Reports on the oral argument before the Supreme Court indicate that the Justices’ questioning was harshly critical of the ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court under scrutiny. That was the declaration that former President Trump’s conduct after the election in 2020 made him ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment section barring those who engaged in an insurrection from running for office.
It wasn’t just the solid conservatives (above) who doubted the Colorado ruling; even two-thirds of the so-called liberal bloc of the Court seemed unimpressed by the Colorado decision banning Trump from the ballot, which by extension makes the Supreme Court’s decision applicable to Maine as well as any other Trump-fearing states that are inclined to try the same tactic. Every Justice except the pathetic Sonia Sotamayor expressed skepticism at the Colorado argument and appeared to be more sympathetic with Trump’s lawyer’s positions.
The main sticking point seems to be allowing the states to disqualify candidates in a national election without Congress first enacting legislation that allows them to do that. (Ann Althouse, who listened to the oral argument, wrote that Justice Sotomayor sounded “lost.” She’s always lost when she has to discuss the law rather than “feelings.” Sotomayor might be the least qualified Justice confirmed to sit on the Court in my lifetime: one more botch we can attribute to Barack Obama.) The questions from the Justices barely touched on the issue of whether Trump’s actions challenging the legitimacy of the 2020 election qualify as an insurrection.
I thought the argument for excluding Trump as an insurrectionist when he hadn’t even been charged with inciting an insurrection was transparent “lawfare” by Democrats and Trump-o-phobics from the first time I heard about. Several members of the Court raised that point too. I was among those who felt SCOTUS should strike down the Colorado decision 9-0, and might. I forgot about Sotomayor’s proclivity to vote with her heart rather than her head.
It’s OK: 8-1 will be just fine.
Ethics Alarms 
One correction for you sir. “The questions from the Justices barely touched on the issue of whether Trump’s actions challenging the legitimacy of the 2024 election qualify as an insurrection.” I think you meant 2020 not 2024.
Fixed. Thanks.
Maybe an 8-1 ruling will be preferable. Maybe it’ll finally clue people in that Sotomayer needs to change her methodology when deciding cases. Maybe SHE will realize she’s out in left field in how she approaches her job.
And maybe pigs will fly into my house and cut themselves up into bacon strips tomorrow morning.
What was astounding was the Colorado attorneys reply to I believe Justice Jackson that should Colorado not prevail here that the decision “may come back with a vengeance” should Trump be elected in which Congress may have to take steps to invalidate his electors.
Tell me what is Trump accused of doing again?
The DOJ never characterized Jan 6 as anything more than perhaps a riot, and prosecuted individuals accordingly, for vandalism, trespassing, etc. Never did they claim it was an insurrection, Not one single participant was charged with insurrection, and of course, neither was Trump.
However, probably due to Trump’s excellent chances of winning back the presidency It seems some with advanced TDS have decided it was indeed an insurrection, and that was sufficient to prevent Trump from being on ballots. The fact no one was thusly charged is irrelevant.
The justice department did, however, throw the book at many Jan 6th riot participants with clear political motive, as they dramatically undercharged the participants in similar riots.
I don’t believe it will be 8-1. No matter what they say in arguments, I think at least some of the justices will vote to allow Trump excluded if only to reduce the likelihood that their houses will be burned to the ground and their families killed by the leftist mob while the police look on to make sure no one interferes. If it isn’t going to change the outcome, why stick your neck out?
Well, we’ll see. The Justices have to live with each other: they have a really narrow working and social circle. They also have to deal with professional reputation. The law on this is clear, and always was, despite the efforts of people like David French and Illya Somin. Moreover, this Court has seen a goodly share of crossover: 6-3 has not been the typical score. I always felt there was a chance for a 9-0 ruling against Colorado, and there still is: it’s more likely, in my assessment, that Sotomayor gives up and votes with her colleagues to save face, than Brown or Kagan make themselves look foolish by voting with her.
Maybe they pair this with the ruling that Trump does not have immunity to blunt the impact.
Things would be much simpler for Sotomayor if she did vote her head. She could simply write “pudding” as her decision and be done with it.
<blockquote>
I was among those who felt SCOTUS should strike down the Colorado decision 9-0, and might. I forgot about Sotomayor’s proclivity to vote with her heart rather than her head.
It’s OK: 8-1 will be just fine.
</blockquote>
Never fear! I remember you expressing skepticism of the liberal justices’ vote.
<blockquote>It is hard to find anyone who thinks the ruling will stand. Prof. Turley wrote on “X” last night that SCOTUS might overrule the decision unanimously. (It should, but it won’t.)
Colorado’s Supreme Court Thrusts The Nation Into A Constitutional Crisis | Ethics Alarms</blockquote>
Prof. Turley has just posted a blog essay about how “The Trump case exposed the erosion of legal coverage in the media. For millions of Americans, the cold reception of all of the justices to the novel theory under the 14th Amendment came as a surprise” except for regular readers of his commentary.
Well mine too! “I’m smart! I’m not dumb like people think!”
The New York Sun asks, “How Could So Many Great Lawyers Be So Wrong?” following Colorado’s advocate being eviscerated by SCOTUS. Isn’t the answer obvious? All together now: “BIAS MAKES YOU STUPID!”