Prior post:
When the suit was filed, I thought the first issue would be to prove to a court that Trump was responsible for an insurrection. That suit should have waited for Jack Smith to get a guilty verdict. That turned out to not be in question in the judge's opinion. She ruled Trump was an insurrectionist. What is really significant about this is that the judge held a trial, called witnesses, and heard evidence. That is the first time such was ruled in a Court process. (Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one). This Colorado case was a civil suit, requiring only one side to be more believable than the other based on a preponderance of evidence. Harder to do is Jack Smith's case, which requires a jury to conclude Trump was guilty because there was no doubt in reasonable minds. The proof needed was the "beyond reasonable doubt n effect; it is harder for a prosecutor to win a criminal case than a citizen to win a civil one. A trial finding a defendant guilty could result in jail time. Civil suits seek monetary or remedial actions. To those who think this is a plot by Democrats, get a grip on yourselves. Those who brought the suit are traditional Republicans and independents. For American democracy, upholding this lower court decision would be a good thing; for Democrats, not so much since Trump is an easy target to attack and is a known quantity/quality. Others in the race for the Republican nomination would have to be defined in negative terms to make such a contrast. In the end, it may be the question of women's rights that brings down the GOP and whether the candidate, if not Trump, is for a federal law banning abortions.
Clarifying the application of the 14th Amendment to a presidential candidate would be the expected result of the legal issue that will now go to the Colorado Supreme Court. Still, the concept that a candidate who tried to engineer a coup to overturn the democratic process should be given another opportunity to destroy democracy as we have known it would be hard to swallow. Running the 2024 race and winning will still be difficult because of the lack of enthusiasm for Biden, so it appears now. Going negative against Trump is his best hope. What is really significant about this is that the judge held a trial and called witnesses regarding whether Trump deserved to be guilty of being an insurrectionist, and she ruled he did. That is the first time such was ruled in a Court process. (Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one). This article presents experts opining that factual findings are rarely overturned by appeal judges but questions whether the results are in compliance with the Constitution.. This constitutional issue will, without doubt, be decided by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), dominated by Trump appointees. It is where the issue is likely to meet its fate and die on the altar of the majority. A possibility is that SCOTUS would rule that a decision by the Court is too important of an issue to be decided by the Court, so the decision must be made by the voters in this democracy. and refuse to hear it, leaving lower court decisions to stand in Colorado alone but inviting other states to attempt a suit with other arguments. Of course, the last time the court actually made such a profound and critical decision was when it ruled against Al Gore in 2000 and made his opponent president. They did it once before, and they could do it again. Gore honored the decision and did not attempt an insurrection like loser Trump did in 2020-2021. The Big Lie still persists in the minds of most in the GOP, even after over three years of trying to prove there was enough fraud to justify that belief. It failed in every court decision, and every audit, including "forensic" ones conducted by Trump supporters, is a matter of mass delusion based on wishful thinking. The Differences Between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw
