If an issue that goes to an appellate court is an issue of law, the appellate court reviews de novo, which means that no deference is given to the lower court.

See:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/de_novo

With an issue of fact, appellate courts are more deferential to lower courts.

I didn't read the decision but this is from ABC⤵️

As far as what the judge was thinking, your guess is as good as mine, but from this, I'd guess that . . .

2/

. . . the judge found more textual support for finding that the president is not an officer than for the finding that he is.

Picture a balance scale with slightly more weight on one side.

So now it goes to the appellate court, which might have more nerve than the trial court.

The important part of the finding, though, was that he incited an insurrection.

The appellate court can overturn that, but it unlikely and more difficult because of the greater deference to findings of facts.

3/

Welcome to the world of constitutional and statutory interpretation.

Basically, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and the Constitution is stuffed full of phrases and words that can be interpreted in different ways.

An interpretation of the word "reasonable" in the Fourth Amendment has literally filled books.

4/

The Third Section of the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to keep former Confederates out of the government.

The idea was to prevent backsliding.

It didn't work because, by the late 1890s, the government and Supreme Court were stuffed full of Confederate sympathizers who rolled back the advances made during Reconstruction and gave us racial segregation.

You can keep out the insurrectionists but not the insurrection sympathizers.

5/

Judge Luttig offered a passionate critique of the Colorado judge's decision.

With most legal issues, it is possible to argue both sides.

People read these passionate critiques and think "The judge was wrong."

The only conclusion is "Luttig believes the judge was wrong."

Maybe my attitude comes from defense appellate work, which means mostly losing and rarely liking court decisions.

(My clients always lost at the trial level and the presumptions on appeal were against them.)

6/

Adding one more comment:

The court left wide open the possibility that the appellate court may find that Trump was an officer.

Sort of humbly, the court didn't think it should be the one to make the call.

I think that Colorado certainly has the right to keep Trump off the ballot. I also think that these court proceedings would satisfy due process.

So we'll see.

7/