this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
286 points (98.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7108 readers
188 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As I'm reading this further, I have to say, this ruling is full of so much spiciness that I'm surprised the media hasn't reported on it more. A few of my favorites so far (emphasis mine):
They even went so far as to reference the fucking dictionary for those saying Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution.
They do go on to quote the dictionary again (both from the 1800s and the current version) to define what an "insurrection" is, then say:
Also, love how they basically reference what we all saw live here:
God damn. Some more spice in a quote about whether or not Trump "engaged in" insurrection since he wasn't actually in the mob:
My tinfoil hat theory is that the district judge did not want to be responsible for keeping trump off the ballot, be it safety for her/her family, or that it is such a momentous event that she did not feel comfortable bearing that weight alone. So she came up with this "not specifically references" conclusion as a soft punt to the state supreme court.
Makes sense. Had it been just her that ruled against him, Trump would've cast her as an activist Biden puppet. But now that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against him instead, it's harder to paint that picture.
Still, I don't like the idea of judges being intimidated to rule in a way they know to be incorrect just so an appeals court can take the blame.