No. of Recommendations: 9
albaby1: I think it gets overruled. I wouldn't be shocked if it got upheld...
If the high court goes by the facts and the law, it should stand.
Here's why: the three dissenting opinions could not even agree in their dissension.
Boatright wrote that the concept of insurrection is too complex and too vague in comparison to age and birthright. In stock evaluation terms, it goes into the "too hard" pile.
Samour wrote that if Trump did participate in an insurrection then he should be removed from the ballot but that his case should go through the long, slow legal system first and even if he was found guilty his removal would be an "enlargement of state power" that is "antithetical to the framers’ intent." [Samour wins for the stupidest dissent.]
Berkenkotter wrote let's set aside the factual findings, "an insurrection challenge is necessarily going to involve complex legal questions of the type that no district court—no matter how hard working—could resolve in a summary proceeding." Too fast.
In short, pretty weak sauce.
If the high court had a lick of sense and could set aside it's republicanism, several of the justices would realize this is their opportunity -- given that the facts and the law clearly can be interpreted to bar Trump -- to rid their party of the most corrupt anti-democratic politician in American history and let the state supreme court opinion stand.
But they're mostly gutless and a little un-democratic (with a small 'd') to boot so my expectation is they overrule.
