A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
Fairly dismal on the face of it, but I can’t help but imagine there is more legal nuance at play here than the article conveys, and if so, maybe someone could explain it to me?
People are really upset about it but it’s a bit more boring than people think.
She ruled as a matter of fact that he engaged in an insurrection but basically just punted the issue of applicability of the 14th amendment to the appellate court. It was a pretty timid ruiling but this wasn’t going to be decided in her court either way. Even if she ordered him removed from the ballot, her order would’ve been stayed by the appellate court anyway.
The plaintiff will appeal the decison on if the 14th ammendment includes the president given she ruled he did commit insurrection, and Trump is going to appeal that he didn’t actually commit insurrection?
The appellate court will rule on both, I believe. From analysis I’ve read (Teri Kanefield’s threads on Mastodon have been great), it’s highly unlikely that they’d overturn her establishment of fact (ie. her ruling on the insurrection).
Fairly dismal on the face of it, but I can’t help but imagine there is more legal nuance at play here than the article conveys, and if so, maybe someone could explain it to me?
People are really upset about it but it’s a bit more boring than people think.
She ruled as a matter of fact that he engaged in an insurrection but basically just punted the issue of applicability of the 14th amendment to the appellate court. It was a pretty timid ruiling but this wasn’t going to be decided in her court either way. Even if she ordered him removed from the ballot, her order would’ve been stayed by the appellate court anyway.
Are two separate appeals going to happen then?
The plaintiff will appeal the decison on if the 14th ammendment includes the president given she ruled he did commit insurrection, and Trump is going to appeal that he didn’t actually commit insurrection?
Oblig: IANAL.
The appellate court will rule on both, I believe. From analysis I’ve read (Teri Kanefield’s threads on Mastodon have been great), it’s highly unlikely that they’d overturn her establishment of fact (ie. her ruling on the insurrection).
That was a good read, thanks!