Thank you for posting the full decision. I love checking the primary sources. Relevant points from the summary:
• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.
• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.
• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.
• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court committed reversible error.
• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.
• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”
• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.
• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.
As I’m reading this further, I have to say, this ruling is full of so much spiciness that I’m surprised the media hasn’t reported on it more. A few of my favorites so far (emphasis mine):
• If the Presidency is not an “office . . . under the United States,” then anyone
impeached—including a President—could nonetheless go on to serve as President.
This reading is nonsensical
• When interpreting the Constitution, we prefer a phrase’s normal and ordinary usage over “secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”
• While nothing in Representative
McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was
removed [from the final draft of the 14th Amendment], his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft
proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power. Representative McKee explained that, under the proposed amendment, “the loyal alone shall rule the country” and that traitors would be “cut[] off . . .
from all political power in the nation.”
• Representative McKee desired to exclude all oath-breaking insurrectionists from all federal offices, including the Presidency
They even went so far as to reference the fucking dictionary for those saying Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution.
• The language of the presidential oath—a commitment to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—is consistent with the plain meaning of the word “support.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Modern dictionaries define “support” to include “defend” and vice versa. See, e.g., Support, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
They do go on to quote the dictionary again (both from the 1800s and the current version) to define what an “insurrection” is, then say:
We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.
Also, love how they basically reference what we all saw live here:
Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found—and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case—that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons.
God damn. Some more spice in a quote about whether or not Trump “engaged in” insurrection since he wasn’t actually in the mob:
[I]t is not necessary to prove that the individual accused, was a direct, personal actor in the violence. If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, or countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act. Nor is even his personal presence indispensable. Though he be absent at the time of its actual perpetration, yet if he directed the act, devised or knowingly furnished the means, for carrying it into effect, instigating others to perform it, he shares their guilt. In treason there are no accessories.
My tinfoil hat theory is that the district judge did not want to be responsible for keeping trump off the ballot, be it safety for her/her family, or that it is such a momentous event that she did not feel comfortable bearing that weight alone. So she came up with this “not specifically references” conclusion as a soft punt to the state supreme court.
Makes sense. Had it been just her that ruled against him, Trump would’ve cast her as an activist Biden puppet. But now that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against him instead, it’s harder to paint that picture.
Still, I don’t like the idea of judges being intimidated to rule in a way they know to be incorrect just so an appeals court can take the blame.
Thank you for posting the full decision. I love checking the primary sources. Relevant points from the summary:
As I’m reading this further, I have to say, this ruling is full of so much spiciness that I’m surprised the media hasn’t reported on it more. A few of my favorites so far (emphasis mine):
They even went so far as to reference the fucking dictionary for those saying Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution.
They do go on to quote the dictionary again (both from the 1800s and the current version) to define what an “insurrection” is, then say:
Also, love how they basically reference what we all saw live here:
God damn. Some more spice in a quote about whether or not Trump “engaged in” insurrection since he wasn’t actually in the mob:
My tinfoil hat theory is that the district judge did not want to be responsible for keeping trump off the ballot, be it safety for her/her family, or that it is such a momentous event that she did not feel comfortable bearing that weight alone. So she came up with this “not specifically references” conclusion as a soft punt to the state supreme court.
Makes sense. Had it been just her that ruled against him, Trump would’ve cast her as an activist Biden puppet. But now that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against him instead, it’s harder to paint that picture.
Still, I don’t like the idea of judges being intimidated to rule in a way they know to be incorrect just so an appeals court can take the blame.