2y ago

Column: Trump called the latest 14th Amendment ruling a 'victory.' He couldn't be more wrong

www.latimes.com

In fact, the opinion by Colorado District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is a giant step toward disqualifying Trump from the ballot on constitutional grounds.

21 comments

- All these judges know full well that no matter what they decide, it's going to be appealed, first to their state's Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS. Why should any of them put themselves at real personal risk of harassment, intimidation, threats, and actual violence; when they know full well that their ruling ultimately doesn't matter?
  What Wallace did, though, was find the fact that Trump "engaged in insurrection." Findings of fact are tremendously more difficult for an appeal to overturn. The ruling about not disqualifying him from the ballot is a legal finding, and that is much more likely to be overturned on appeal. She also used one standard (a "liberally broad" interpretation of the amendment) to find the fact, and then used a much more specific technical reading on the definition of "officer under the United States" to make the legal finding. And she referred to Trump, earlier in the order, as "Chief Exectuive Officer of the Executive Branch."
  The legal finding in this ruling is ripe for appeal. On its face, the ruling seems cowardly, silly, and bizarre; I think there's a fair possibility that history will show it to be brilliant.
  
  That's an interesting take. I would love to fast forward to find out what happens. Since IANAL wonder also whether a broad interpretation was chosen for a reason and if so, what it was.
The Judge should have disqualified on the spot.
- It was a Colorado ruling, not Federal. Colorado doesn't bar the president from running if he's seditious, but the judge set precedence which will be cited by other states which do have the rule, and the or by suits arguing whether he's qualified.
  
  The Fourteenth Amendment does, and by a plain reading of the text it should disqualify Trump from being on any ballot. But clearly this judge took the coward's way out and instead made a judgment on fact without touching how that fact should affect Colorado ballots. The Amendment doesn't make any provision for the popularity of a candidate with regard to eligibility.
  
  The presidential ballot is state-by-state. Who appears is not, to date, determined at the federal level. An act of Congress could change that, but for now it has to go through the states.
  
  Precedence which will be cited by other states
  I will believe it when I see it
- Can you elaborate?
Why have all the mainstream commenters decided to take this asinine line that it was as bad as possible for Trump? It was a reminder that he is above the law, and judges will come up with any bullshit they can to let him slide.
- As I understand it... the judge ruled, in an uncontestable way, that trump was part of Jan 6 and it was an insurrection. Other cases, and an appeal of this one, can now rely on that as fact.
  But IANAL, so who knows
- The reason why legal commentators are saying this isn't a victory for Trump is because, at this level, the finding of fact is what matters most. Appellate courts almost never rule against lower court's judgment of fact. If she had ruled that the 14th amendment applied and Trump had to be removed from the ballot, we'd be in about the same position. The appellate court would've stayed her ruling pending the appeal. The only real difference is that people would be happier about it. But they'd be happy without a good reason because appellate courts always disregard lower court rulings on matters of law. Her ruling on the applicability of the 14th amendment just doesn't matter much.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
People haven’t woken up and mass resisted this criminal thus far so we are expecting this to work? Reminds me of the wisdom of George Carlin late in his life fully absorbing that we are just circling the drain as a species.

21 comments