Your prediction of SC reaction to the CO disqualifying Trump ruling?

[Donerail]

They will rule that the 14th amendment reserves enforcement to Congress and the only provision Congress has made to declare a candidate ineligible for the office on the grounds of insurrection is impeachment. A two-thirds majority of the Senate can disqualify Donald Trump at any time, and until they do, no other court has the authority to do so.

Think it might be a little broader than that — Congress has legislated through 18 USC § 2383, which makes a candidate ineligible for office if convicted of insurrection. Any court could disqualify Trump if it convicted him of insurrection, but no court has done so, and there's no room for courts to declare people disqualified under the 14th Amendment outside the context of § 2383.

[Donerail]

There’s a dozen different ways the Court could parse the question of how to enforce the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment. And we’re truly in untested waters, so any traditional doctrine or precedent that you might expect a particular justice to follow is pretty much out the window. But I think one thing that’s being overlooked in the shuffle here is that there’s a pretty strong textual argument that the clause doesn’t apply to the office of the President in the first place. So that’s your path of least resistance if the Court feels like nipping the whole thing in the bud.

I struggle to imagine the Court going down that route. It does offer a possible off-ramp, but would Roberts, for one, really want to resolve this based on a strained reading of the Constitution that concludes the President is an office-holder but not an "officer" and the fact that the President swears to "preserve" the Constitution rather than "support" it? It gets you out of the immediate controversy, but it's also a prime example of why people hate lawyers.

[Donerail]

There’s a dozen different ways the Court could parse the question of how to enforce the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment. And we’re truly in untested waters, so any traditional doctrine or precedent that you might expect a particular justice to follow is pretty much out the window. But I think one thing that’s being overlooked in the shuffle here is that there’s a pretty strong textual argument that the clause doesn’t apply to the office of the President in the first place. So that’s your path of least resistance if the Court feels like nipping the whole thing in the bud.

I struggle to imagine the Court going down that route. It does offer a possible off-ramp, but would Roberts, for one, really want to resolve this based on a strained reading of the Constitution that concludes the President is an office-holder but not an "officer" and the fact that the President swears to "preserve" the Constitution rather than "support" it? It gets you out of the immediate controversy, but it's also a prime example of why people hate lawyers.

I agree that the “preserve” vs “support” argument is unpersuasive. But the bigger problem is that Section 3 specifically identifies electors for President and Vice President but omits the President and Vice President themselves, which requires us to read the presidency into “any office” in order to apply. It’s either a very odd or very intentional omission.

I don't think it's odd at all. If you want Section 3 to apply to electors, you have to specifically identify them because electors are not officers. Senators and Representatives are likewise not officers (the Constitution only refers to "members"), and so they must be listed separately. But Article II repeatedly refers to the President as holding an "Office," so there is no need to single out the Presidency. No one thinks, for example, that the Impeachment Clause's reference to "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" intentionally excludes the Presidency.

[Donerail]

Not sure how the Supreme Court could resolve this on standing. Article III is not a barrier to standing in state court and the Constitution, of course, still applies there.

[Donerail]

If SCOTUS wants to rule on the case, they'll find a way to reach standing. They'll make it up if they have to. That may sound cynical and tantamount to making a mockery of the system, but that is the Roberts Court for you. There is not much logic at all in this Court's jurisprudence on standing.

Again: Standing is not at issue. The plaintiffs brought suit in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not make the standing rules for Colorado courts.