From what I can find the lower court rulings had 3 points of order:

1: Whether trump engaged in inurection - CO says yes he did.

2: Whether the insurrection clause applies to the office of the President- CO says it does.

3: If 1 and 2 apply then Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot.

The supreme Court is not obligated to comment on each point. They could come back and say 'We are not ruling on points 1 and 2 but we will over turn point 3as an ineligible person is still allowed on a primary ballot since a primary doesn't elect them president.'

This would leave CO in a spot where they could still attempt to keep him off the general ballot but the appeal on 1 and 2 would still be unsettled.

Am I missing something?

There was an episode about Kramer only wearing shirts that were warm out of the dryer. So close enough.

Someone help me out with some legal definitions here. If I am not mistaken this lawsuite is about Trump's eligibility to be on the Primary ballot. Not the actual election ballot. What is to stop the supreme Court from saying the constitutional requirements do not apply to the primary ballots because those ballots don't elect a president. The RNC could nominate a golden retriever as their nominee in the primary if they want, it just wouldnt be eligible in the general election.

We are just going to have to go through this all again ahead of the general election arent we.

Tim Minchin - White Wine in the Sun

Brings me to tears every time I listen to it.

See the problem you got here is the motor done fell out. Seems like your blades gone missin as well.

Stranger in a Strange Land.

It relies on a scifi premis for the first chapter then takes place on earth. It's a fun look at human culture from an outsider's perspective.

The wife and I spent 4 hours roaming around the one in Denver and had a great time. We are looking forward to checking out this one, just haven't made the time for it yet.