As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection āunder any viable definitionā of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendmentās history, argues that āinsurrectionā should be understood broadlyāan act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a āpublic purpose.ā That certainly describes the Capitol riot, in which a violent mob attacked law enforcement and threatened members of Congress and the vice president in order to block the rightful counting of the electoral vote and illegally secure the victory of the losing candidate. The historical record also suggests that the amendmentās requirement that a prospective officeholder must have āengaged in insurrectionā should also be understood broadlyāmeaning that Trumpās speech on the Ellipse that morning and his encouragement of the rioters while they smashed their way through the Capitol more than fit the bill.
Indeed, pretty much, it would.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS hasnāt exactly got the best record when it comes to staying in its lane.
Though, while Iām on the subject, Australiaās High Court is much, much better than SCOTUS when it comes to the quality of jurisprudence, but itās still far from perfect. We had a highly notable case recently where they decided, in essence, āthe jury was unreasonableā and overruled both the trial court and the appellate court not on a matter of law, but purely because they disagreed with the jury. So itās not an entirely uniquely American problem.
Damn, that would be infuriating
For reference, the case I was referencing was against Cardinal George Pell, the (at the timeānow deceased) highest-ranking Catholic priest in Australia, and arguably third-highest-ranking member of the entire Roman Catholic Church. He was initially convicted of child sexual abuse.