I looked at it previously and determined the USSC didn't have what it takes to take a correct historical interpretation of it, and there are ways to get out of it, so the court will decide to keep him on the ballot. If the court actually rules to keep him off the ballot I'll be flabbergasted.

--------------

I agree, 100%. Conservative members of the Court are working FEVERISHLY to dig up bogus alternate history and bizarre references they can cite for NOT following the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and banning him nationwide from the ballot. The only question is how craven their analysis will be and how far into the alt-reality fringes of history and jurisprudence they'll have to go to find the excuses for them NOT to do their job.

One of the quotes referenced in the CSSC decision cites prior decisions which specifically instruct "we may not avoid our duty
to decide a case merely because it may have political implications." It wasn't an accident they included that reference. The justices writing the majority opinion in the CSSC ruling know exactly who the readers of their decision are. As I stated in my post last week, this is precisely why the CSSC opinion itself and the amicus brief filed by the historians were written as they were.

WTH