You belittled me for, incorrectly, claiming I “buy” the argument. I simply pointed out that it’s a reasonable conclusion because the courts have already ruled that we don’t elect officers, which would implicitly include the POTUS.

I didn’t say it was a done deal, they might conclude that this part of the ruling does not actually mean the POTUS isn’t an officer. I would love that.

But you’re just putting more words in my mouth right now by implying I said this is how it would all play out. I’m not s legal scholar, I understand my own inadequacies here. Again, I just said it was a reasonable conclusion. I do suspect the courts will find a way to say he needs to be allowed onto the ballot, and they’ll put forth a reasonable argument as to why.