As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection “under any viable definition” of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendment’s history, argues that “insurrection” should be understood broadly—an act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a “public purpose.” 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 amendment’s requirement that a prospective officeholder must have “engaged in insurrection” should also be understood broadly—meaning that Trump’s 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.
Yes some people are going to change their mind because most Americans aren’t paying close attention. You say “these people are already convinced”. This is just black and white thinking. Some are convinced, but many don’t feel informed enough to have strong opinions.
The lesson from the Dobbs decision is that, sure SCOTUS can ignore public opinion, but it matters when they do. After that decision, voters, including many independents and even conservatives, revolted, leading to many surprising victories for Democrats.
I’m honestly puzzled by your comment. Is this a call to stop spreading anti-fascist ideas? To stop making arguments and spreading concern? Why? Your theory seems to be that talking about ideas doesn’t matter. Fascists, on the other hand, keenly understand the power of ideas!