Citat:
This brings us to the thorniest part of Colorado’s decision to exclude
Trump, namely the legal conclusion that his acts on Jan. 6 amounted to
insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a ruling to this effect by a
lower Colorado court based on a few days of testimony plus reliance on
Congress’ Jan. 6 proceedings.
The US Supreme Court could say this conclusion was flat wrong, which would
protect Trump from other state courts trying to do the same thing. That would,
however, require a majority of the justices to say that they are legally
convinced that Trump’s Jan. 6 conduct doesn’t fit the constitutional meaning
of insurrection. That’s hard to do without a more detailed factual record
before the court; and it would subject the justices to withering public
criticism from anti-Trumpers. (This wouldn’t technically preclude Jack
Smith’s prosecution of Trump because that isn’t for a crime of insurrection,
but it would drag the justices into factual matters about Jan. 6 that are at
issue in the federal prosecution.)
The justices could alternatively say that the evidence presented in the
Colorado lower court was insufficient to reach this conclusion. This would be
milder, but could allow the issue to be re-litigated in Colorado and elsewhere
with more evidence. The Supreme Court would probably view that as an invitation
to legal chaos less than a year before the election.
The upshot is that a majority of the justices won’t like the idea of being
responsible for blocking Trump from the ballot, so they would have to pick the
least worst way of making the Colorado Supreme Court decision go away. The court
now finds itself dragged into the ultimate political territory of a presidential
election. That won’t be good for its legitimacy, no matter what it
decides.
V této diskuzi se objevují odkazy a příspěvky obsahující vulgarismy.
