Well, it seems this thread is seriously in need of an update!

I am going to throw up a bunch of links to bring it up to speed, and sometime in the near term a rather lengthy opinion about what is about to happen. The Supreme Court has accepted Certiorari of Trump's appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Griswold. The question accepted by the Supreme Court was simply:

"Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?"

Subsumed within that question are a number of specific issues. In its Order, the Colorado Supreme Court listed its conclusions succinctly:

"We hold as follows:

•The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three.

•Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.

•Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

•Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President[.]

•The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

•The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,constituted an “insurrection.”

•The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

•President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,was not protected by the First Amendment.

The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."

The Trial Court below conducted a five-day trial on the merits, including testimony of a number of witnesses, and issued a comprehensive order on the merits: Final Order

The Maine Secretary of State reached very similar conclusions.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich