Nailed it!

The State of Colorado (indeed, every single state and the District of Columbia) runs their own elections and has their own election laws pertaining thereto; they are called ballot access laws. Trump wouldn't be the first person denied ballot access under the election laws of Colorado... not by a long shot.

Good point. I keep hearing the argument that the President is not an "officer" and the "self-executing argument," but why should it matter whether or not the President is an "officer" when the requisite section reads thusly [emphasis added]:

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.

14th Amendment, Section 3, US Constitution

The words "Office of the President of the United States," "Office of President," and "his Office" are mentioned numerous times all throughout the Constitution of the United States. Example:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Article II, Section 1, US Constitution [bold emphasis added]

*
But, but, but... he's not an "Officer"?

It's an asinine and laughable argument on its face to make the claim the President isn't an "Officer," in my opinion. The only way this section of the Constitution doesn't apply to Defendant Donald is to prove he is "no person" and/or didn't "hold any office" in the United States and didn't take the oath containing the words "Office of the President of the United States."

Good luck with that. :)

I wonder if Biden and Schumer were betting on the Orange Cult to sabotage when they were negotiating that border deal with Lankford. They know McConnell better than we do and he has whipped against his own bill in the past.

They underestimate Biden at their own peril. He's been doing this BS for decades and knows every trick in their ever-shrinking playbook.

So did he or did he not call their bluff? I think he saw a situation where he couldn't lose because he was willing to sign the legislation, and if they pulled their usual BS and abandoned/voted down their own bill, he was willing to allow them to make themselves look weak, spineless, and moronic... so it was a win-win from Biden's perspective no matter which path they took.

Next up, it's on to watching the Castrated Caucus shut down the government because Trump wants to implode the economy and blame Biden for it. Lather, rinse, repeat. The GOP cannot govern because "whatever Trump wants" isn't a platform.

Where have you been? [Rhetorical question meaning we missed you. :) ]

My guess is that they will not overrule.

Exactly. There's no way in hell they're going to grant Defendant Donald his request to retroactively be named DOTUS: Dictator of the United States... and also Joe Biden. But can four of them actually get out of their own way and allow themselves to not take the dang ruling and reword and regurgitate it? If some of them can't stop themselves from having the so-called "final word" on Trump's attempt at being made a Dictator, can five of them at least not put an abnormally long stay on the thing while they're unable to stop themselves?

The real question is whether or not they are corrupt enough to agree to hear it and then waste lots of time Aileen Cannon-style.

Exactly. If they can't stop themselves from weighing in, can't they at least not stop the case from moving forward. It will take five of them to agree to stay the case.

I'm hoping the Supremes treat it exactly like Trump's attempt to have millions of ballots invalidated in multiple swing states. Remember that time in 2020 when Trump had made a phone call to Ted Cruz to personally ask him to argue a case for him at the SCOTUS? Then Traitorous Trump got Perp Paxton, Attorney of General of Texas, to file a lawsuit attempting to overturn the 2020 election by invalidating millions of votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin? Treat it like that. :)

The real question is whether or not they are corrupt enough to agree to hear it and then waste lots of time Aileen Cannon-style.

I won't "guess," but I will provide a ginormous hint:

Does anyone believe that five of those nine justices of the Supreme Court are going to grant President Biden (or any future president) unlimited immunity that would (obviously) include ordering the execution of any number of Supreme Court justices? If yes, which five?