No way will THIS Supreme Court uphold the Colorado Supreme Court decision. I think we are deluding ourselves

[dpibel]

168. It's not a criminal matter

Once again, there is no peril of liberty or life here. So the presence or absence of a criminal statute is utterly beside the point. This is not a case of "application of criminal justice." I'm not sure what's so difficult about this concept.

And you staunchly ignore the fact that there was in this case a five-day trial, complete with briefing, submission of evidence, and testimony. Or you deem that much more trial was required in order to meet your stringent requirements for due process. How much would that be? Is there some minimum number of trial days required in your jurisprudence?

This will apparently come as a surprise to you, but courts interpret words on a regular basis, generally by reference to common meanings and legal and lay definitions. So there's nothing all that extraordinary about a court deciding what "insurrection" means and applying that definition to the circumstances. You can find a helpful discussion of this starting at page 96 of the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion.

As for your killer "what if the sides were flipped," that's really not so hard. If a court held a five-day evidentiary hearing that clearly established that Joe Biden had engaged in insurrection, as that word is currently understood (and was understood at the enactment of the 14th Amendment), I would say: "Damn, Joe. You shouldn't have done that." If, on the other hand, the state of Texas declares that Joe Biden's border policy is an insurrection for purposes of the 14th Amendment, I will quite comfortably call bullshit. If you cannot distinguish between the two, I do not believe I can help you.

Your pretense that this was some utterly unsupported political ruling by the Colorado district court judge indicates to me that you haven't read anything but media coverage of the case.