Perspectives on the Trump 14th Amendment case

But the NY Times (at least where I read) didn't touch the question, "Is Trump guilty?" Surely that's not something a state supreme court would decide. So they've made a legal decision but assumed the facts. Typically, by the time something makes it to a supreme court, the facts have been established by lower courts, and then the court can issue a legal opinion based on established facts.

Suppose the US Supreme Court does decide to look at the issue. Does the 14th Amendment require that 1) The federal legislature has made a statute defining "insurrection" or "rebellion" or "aid and comfort to the enemy" and 2) a criminal charge based on that statute has been filed and 3) a court trial has taken place and 4) a guilty verdict has been reached? Is all of that required by the amendment, or can the Supreme Court itself just look at the situation of Jan 6 and the months leading up to it and make a determination on its own?

But the NY Times (at least where I read) didn't touch the question, "Is Trump guilty?" Surely that's not something a state supreme court would decide. So they've made a legal decision but assumed the facts. Typically, by the time something makes it to a supreme court, the facts have been established by lower courts, and then the court can issue a legal opinion based on established facts.

One of the major differences between conservatives and progressives when it comes to the courts is that the conservatives generally believe in applying the rule of law while the progressives believe that judicial activism is a duty. The Colorado decision is simply another application of the progressive judicial approach. This is also why many evangelicals are more inclined to vote conservative.

I’ve observed that people often see “judicial activism” when they don’t like the court’s decision, but see “rule of law” when they do.

Judicial activism is a real thing, but I see the term used inaccurately and pejoratively a lot. In this particular case, you have a never seen before situation meeting with a somewhat ambiguous bit of constitutional law. I can’t see how a decision either way would qualify as activism at the SCOTUS level and it doesn’t really seem to quality for that at the Colorado level either.

I’ll admit two things on this: One, Colorado’s action is motivated at least some, maybe mostly, by Trump animosity/alarm. Two, though I don’t share their progressive politics, I do share their Trump animosity. Mostly because I’m an old-school conservative. It is possible for opposite political philosophies to be passionately opposed to the same leader for very different, though somewhat overlapping reasons.

I think the latest discussion he had before the Appeals Court begins to show his true colors. He doesn’t view himself as a president but as a king, who is immune from anything. The fact that he believes that he can order Seal Team 6 to assasinate a political opponent and cannot be prosecuted by a court is the height of absurdity. If Biden had said this the right and the media on the right would be all over it. They are all over Biden in an impeachment inquiry despite not a shred of evidence after 2 years of investigation. Instead it is just crickets from the right. Why? Because they are less concerned about what is right and instead focused on protecting their power.