I don't really know how most of the public defines insurrection, I mean, I just assume we all do the same thing, which is go look up the definition of the word and then we agree that is what it means. 

So then when we apply the term, we are all using and understanding it in the same way. I know lawyers like to parse words. They look at something, like the 14th amendment and take it apart and say, "Well, the word president is not here, this means that whoever wrote this meant to exclude the president." 

Then another lawyer says "Well, they don't include the word president because it is so obvious the president is included because it says any officer of the United States government." 

So, the first lawyer replies "Well, yes, it says officer, but the president is not an officer. Everybody else is an officer except the president."

The second lawyer replies "What do you mean, it is called the office of the president and he takes an oath of office?"

The first lawyer says "No, the president did not take that oath and there is no office of the president."

Lawyer number two replies "We all watch the president take the oath of office every 4 years. You've got to be kidding!"

This exhausts everybody watching and listening because it is literally like these two people live in separate universes. 

So, not only is the Supreme Court deciding what is constitutional, they are deciding what words actually mean. Not sentences or intent, the actual meaning of single words. Like what does the word "is" mean?

The really fucked up part is, we all know this conversation is only happening because one president, the only president in the history of the United States, tried to overturn an election to stay in power because he is trying to outrun a series of crimes he committed and claims that all crimes he committed and may commit in the future he has full immunity for.