• Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Colorado lower court also found it was an insurrection, but that an insurrection didn’t disqualify a person from running for President (because of some very specific wording in the constitution).

    So both sides in the case appealed and now here we are.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Knowing it would be appealed, no matter the ruling, the lower court found it was an insurrection. The next court had to take that as a factual finding. They could not argue or retry that question. It is now a legal fact.

      Brilliant move! That judge took one for the team, called a coward and a traitor. And you see what we have here today. (insert wasted.meme)

        • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not how American courts work?

          Nope. The court of appeals can find fault with the methods, procedure, precedent etc but not the facts.

          (Also, that’s not how question marks work.)

          • The_Vampire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But here’s the thing: they could easily say the method that led to the finding is wrong. It’s not a fact.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If it’s decided by the lower court it is held as fact. It may not in your opinion be correct but it is verifiably a fact at this point.