Your prediction of SC reaction to the CO disqualifying Trump ruling?

[SWE]

My guess is they'll call it a political question and say that Congressional action, as opposed to judicial rulings, is the proper enforcement mechanism for the insurrection clause

[SWE]

Gets overturned 6-3, along party lines. I don't eeven expect Roberts to side with the liberals here.

In addition to Roberts, I would be rather surprised if Kagan goes along with this.  Most likely, I think they find some way to reverse 9/0 without reaching the merits.  8/1 with Sotomayor as the dissenter also wouldn't shock me if it reaches the merits.

I would be pretty surprised if any of the conservative judges go along with this, but if there's a wildcard it would be Gorsuch with a concurrence about states' rights and the word "conviction" not appearing in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. 

This is a case about the interpretation of the federal constitution. There is no plausible state's rights angle

[SWE]

Gets overturned 6-3, along party lines. I don't eeven expect Roberts to side with the liberals here.

In addition to Roberts, I would be rather surprised if Kagan goes along with this.  Most likely, I think they find some way to reverse 9/0 without reaching the merits.  8/1 with Sotomayor as the dissenter also wouldn't shock me if it reaches the merits.

I would be pretty surprised if any of the conservative judges go along with this, but if there's a wildcard it would be Gorsuch with a concurrence about states' rights and the word "conviction" not appearing in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. 

This is a case about the interpretation of the federal constitution. There is no plausible state's rights angle

On the contrary, the Constitution grants the states wide latitude in determining how their electors are appointed. So there is certainly a plausible argument that the states have the authority to adjudicate the qualifications of presidential candidates when it comes to policing their own ballots.

Colorado did not rule on that basis, that is not an issue at controversy here. Colorado cannot say the 14th amendment means a different thing in their state than it does elsewhere.

[SWE]

Gets overturned 6-3, along party lines. I don't eeven expect Roberts to side with the liberals here.

In addition to Roberts, I would be rather surprised if Kagan goes along with this.  Most likely, I think they find some way to reverse 9/0 without reaching the merits.  8/1 with Sotomayor as the dissenter also wouldn't shock me if it reaches the merits.

I would be pretty surprised if any of the conservative judges go along with this, but if there's a wildcard it would be Gorsuch with a concurrence about states' rights and the word "conviction" not appearing in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  

This is a case about the interpretation of the federal constitution. There is no plausible state's rights angle

On the contrary, the Constitution grants the states wide latitude in determining how their electors are appointed. So there is certainly a plausible argument that the states have the authority to adjudicate the qualifications of presidential candidates when it comes to policing their own ballots.

Colorado did not rule on that basis, that is not an issue at controversy here. Colorado cannot say the 14th amendment means a different thing in their state than it does elsewhere.

Actually, the first question that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on was whether or not the Colorado Election Code granted Colorado state courts jurisdiction to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates. They held that it did. Conversely, the Michigan courts just held that Michigan law does not authorize election officials to keep candidates off the (primary) ballot on the basis of Constitutional disqualification. There is no inherent contradiction here as these are questions of state law.

Whether or not states can allow or not allow ineligible candidates is not up in the air, no, Colorado has a mechanism to remove ineligible candidates and Michigan does not. If the Supreme Court upheld Colorado's ruling, Trump would remain on the ballot in Michigan, because there's no reason a state can't allow an ineligible candidate on its ballot and nobody claimed they couldn't. But for Colorado's mechanism to kick in, the candidate has to actually be ineligible. That is a constitutional question that must have the same answer in each state. The Court cannot make a decision on whether or not the Colorado Supreme Court has authority to do this without deciding on the merits of the Insurrection Clause, which would be binding on all 50 states