Of course the SCOTUS will overrule it. It's a baseless claim and has not been proven in court.
Baseless? Given that at least 5 judges weighed the claim and found it to have merit, I'd say it being baseless is
at least debatable.
It definitely hasn't been "proven in court" - but does the 14th read that it needs to be? "Engaged in insurrection" or "given comfort or aid" to doesn't necessarily translate to 'must be convicted of.'
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
I agree that SCOTUS will likely overturn it due to the courts conservative make up - though with much teeth gnashing since they've been pimping the 10th hard.
