SCOTUS heard arguments regarding You-know-who’s exclusion from the ballot in CO on 14th Amendment grounds. The plaintiff’s counsel stated that they didn’t concede that the actions of those involved in Jan 6 were engaged in an insurrection, but merely a riot. Court watchers think that opinion will carry weight with the justices. If so, and in their opinion they find that it was just a riot, what will that do to those convicted of seditious conspiracy charges?
Thanks
Probably no legal effect, as I believe none were charged with insurrection under 18 USC 2383.
I think the question is answered above.
However, I’ll just add that is a factual determination and every court will have it’s own unique set of facts relevant to that particular Defendant to work with. I guess the question is, is insurrection a specific act that one person commits at a time, or is it an event and if you’re part of it you’re an insurrectionist (as the OP seems to say).
For example, you could have multiple people at the Capitol on Jan 6, some committed insurrection, some committed only lesser acts (say trespassing - not a charging decision but that’s all they literally did). Or is it, this thing that happened was an insurrection, you in some way regardless of how small took part in it, and therefore you are an insurrectionist.
If it’s case by case, it will depend on each person’s actions and I don’t see how it would directly bear on another person.
This. It’s the basis for MTGs bizarre claim that the media and Democrats are lying in calling it an insurrection just before going on to claim that the inauguration of Biden was an insurrection because the National Guard was deployed in the city.
This is a clearly partisan source, but it’s the only one I could find with a complete transcript of what she said:
Consider the insurrection statute (18 USC 2383):
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
It seems to me that this contemplates two things: (1) that an “rebellion” or “insurrection” is an event that occurs and (2) that some people “engage”, etc. in the insurrection or rebellion.
So not everyone who attends an “insurrection” would be an insurrectionist (even if some of them commit other crimes). But there needs to be an insurrection for that person to engage in – some sort independent evaluation of the nature of the “event.”
I don’t believe they are being asked to make that decision. Plaintiffs can say that’s what they believe but so what?
This!
MikeF has got it.
SCOTUS weren’t being asked to make any determination whether there was an insurrection per se.
They were to decide whether Colorado had the legal authority to choose to not put Trump on the ballot for that State, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Loses Her Mind
That assumes she had one to lose.
I particularly liked this comment: “Not possible to be dumber than this oxygen thief.”
Consider the insurrection statute (18 USC 2383
What are the elements the government needs to prove to find someone guilty under this statute?
SCOTUS weren’t being asked to make any determination whether there was an insurrection per se.
They were to decide whether Colorado had the legal authority to choose to not put Trump on the ballot for that State, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
That wouldn’t stop SCOTUS from being able to find that as a matter of fact, the events of Jan 6 constituted a riot, not an insurrection, would it? A lot of court watchers think that they will narrowly tailor their decision, but they could issue their own findings IIUC.
I believe they cannot as they do not have original jurisdiction.
Appeals courts generally do accept the facts of the original case, the don’t have to.
The court of appeals may review the factual findings made by the trial court or agency, but generally may overturn a decision on factual grounds only if the findings were “clearly erroneous.”
Reread your Marbury v Madison. SCOTUS’s original jurisdiction is limited to that enumerated by the Constitution.
That has nothing to do with whether an appeals court, including the Supreme Court, must accept the factual conclusions of the trial court.
It’s also worth pointing out that the riot vs. insurrection question is not exclusively a question of fact, but also one of law (with the standard of review for questions of law being de novo or “anew,” giving no particular deference to the lower courts in that regard). To wit: what is the definition—what are the elements—of an insurrection within the meaning of the 14th Amendment? So even if SCOTUS gives full credence to the underlying facts as set out by the trial court, it doesn’t have to reach the same legal conclusion, particularly if it feels the lower court misinterpreted the meaning of “insurrection.”
It sounded like sweeteviljesus to be the court to be the finder of facts aka (I think) a trial court.
Classic line:
“I’m not as dumb as you think I am!”
“Nooo… you couldn’t be that dumb.”
There have been several commentaries to the effect that the Colorado court found as a matter of fact that there was an insurrection. Comments have said that SCOTUS could not contradict that fact without finding that given the evidence that was presented to the Colorado court, no reasonable conclusion could be that there was an insurreection. Apparently the original judgement has a very reasoned decision why this qualified as an insurrection. IIRC, too, the appeal did not bring up the issue as to whether the insurrction determination was correct - simply that the disqualification was incorrect.
So basically - according to most commentators - SCOTUS has to come up with a decision why this disqualification is a bad idea and cannot be allowed without disputing the determination that an insurrection happened.
I don’t think this is really true.
What is an “insurrection” or “rebellion” within the ambit of Section 3 and what it means to have “engaged” in same are clearly questions of law that the US Supreme Court could address. Appellate courts routinely address this type of question, particularly with respect to criminal and quasi-criminal statutes.
The Colorado Supreme Court (an appellate court) specifically purported to address (as a matter of law) what constituted an “insurrection” and what is required to “engage” in it. Since it’s a matter of interpretation of federal law, the US Supreme Court could interpret it differently.
Trump’s petition for cert specifically challenges whether the events at issue could be an “insurrection” under Section 3 and whether he “engaged in it” (although not particularly forcefully). The truly “factual” findings that need to be accepted on appeal don’t strike me a really contested – the question (which is a question of law) is whether they rise to “engaging in” an “insurrection.”
The reason that no one thinks that the Court will get there is that there are a number of threshold issues that need to be addressed and it looks like at least some of them are likely to command a majority (even near unanimity) in favor of reversal. And dealing with this on procedural grounds would be pretty characteristic of the Court’s practice.
SCOTUS can do whatever it wants, regarless of precedents or legal logic, as Dobbs demonstrated. I agree thy are most likely to cut the baby in half and find a reason to invalidate the finding. The obvious reason was stated in the hearing - what stops then any state from finding a tit-for-tat reason to invalidate the other party’s candidate.
How they lay out the two halves of the baby and whether it is chopped up north-sout or east-west is the interesting part. Will they then make it almost impossible to bar third-party candidates? Will they give actual guidelines on what must happen to apply the exclusion amendment? Will they rule with no detailed explanation (can they do that?) Will they set the threshold for “insurrection” more specifically?