Survival and Emergency Preparedness

Well kids, today we see if there is any semblance of America left in the system. This should be a 9-0 easy layup.
Trump was never even charged with insurrection. We can ignore the fact that there is no legitimate evidence that a group of rioters was intending or capable of doing so. Even if they WERE trying to revolt against the US Government, they didn't do it in any coordination with Trump.

I think the court will tell Colorado to STFU and stay in their lane. I sadly do not believe it will be 9-0. 7-2 maybe...

I think the Justices realize what saying "OK" would 1) do to elections based on State election shenanigans, and
2) what it would do to the reputation of the court (Probably their number one concern in this case)

As much as a fan of States' rights that I am I have to say that Colorado is 42 different flavors of wrong. National election, should have to play by National rules.
That said, having looked into running myself, the local systems are pretty fucked up as it is. Clearly built for only a Dem/Repub to be able to run reasonably.

Many years ago, there were two transitions in politics:
1. a curbing of states rights in favor of federal expansion; and,
2. the abdication of formulation of laws at the national level to formulation of administrative federal regulations.

Whether I agree the change or not (and I don't), that is the reality. Of course the states can restrict who goes on a ballot, even at the federal level. The problem with the Colorado court system is a denial of fundamental fairness . . . like having a trial, admissible evidence. Mr. Trump has not been found guilty of a federal offense, which is only within the purview of a federal court. Without a federal conviction, there is no determination that an offense has occurred.

One of guiding rules for a court is to determine a ripe controversy only based upon factual evidence and the law. The "controversy" of whether Mr. Trump was "guilty" of a federal offense was not ripe.

It was interesting listening to the debate. To my untrained ears, it sounds like the Justices are looking at ruling against Colorado and made a couple of interesting points.

Why should one State get to decided who should be allowed to run for President?

Does the Amendment actually apply to the Office of President? There are a list of positions that insurrection charges can filed against.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

It looks like that SCOTUS will not touch the actual topic if President Trump committed insurrection or not, but instead rule against Colorado based on the other items. Both the liberals and conservatives on the court seem to be very aware of the potential ramifications of the decision.

Yet, like every other case, till they actually rule anything is possible.

(added the article)

I'm calling 9-0 against Co

What is taking this decision so long???

It is SCOTUS, they do everything at their own pace. Nothing in the law requires them to release a decision by xxx date.

True - the decision is easy. The commentary around "Stop this tom-foolery" is not.

It was interesting to see the 9-0 verdict, Tom Mac called it.