General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Donald Trump is NOT eligible to run for President. Period. [View all]dpibel
(2,946 posts)I'm not really interested in predicting what the Supremes will do or whether the decision will be unanimous (although I will say it would astonish me beyond words if, as you suggest in another post, the Supremes engraft a requirement of criminal conviction when no such thing remotely exists in the 14th).
I'm interested in trying to get people to stop making legally nonsensical claims, like "there was no finding of insurrection."
I think it is more likely than not that the Supremes will figure out some way to bail on this question. But it's going to be another outcome-oriented decision, like Bush v. Gore and Dobbs, which is supported by quite a bit of handwaving and very little legitimate legal analysis. And, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me tremendously if they upheld the CO courts. It's a states-rights thing, after all, and the CO decisions (which you clearly have not read) were pretty tightly reasoned. I see no evidence that this Supreme Court is much invested in Trumpism, so they're not going to go too far to protect his fat ass. And--think about it--if you're correct that upholding the CO decision (and the Maine one, which will get decided at the same time) is license for all red states to take Democrats off ballots, then why wouldn't these rogue Supremes set things up to make that happen?
After all, we're all post-rule-of-law cynics now, aren't we?