- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Despite keeping him on the presidential ballot, a Colorado judge’s ruling could still prove “devastating” for former President Donald Trump, a former solicitor general has said.
Speaking with MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said that a Colorado court finding that Trump engaged in insurrection against the government after the 2020 presidential election was “the very worst decision Trump could get.”
“There’s a factual finding that the judge said, which is that Trump committed insurrection,” Katyal said of District Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s ruling. “On appeals, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court. It’s almost impossible to overturn a trial judge’s factual finding.”
I’m not following how it was a factual finding that he did commit insurrection, the Constitution says people who committed insurrection are barred from office, but the court ruled he should stay on the ballot.
The judge stated that the president is not an “official of the United States” which is obviously flawed. So if/when that flawed decision gets overturned on appeal, he is then off the ballot since the facts have already shown he committed insurrection. It turns out that “factual” findings of a case almost never get overturned on appeal, while “legal” findings of the case often are. In essence, this judge put him in “check” and when the legal finding is overturned it will be checkmate.
It could be a legal technicality like the court saying they find him guilty of insurrection but the plaintiff doesn’t have standing or the court doesn’t have authority to kick him off the ballot, so they’re punting up to a higher court. I wish a legal expert would break it down for us lay people.
I believe the actual reasoning is that that amendment only applies to “officers of the us government”, which the president is not… which is a stupid technicality…
Correct. Setting aside other comments made which lead myself and others to argue that this is a bad faith/cowardly ruling, they posit it only covers military officers and legislative representatives to prevent them from being able to serve. Not the executive branch.
They then go on to specify that the Commander in Chief capacity in which Trump served is in he is in charge of the military, but is a representative of the public with the military subordinated to civilian authority. Not as a military officer within the structure of the armed forces.
Therefore, per this very, very pedantic (though arguably technically correct) reading of the law, they are arguing it should not be used to bar him from being on the ballot.
It’s like saying “i dont want any berries in my food” and being served strawberries. Scientifically/technically speaking they do not meet the definition. But in common parlance, understanding, and intention they are understood to be and lumped in with them.
But that’s the point. The “stupid technicality” will be what is appealed and, if/when overturned, Trump will be FUBAR.
Maybe because this is simply an attempt to bar him from the primary ballot, and being in the ballot is one thing, but being elected and serving are another.
The judge ruled that the President is not an officer of the Unites States, despite clearly establishing him as the Chief Executive Officer of the Unites States earlier in the case.