I think that the most telling part was when the subject was brought up that one state’s decision could sway other states and therefore impact (disenfranchise) the voters. IMHO it will be a 9-0 decision against Colorado.
The justices seemed pretty much in unison on their skepticism of any individual state having this power in a national election. All of them seemed very measured, and non-partisan, in their questions. I found the newest justice’s observation that in the presence of ambiguity, why should the court rule against democracy, very refreshing.
Personally, I would accept that the Constitutional prohibition against an insurrectionist could apply to a presidential candidate. I don’t like the hair-splitting that the Trump team is trying to use on that.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume it DOES apply. If Trump actually had participated in insurrection, he should not be allowed to run again. The question you highlight begs the next question: if states cannot enforce the provision, are we saying it should be enforced at the federal level?
As far as I am concerned, this is all focusing on the wrong stuff.
I say that nobody should be penalized for insurrection if he hasn’t been found guilty of insurrection. Period.
Colorado is putting the cart before the horse.
Trump hasn’t even been found guilty of participating (or inciting) the riot. And nowhere has the rioting been ruled (my the justice system) as insurrection, even if Trump were convicted of being involved in the riot.