I presume that one, two, or all of the reporters, Josh Gerstein, Kyle Cheney and Zach Montellaro, on this piece is/are a lawyer/lawyers. If that presumption is correct then their analysis is at least as. and probably more, credible than mine. However, I still disagree.

The high court offered precisely zero analysis about whether Jan. 6 should in fact be deemed an insurrection or whether Trump gave it enough fuel to have engaged in an effort to overthrow the U.S. government.

Instead, the court focused on a more technical issue: whether states have the power to “enforce” the insurrection clause. When it comes to candidates for federal office, the court said, states don’t have that authority. Only Congress does.

Okay, guys, that's because the fucking question that they took up was "Did the state of Colorado err...", not the fucking question, "Did Trumpie engage in an insurrection" as the term is used in the 14th A. Okay? Do you have brains? Let me see your bar card(s).

 By deciding the case on these grounds, the court left unresolved whether Trump is indeed qualified under the Constitution to serve again as president — and essentially punted the core issue of Trump’s eligibility to Congress.

They did. SCOTUS had to leave that issue untouched because of how the question was framed for them when they took the case. But they did leave that issue unresolved. That is a good point by our legal eagles or legal beagles.

Federal lawmakers could, in theory, now try to pass legislation knocking Trump off the ballot — though such legislation, the court noted tersely, would be “subject of course to judicial review.”

Yes, federal lawmakers are the only vehicle and that possibility is theoretical not reality.

...

By leaving the question of Trump’s eligibility unsettled and in the hands of Congress, the Supreme Court’s ruling may open the door to another day of turmoil on the four-year anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack.

Consider a scenario in which Trump prevails in the November election and at least one branch of Congress ends up under Democratic control. On Jan. 6, 2025, the newly elected Congress will meet to certify the results of the Electoral College.

And in that scenario, Democrats — some of whom have already declared that they believe Trump is ineligible to serve — would have to decide whether to count Trump’s electoral votes and certify the election.

It’s not difficult to imagine a movement to refuse to count Trump’s electors by citing the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision empowering Congress to enforce it. 

No, it is difficult, it is impossible, to imagine that. Democrats would never get a "movement" going to decertify the 2024 election--on the basis of the 14th A. The 14th A asserts federal authority over qualification for office. Democratic lawmakers could object to a state's certification but not on the ground of a candidate's qualification for office. The only vehicle available for congressional Democrats to disqualify would be, or would have been, a federal law passed by Congress before vote counting begins (or began). The law does not play gotcha games. You can't make laws ex post facto.

Terrible article unless I am very much mistaken.