Despite keeping him on the presidential ballot, a Colorado judge’s ruling could still prove “devastating” for former President Donald Trump, a former solicitor general has said.
Speaking with MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said that a Colorado court finding that Trump engaged in insurrection against the government after the 2020 presidential election was “the very worst decision Trump could get.”
“There’s a factual finding that the judge said, which is that Trump committed insurrection,” Katyal said of District Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s ruling. “On appeals, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court. It’s almost impossible to overturn a trial judge’s factual finding.”
I read the article, but it fails to elaborate on how it’s a worst case scenario for Trump.
How does Colorado finding Trump guilty of insurrection, but not barring him from the ballot, hinder him in any meaningful way?
The article is trying to articulate the doctrine of res judicata, which refers to the significance and deference given to the judge’s findings of fact as to whether Trump factually incited the mob and intended to disrupt the certification. It found that he did.
As I understand, Trump is a party to the suit and the matter was fully litigated. Non-partys may now use this finding offensively such as in a civil rights case by the deceased capital police officers’ families. The issue of whether Trump incited the riot cannot be relitigate. He did, and other courts must now so find. The issue is precluded.
So there might possibly be consequences if someone sues him in Colorado over 1/6, but only if he hasn’t been crowned king yet?
Not a lawyer, and I agree the article is confusing, but my takeaway is that they will appeal to a higher court and the ruling will hurt him there? Maybe it hurts him in other states too. I think the point of the trial is to take this up to the supreme court, and whether he wins or loses, it was destined to escalate to that level.
If somebody wanted to press the issue a SoS in a state would just flat out say he isnt and force the Trump campaign to sue. Force the SC to take it up due to multiple, conflicting rulings/interpretations of the law. That might be the only way to ensure they do it in a timely manner.
That said, i dont have much faith that the SC in its current composition wouldnt just side with Trump immediately.
There may be an injunction or protective order in another jurisdiction preventing additional states from publically releasing opinions on the issue. I think I heard that.
Because the legal reasoning for NOT barring him from the ballot is flawed (she claimed he’s not an “officer of the United States”) and will almost certainly be overturned on appeal and/or in the Colorado Supreme Court. In essence, the judge set the table for Trump to get screwed.
Still no consequences.
I’m not following how it was a factual finding that he did commit insurrection, the Constitution says people who committed insurrection are barred from office, but the court ruled he should stay on the ballot.
The judge stated that the president is not an “official of the United States” which is obviously flawed. So if/when that flawed decision gets overturned on appeal, he is then off the ballot since the facts have already shown he committed insurrection. It turns out that “factual” findings of a case almost never get overturned on appeal, while “legal” findings of the case often are. In essence, this judge put him in “check” and when the legal finding is overturned it will be checkmate.
It could be a legal technicality like the court saying they find him guilty of insurrection but the plaintiff doesn’t have standing or the court doesn’t have authority to kick him off the ballot, so they’re punting up to a higher court. I wish a legal expert would break it down for us lay people.
I believe the actual reasoning is that that amendment only applies to “officers of the us government”, which the president is not… which is a stupid technicality…
Correct. Setting aside other comments made which lead myself and others to argue that this is a bad faith/cowardly ruling, they posit it only covers military officers and legislative representatives to prevent them from being able to serve. Not the executive branch.
They then go on to specify that the Commander in Chief capacity in which Trump served is in he is in charge of the military, but is a representative of the public with the military subordinated to civilian authority. Not as a military officer within the structure of the armed forces.
Therefore, per this very, very pedantic (though arguably technically correct) reading of the law, they are arguing it should not be used to bar him from being on the ballot.
It’s like saying “i dont want any berries in my food” and being served strawberries. Scientifically/technically speaking they do not meet the definition. But in common parlance, understanding, and intention they are understood to be and lumped in with them.
