Technically, nothing really changed, as this was a foregone conclusion. The court suspended their own ruling in the event it was inevitably challenged. It was always empty - but extremely dangerous - virtue signaling. Basically, the only thing the original ruling did was make things more confusing, and shake faith in Our Democracy™ (good!).
It was extremely stupid. You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed, let alone a conviction, when the conduct in question was prima facia perfectly legal.
The Dems always think that they're the only one who will use their dirty tricks, and they never learn. Dems removing the filibuster for judicial appointees is how Trump was able to get so many federal judges in office during his presidency.
If they had gotten away with this there's nothing stopping a state like Mississippi from just declaring the Democratic party to be a terrorist organization under the federal definition and criminalizing contributions to them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed,
IDK if that's true. Colorado had its own law incorporating the (US) Constitutional provision, they said. In fact, the judgement pointed out that other states might validly come to different conclusions since most have no such law. And for all I know Colorado passed that law just to deny Trump.
Maybe, but it all hinged on the 14th amendment's language saying "engaged in insurrection."
Colorado's decision was based on the concept that he needn't be convicted because the 14th Amendment simply says "engaged" and that they could apply their own judgment as to whether or not his actions met that definition.
Cool, cool. If you want to play that game, federal law also doesn't say that an organization has to be convicted of anything to be declared a terrorist entity, instantly criminalizing providing "material support" to it. It's a bullshit ruling, and it's simply opens Pandora's box for other places to criminalize political conduct that they don't approve of unless the Supreme Court smacks it down super fucking hard.
Technically, nothing really changed, as this was a foregone conclusion. The court suspended their own ruling in the event it was inevitably challenged. It was always empty - but extremely dangerous - virtue signaling. Basically, the only thing the original ruling did was make things more confusing, and shake faith in Our Democracy™ (good!).
It was extremely stupid. You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed, let alone a conviction, when the conduct in question was prima facia perfectly legal.
The Dems always think that they're the only one who will use their dirty tricks, and they never learn. Dems removing the filibuster for judicial appointees is how Trump was able to get so many federal judges in office during his presidency.
If they had gotten away with this there's nothing stopping a state like Mississippi from just declaring the Democratic party to be a terrorist organization under the federal definition and criminalizing contributions to them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
IDK if that's true. Colorado had its own law incorporating the (US) Constitutional provision, they said. In fact, the judgement pointed out that other states might validly come to different conclusions since most have no such law. And for all I know Colorado passed that law just to deny Trump.
Maybe, but it all hinged on the 14th amendment's language saying "engaged in insurrection."
Colorado's decision was based on the concept that he needn't be convicted because the 14th Amendment simply says "engaged" and that they could apply their own judgment as to whether or not his actions met that definition.
Cool, cool. If you want to play that game, federal law also doesn't say that an organization has to be convicted of anything to be declared a terrorist entity, instantly criminalizing providing "material support" to it. It's a bullshit ruling, and it's simply opens Pandora's box for other places to criminalize political conduct that they don't approve of unless the Supreme Court smacks it down super fucking hard.
The 14th amendment is unclear, but in general we get due process which means a trial where the defendant gets to make arguments.