Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification, Trump met, but because i assumed, the SC would require a criminal conviction on insurrection to be the bar for enacting it. To ensure partisan actors in the future could not just use this to block anyone from running they did not like.
Both History and current cases of using this Amendment demonstrate factually that actions can and have been taken without any criminal prosecution for insurrection by the party barred from running.
So i do not think the SC will simply read in a new requirement (thus amending the Constitution by judicial fiat) a new requirement of legal conviction when the founders of that article clearly did not intend that and instead they SC will have to decide what will suffice. And in the terms of what has sufficed for prior people barred from running who were not convicted the case against Trump is far stronger and worse for him.
- Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame. This is arguably the strongest non legal government rebuke one could get. So again, if you accept a legal finding (court conviction) is not need, then this is just about the highest bar you can otherwise get.
- In two of Trump's current prosecutions it is alleged Trump tried to overthrow the results of an election (meaning if they let him run and he wins but the conviction follows he would have to be removed via the Constitution)
the challenge the SC will have as avowed Originalists, is that they cannot simply read in a new requirement for 'legal conviction' that the Framers never intended and that has not been required in the past for such removals or disqualifications. And that instead leaves the SC to determine boundaries and thresholds for how this can be bounded outside the law, or in a political arena.
As i see it, there is only one real out they could subscribe that would be a higher threshold than Trump already got in the House and Senate citations stating he was responsible for the insurrection and that would be an impeachment and conviction. The problem that the SC would have with that, is that people who are not in office have been barred via the 14th. Meaning, lets say this was Hillary doing an insurrection after the 2016 loss, they could not impeach her due to her not being the Office holder, but they could still use the 12th bar her from any future runs as there is no requirement the person to be an office holder.
So that means the very highest bar, outside legal prosecution is what Trump already got and thus any boundary ther SC would be below that.
I now move the odds of the SC barring him to 70/30 unless they want to be completely hypocritical and go against their Originalist claimed beliefs and read in to the Constitution a new clause that 'requires conviction'.
