If the high court goes by the facts and the law, it should stand.

Here's why: the three dissenting opinions could not even agree in their dissension.

The high court could very easily disagree with the CO court on the facts and the law. They could hold that the events didn't constitute an insurrection within the meaning of the 14A, or that Trump didn't "engage" in the insurrection if it did. They could rule his speech didn't actually meet the Brandenburg v. Ohio test for being unlawful. They could adopt the holding of the CO trial court and intermediate appellate court that the 14A DQ clause doesn't apply to the President. Etc.

I've seen a few comments about the dissenting opinions, and I think they all miss the mark. I think it's pretty clear that the dissenters were trying to find a state law reason to throw out the suit, so that it would end the matter and not be appealable to SCOTUS (SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction to hear appeals of purely state law issues). They couldn't get a fourth vote on that strategy - but the strategy is obvious from their dissents, which studiously ignore even a mention of any of the federal law issues involved.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.