Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Disqualifying Trump because he deserves to be should be of little concern. From your 2nd link

"Outside of the courtroom, the biggest challenge may be getting a wide swath of Americans to accept the idea that someone they support may not be eligible to run for president. In a democracy, there is something viscerally distasteful about not being able to vote for the person we support, Ned Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University, noted earlier this year.

It’s a question the supreme court justices in Minnesota seemed to be wrestling with as well, acknowledging the case was coming up on a line between politics and the law.

“Let’s say we agree with you that section 3 is self-executing, and that we do have the authority under the relevant statute to keep Mr Trump’s name off the ballot. Should we – is the question that concerns me the most,” Natalie Hudson, the chief justice of Minnesota’s supreme court said on Thursday during oral argument.

But the challengers in the cases, which are supported by left-leaning groups, argue that disqualifying Trump based on the 14th amendment is no different than disqualifying someone because they are under the age of 35, a naturalized citizen, or because they have served two terms as president.

“In many ways, section 3 sets forth a qualification for president that is far more important than the other constitutional criteria,” Fein said. “Most Americans are not too worried about whatever dangers might have once been posed by somebody who was not a natural born US citizen.

“But someone who broke an oath to the constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution poses a real danger if they’re ever allowed back into power.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/04/can-trump-be-removed-ballot-insurrection-clause-colorado

There is a difference, of course. The right are insisting Jan. 6 was not a rebellion against the constitution. They say the use of force to try to stop the election result being certified in a manner consistent with the constitution, while threatening to hang the vp, was not violent enough to be seen as rebellion. The definition of what is rebellion against the constitution under the 14th is arguable. The other reasons given above are not.