sure. Tough, it is headed there. Not sure how they will rule, but they will have a pretty tortured reason if they say the President isn't an "officer" for this section of the Constitution. I wouldn't put it past them, but it will drive opinion of the court even lower as it will be seen, rightly, as a purely political move.
Assuming that the judge's factual findings are affirmed on appeal, what if any effect will this have on Jack Smith's case in DC?
Probably none, directly, since this case isn't setting any precedent. Of course, courts to pay attention to each other's opinions even if they are not bound to.
I am sorry, I don't see how it matters that another person reiterated the facts that were there before for months now. Everyone knows what he did. It doesn't matter to either side. What matters is that he doesn't get elected and that he doesn't keep wailing at the top of his lungs that he is above law. This decision is going to send EXACTLY that message to Trump and his rabid supporters - see, see, a judge said that he CAN get elected and he IS above the law.
The judge had a change to do the right thing and keep the bastard off the ballot. US President is a Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces - which makes him literally a military officer, if the judge so needed to stick to the exact wording. Sorry, this is very bad, I don't see anything positive about this.
I sympathize, but whether a presidential candidate can be kept off the ballot based on the 14th amendment is not really an issue for a District Court to determine. I would note that, as far as I have heard, this is the first actual judicial finding that Trump committed the legal definition of insurrection. Trump and all his Trumplings (including Fox News) insist it wasn't insurrection; given all the vagaries of the law and legal precedence, a judicial ruling that it actually *was* insurrection is not chopped liver.
I am shaking my head. This Amendment came approximately 8 decades after the original framers’ language and were somehow expected to still speak exactly like them?
**the men who wrote it were expected...
Well, subsequent writers, when amending, are expected to have studied the original so as to make language conform (or expand or minimize). It’s not like they were writing in a vacuum.
I understand. And the Amendment is definitely in the style. But language also evolves. Judge is punting on a distinction that many language teachers would accept as synonyms.
Ha! Exactly. I was imagining the teachers of these men encouraging them to vary their choice of words.