Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot

Anything coherent to offer, vermin?
Do you bitch boy? The court found insurrection lies between a riot and revolution. Specifically that,

"it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of insurrection for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.

The required force or threat of force need not involve bloodshed, nor must the
dimensions of the effort be so substantial as to ensure probable success. Moreover, although those involved must act in a concerted way, they need not be highly organized at the insurrection's inception.

The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court
sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and
public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the
U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful
transfer of power in this country. 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. It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers on site could not control it.
"
 
For those actually interested, i.e. everyone not a MAGAt moron, here's the courts definition of an insurrection. I also appreciate how they took the time to explain why things like the BLM riots were not an insurrection.


2. Insurrection
Dictionaries (both old and new), the district court's order, and the briefing by the parties and the amici curiae suggest several definitions of the word "insurrection".

For example, Noah Webster's dictionary from 1860 defined insurrection
as:

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law ina city or state. Itis equivalent to SEDITION, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from REBELLION, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one, or to place the country under another jurisdiction


Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines insurrection as “an act or instance of revolting against civil or political authority or against an established government" or "an act or instance of rising up physically." In light of these and other proffered definitions, the district court concluded that "an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States".

Finally, we note that at oral argument, President Trump's counsel, while not
providing a specific definition , argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but
less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of
related conduct. But we part company with him when he goes one step further . No authority supports the position taken by
President Trump's counsel at oral argument that insurrectionary conduct must involve a particular length of time or geographic location.

Although we acknowledge that these definitions vary and some are arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word insurrection . Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of insurrection for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.

The required force or threat of force need not involve bloodshed, nor must the
dimensions of the effort be so substantial as to ensure probable success. Moreover, although those involved must act in a concerted way, they need not be highly organized at the insurrection's inception.

The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court
sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and
public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the
U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful
transfer of power in this country. 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. It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers on site could not control it. 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. The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol's premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers batons and riot shields and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol. The fact that actual and threatened force was used that day cannot reasonably be denied.

Substantial evidence in the record further established that this use of force was concerted and public. As the district court found, with ample record support, "The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose... They marched through the [Capitol] building chanting in a manner that made clear they were seeking to inflict violence against members of Congress and Vice President Pence". And upon breaching the Capitol, the mob immediately pursued its intended target the certification of the presidential election and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building.

Finally, substantial evidence in the record showed that the unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election; that is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer ofpower. As noted above, soon after breaching the Capitol, the mob reached the House and Senate chambers, where the certification process was ongoing. This breach caused both the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process. In addition, much of the mob's
ire - which included threats of physical violence - was directed at Vice President
Pence, who, in his role as President of the Senate, was constitutionally tasked with
carrying out the electoral count. As discussed more fully below,these actions were the product of President Trump's conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump's demand that the Vice President decline to carry out his constitutional duties.

In short, the record amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection, and thus we will proceed to consider whether President Trump "engaged in" this insurrection.
Thank you for posting.
Insurrection is undeniable.
Therefore the 14th is undeniable.
SCOTUS will have a difficult time finding fault with the merits of this ruling.
 
Thank you for posting.
Insurrection is undeniable.
Therefore the 14th is undeniable.
SCOTUS will have a difficult time finding fault with the merits of this ruling.
It's a pretty thorough take down of all of their arguments. I can understand the political reasons why the Supreme Court would overturn it and I wouldn't even be surprised if they did but it's a good argument. I think it actually has a decent chance of being affirmed. Maybe I'm giving Roberts too much credit but I think he can see the reason in this ruling and I'm not sure he'd want to be on the other side of it. Historically speaking.
 
Good then don’t. The CO decision cites the constitution. How do you think it violates it? Make a real argument
They decided he was an insurrectionist without him being charged or convicted for it. It‘s based on the opinion of a few Dems. And based on the split, that means that ONE Democrat decided to disenfranchise millions of Republicans.

This was not the intention of the 14th, and it will be overturned.
 
They decided he was an insurrectionist without him being charged or convicted for it. It‘s based on the opinion of a few Dems. And based on the split, that means that ONE Democrat decided to disenfranchise millions of Republicans.

This was not the intention of the 14th, and it will be overturned.
Did the former 1-term fuckup lead J6?

Yes, just ask the maga fuckups who did it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top