I seem to be getting all my news on this from Mike the Mad Biologist.
A comment reports that the Supreme Court has denied certiorari (they won’t be hearing the case), which means that the Colorado decision stands; but a comment on my previous post suggests that the Colorado ruling includes a stay that’s permanent if the case is appealed.
It’s about half an hour until my Monday-Friday TV news routine begins. We’ll see whether DW News, BBC World News America, my local news, NBC Nightly News or PBS Newshour confirms the certiorari denial and whether that means that the Colorado decision is permanently stayed or is in effect since the appeal failed.
In any event, the ruling affects the primary election, not the general election; and I read somewhere else (I can’t remember where) that Colorado Republicans are already talking about having a caucus instead of an election so there won’t be a ballot for Trump to be kept off of.
I’m making a trip to the grocery store tomorrow. I’ll definitely be buying some popcorn.
05:30 UTC−6: oops, it turns out that I totally misunderstood. The question that SCOTUS declined to weigh in on was whether POTUS has immunity from prosecution on the insurrection charge, so an appeals court will decide that first. This was reported as a minor victory for Trump because that other case could go on for quite a while.
We don’t know anything more about Colorado after all. (I’m in the mood for some popcorn anyway.)
Alan G. Humphrey says
This from page 9 of the CO SC decision to which I referred in my comment to your previous post:
I was going to add, until I saw your edit, that the recent SCOTUS act was a flipping-off to Jack Smith, not CO, but with more detail and diplomacy.