I think there is a chance The Court may say that the disqualification requires a criminal conviction and a preponderance of the evidence decision is not a high enough burden of proof to take the decision away from the electorate. I think that's dumb. It's not like anyone's liberty is in jeopardy. One doesn't have a right to stand for election to the presudency, but it seems like the kind of "middle road" Roberts might be able to get behind.
It's definitely possible. I'm not sure that they'll touch the insurrection question if they don't have to. They might just go with "the 14th Amendment isn't self-enforcing/can't do that." It will be really interesting to see if/why they take it the case, and what kind of scrutiny they'll face for doing so.
They might rely on the same precedent that said states couldn't set term limits (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456). Basically, the states argued that they could set whatever higher criteria they wanted as long as they met the required stuff. The Court said no. I feel like that same line of reasoning is going to come back here.
I think there is a chance The Court may say that the disqualification requires a criminal conviction and a preponderance of the evidence decision is not a high enough burden of proof to take the decision away from the electorate. I think that's dumb. It's not like anyone's liberty is in jeopardy. One doesn't have a right to stand for election to the presudency, but it seems like the kind of "middle road" Roberts might be able to get behind.
It's definitely possible. I'm not sure that they'll touch the insurrection question if they don't have to. They might just go with "the 14th Amendment isn't self-enforcing/can't do that." It will be really interesting to see if/why they take it the case, and what kind of scrutiny they'll face for doing so.
They might rely on the same precedent that said states couldn't set term limits (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456). Basically, the states argued that they could set whatever higher criteria they wanted as long as they met the required stuff. The Court said no. I feel like that same line of reasoning is going to come back here.