USSC 9-0 Trump remains on the ballot

Not surprising, but the reasoning is a bit narrow.

Nobody can complain that this was a right wing partisan court decision. It went 9-0 and likely did so because the court did not wade into many of the more controversial aspects of the case.

What they did agree upon is that the States do not have the power to remove a federal candidate over this sort of issue, and made it clear that this was "especially true" for the Presidential race. They declared that this would require an act of Congress (which of course would be extremely unlikely).

My big issue with this ruling is that it does not answer many of the other questions that could potentially come up if Congress were to try to do something similar. Obviously that scenario is unlikely but not impossible. But certainly if members of Congress were to refuse to certify results based on this same issue, it would be right back in the laps of the USSC. I guess they punted on many of those issues making the determination that having to deal with them would be improbable.

Update: The ruling suggests that it would take 2/3 vote in both chambers of congress to exercise Section three:

The text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusions. Its final sentence empowers Congress to “remove” any Section 3 “disability” by a two-thirds vote of each house. The text imposes no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it any time, as the respondents concede….

I guess this makes it nearly impossible to see Donald Trump or any duly elected President prevented from taking office based on the "insurrection or rebellion" portion of the constitution. It would take something so obvious that it was agreed upon in a bi-partisan fashion, and when was the last time 2/3 of both Chambers agreed on something partisan driven.

Either way, the 9-0 decision is a slap at these state officials who decided that they alone had the power to alter our Federal Presidential election. Maybe that was the most important part to take out of all of this. That the justices had agreement on at least one of the important issues involved. That was basically the concept behind a concurring opinion written by Coney Barret.

I will have to wait to see how the rest of the legal community sees this. But a win is a win is a win here.