Post AbwMKoRadx8xtfBPZA by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
(DIR) More posts by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
(DIR) Post #AbwMKjupToYrqtpBwm by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T02:46:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Answering this question: https://law-and-politics.online/@shorty60@mastodon.sdf.org/111429189190084052Nobody really knows what is meant by "officer of the government." It might include the president. It might not. A president occupies a unique position under the Constitution.Basically what the judge did was punt the issue to the appellate court. The judge found that Trump incited an insurrection (a finding of fact) but didn't find that he was an officer of the federal government (a matter of law).Here's why the distinction matters . . .1/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKkrJyLLimJBu7M by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T02:52:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If an issue that goes to an appellate court is an issue of law, the appellate court reviews de novo, which means that no deference is given to the lower court.See:https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/de_novoWith an issue of fact, appellate courts are more deferential to lower courts.I didn't read the decision but this is from ABC⤵️ As far as what the judge was thinking, your guess is as good as mine, but from this, I'd guess that . . . 2/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKlosOuzJl13Swi by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T02:54:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
. . . the judge found more textual support for finding that the president is not an officer than for the finding that he is.Picture a balance scale with slightly more weight on one side.So now it goes to the appellate court, which might have more nerve than the trial court. The important part of the finding, though, was that he incited an insurrection.The appellate court can overturn that, but it unlikely and more difficult because of the greater deference to findings of facts.3/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKmZfawQ068wpsm by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T03:00:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Welcome to the world of constitutional and statutory interpretation.Basically, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and the Constitution is stuffed full of phrases and words that can be interpreted in different ways. An interpretation of the word "reasonable" in the Fourth Amendment has literally filled books. 4/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKnXvyscl738xoe by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T03:07:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The Third Section of the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to keep former Confederates out of the government.The idea was to prevent backsliding.It didn't work because, by the late 1890s, the government and Supreme Court were stuffed full of Confederate sympathizers who rolled back the advances made during Reconstruction and gave us racial segregation. You can keep out the insurrectionists but not the insurrection sympathizers.5/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKoRadx8xtfBPZA by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T03:56:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Judge Luttig offered a passionate critique of the Colorado judge's decision.With most legal issues, it is possible to argue both sides.People read these passionate critiques and think "The judge was wrong." The only conclusion is "Luttig believes the judge was wrong."Maybe my attitude comes from defense appellate work, which means mostly losing and rarely liking court decisions. (My clients always lost at the trial level and the presumptions on appeal were against them.)6/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKpE9jNzYKHuCGW by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T04:14:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Adding one more comment: The court left wide open the possibility that the appellate court may find that Trump was an officer.Sort of humbly, the court didn't think it should be the one to make the call. I think that Colorado certainly has the right to keep Trump off the ballot. I also think that these court proceedings would satisfy due process.So we'll see. 7/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKpzeslzOhc88J6 by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T17:47:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If you all want to dissect the court's reasoning, the full decision is here:https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24171350/109394065.pdfThe parts about whether Trump is an officer start at about page 100.(Wasn't that nice of me to provide a Cliff Notes so you can you skim 100 pages to get to the controversial part?)Here's the proper way to do legal analysis: Try to be neutral and objective. Don't think "I want Trump off the ballot" ask: "What are the arguments on both sides, and which is stronger?"Not that . . .8/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKqq7jhxNKKg25I by Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online
2023-11-18T17:49:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
. . . I haven't strongly suspected that judges often begin with the conclusion they want and then work backward to justify it.But to do it right as a legal exercise, try to see it from both sides.The court found "persuasive arguments on both sides" of this issue.9/
(DIR) Post #AbwMKrbct5xDhety7s by SETIEric@qoto.org
2023-11-18T19:11:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Teri_Kanefield It's another chink in the armor of democracy. The courts refuse to protect it. Congress refuses to protect it. Tuberville is certainly doing his best to ensure that the military won't protect it. The state courts it now seems just don't wanna go to the trouble of protecting it.
(DIR) Post #AbwMKsFgU9zrhtdxZ2 by Aviva_Gary@noc.social
2023-11-18T19:13:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SETIEric @Teri_Kanefield This ^It's like pass the buck but with death threats thrown in for funzies (But thank you for your breakdown)