• Dippy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    It’s all up to interpretation though, you might not see it, or you might have heard it in a way, but it can be argued. Similar to the lower court judge saying so.

    Similarly one of the judge points out in the dissenting opinion there is no conviction of insurrection.

    So I still think C will win, but A or B is a possibility too.

    "In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here”

    Source

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I see it just fine. I reject it as a bad faith argument. Any judge who entertains it is showing how corrupt they are.

      Pointing to a lack of a conviction, OTOH, is at least a reasonable argument not based on pretending not to understand what words mean.

      • Dippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yea fair enough. Just a different set of eyes is all. Thanks for the response!

        The lack of conviction is prolly the biggest hurdle here which makes me wonder who would, or even could, bring those charges (even if the lower court explicitly stated he did). Jack smith has his hands full and while interesting to follow it’s not a direct case of questioning insurrection. Curious as to where it all leads.

        End of the day, it starts to ask the question, which prolly ends at the Supreme Court no matter what.