A Yale law professor argues reductio ad absurdum in Politico:
1) That it would inflict grave new damage on the Supreme Court if it did reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to kick Trumpie off the ballot with a 5-4 vote. I could see that. So far so comme ci, comme ça good. Give it to him for now.
2) That Chief Justice Roberts therefore should persuade one of the conservative bloc to join him and the liberals to affirm Colorado. See, by giving him the first point and allowing him to carry his logic forward we see him hang himself, viz: By what vote would that occur? Oh, 5-4. And, btw, his argument is assuming a counterfactual. Roberts, other informed speculation has it, is jawboning the liberals to get the narrowest possible ruling reversing Colorado on a 9-0 vote. But let's let him twist.
3) That the Supreme Court can and should on "originalist" principles, uphold the Colorado Supreme Court. I don't know from originalist; I know that that on "textualist" principles like the text of the 14th Amendment Sec. 3 does not have "president" in it, which would and does seem to me to be an easier justification but what do I know, I'm not a smart guy. Let's let the smart guy continue.
4) That Trumpie could not possibly be elected president if he is kept off
the ballot in Colorado and the other states that are awaiting SCOTUS'
green light to kick him off their ballots. Well...probably, although as a law professor he knows that each case comes to SCOTUS with its own factual and legal context. It is true that precedent is very persuasive (although not so much in Dobbs) but, for example, the Maine and Colorado cases are very, very different. The Court could very reasonably overrule Colorado and affirm Maine. But wait, we're getting to the good part.
5) Tha once Trumpie can't run Biden will drop out on accounta Joe once said if Trumpie hadn't run he was not sure he would have.
Our legal eagle realizes that we wouldn't have a prez election then on accounta we wouldn't have like candidates. So he proposes,
6) "To allow new contenders from both parties to make their case to the voters, the justices should issue an injunction postponing Super Tuesday to early May — and provide potential candidates with a six-week opportunity to satisfy state ballot requirements."
That's not the Court injecting itself into politics, nah-ah! That would rehabilitate the Court's image, oh yeah!
