I do not understand the US judiciary nullifying a portion of the “sacred” constitution. Seems like the beginning of the end, to an outside observer. Thanks for all the fish!!

I wouldn’t count this as over just yet. it makes sense that the judges would reserve their harshest questioning for the side that feels they must upend an election. Even the Liberal justices were wary of that.

They spent very little time on the topic of whether Trump was engaged in insurrection. To me, that means their minds are made up on that, one way or the other. You would think if they were going to let him off the hook based on that, though, they would ask more questions.

I think they will rule that individual states can’t use the amendment to keep candidates off of primary ballots. That much is clear. I wonder if they rule that Trump must remain on the ballot, but cannot serve if he wins – unless waived by Congress. It would make the discussion of Trump’s VP much more interesting.