Description still says this will stay open until SCOTUS issues a ruling in Colorado, which they have. What are the new criteria for resolution here? Seems to me this should pretty clearly resolve NO.

I was in the middle of writing this comment when you resolved it, but I'm still going to post it, and in some ways I'm even more conflicted because after you saw my trade (buy then sell after I read the comments) you decided to pick up the profit and resolve:

I'm confused about how the description says the question will remain open until the Colorado ruling, but your comment says it would stay open after the ruling for some possible future ruling if the SCOTUS didn't address the insurrection, which seems to be what happened.

Aren't these two things contradictory? If the SCOTUS doesn't address it, they aren't affirming it.

---

Given that you resolved it NO, what is your rationale for doing so?

@mint Oh shit I was just reading the description because who has time to read every comment but I can count on folks like you to save me so I can unresolve!

@mint I recall this now and you are absolutely correct.

@BTE no problem, I just wanted to understand where this question stands, and it seems like immediate resolution didn't make much sense based on your comment.

Would it be fair to say this question is now about whether the Supreme Court will affirm Trump participated in an insurrection [before the close date], or is it an unspecified future / perpetual time?

Since the Supreme Court is an appellate court they are unlikely to dispute the facts as they are presented so it’s less likely they will overturn the decision Trump participated in an insurrection than they are to interpret the constitutional implications differently than the Colorado court. Also, Trump is not even arguing he didn’t commit insurrection in his brief because that is a useless argument since he can’t enter new facts or evidence. He can only dispute the technicality of whether or not he faces political consequences for those actions under the constitution.

@BTE

I am assuming that if they do not rule on or discuss (except to say they will not decide on) whether Trump participated in an insurrection this resolves no.

So one plausible scenario is that they issue a very limited ruling saying that the section 3 is not self executable. In that case they don't have to rule on anything else. In this case you would resolve NO?

Also will you look at all the opinions and really stretch to find any affirmation? Or just look in the majority opinion and need to see it clearly stated?

@GCS None of the justices yesterday questioned the facts or insinuated they did not think he participated in an insurrection. Not one. So they might leave the facts unchanged, or they could say that is a matter for another time and we will inevitably have another case, in which case I would leave it open. They may say it was an insurrection to signal how they would rule in the future. Trump's lawyer yesterday messed up and came just short of conceding the insurrection argument by stating the conduct on January 6 was "shameful, criminal and violent".

In your hypothetical I would leave it open. Yes I will use the full opinion including dissents.