The Federalist Society wants an originalist interpretation of the constitution and they are the only qualified originalists. That's not unclear. The issue of clarity comes down to how much they're willing to deprecate their future integrity for present utility. "Federalist Society legal scholars" is operationally the same as "high ranking Muslim clerics" in this instance; the Papal Bull has already been issued, the question is how big a schism the church will experience. A casual observer might note that it's not a good time for schism.

Aside from Dobbs, the Supreme Court has been pretty ideologically consistent and it's the ideological inconsistency of Dobbs that has most scholars upset with the Supreme Court. The credibility issues the court faces right now stem entirely from a shift to ideology and even then, that ideology isn't "whatever Trump wants, Trump gets." The poster boy for the unitary executive is Bill Barr and even Bill Barr pulled the ripcord on Trump. Here's Captain Torture reviewing a book by Mr. 14th Amendment in the Federalist Society's Review:

He reads Articles I and II as disposing of the prerogatives held by the British King, as the Founders knew them through a mixture of British precedent, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and recent colonial history. McConnell carefully reviews the royal prerogatives and traces where they end up in the constitutional scheme: many go to Congress (regulating trade, raising the military, coining money), some remain with the Executive (enforcing the law, Commander-in-Chief, issuing pardons), and others are shared (making treaties, making judicial and cabinet appointments). McConnell is surely right that the Founders approached the task of drafting the constitutional text in this way, and viewing Articles I and II through this lens can lead to surprising insights, such as clarifying the power over immigration.

Now - that's some in-the-weeds shit. But one thing it never says is "the President is king."

Let's talk about some fuzzy thinking of yours:

Five justices have already behaved like they expect zero accountability for the GOP at the ballot box with the repeal of Roe.

So why THE FUCK would they back Trump

There's this tedious, tiresome, tawdry thing that people do: they assume that anyone who doesn't share their values has "fuck you" as their values. It makes them feel better and saves their empathy for people they like. A couple weeks ago Liz Cheney was making the talk show rounds and both Stephen Colbert and Rachel Maddow went out of their way to say some sort of "I hate this person's guts but" just to get liberals to listen. this shit's hard to do but it clarifies the world.

And spencerflem is right; Joe Biden and establishment Dems are perpetually stuck in the 1980's or '90's, bound by relatively higher norms and decency

"Higher norms and decency" are the fundamental bedrock of governmental stability. You need to read this fucking book right now. Sarah Chayes - who is in a position to know - makes the point that regardless of the political system, it's corruption that destroys it in the end and the Trump administration is corrupt as fuck. Any government crisis in the United States of the past 200 years? The root issue is corruption. The fact that the Democrats slavishly (and often irritatingly) fight against corruption serves the purpose of protecting the longevity of the Democratic Party. Lowest ebb of the Democrats? the Tip O'Neill era, where Democrats tended to be the corrupt ones. Fuckin' Menendez is a cancer and anybody with any hang time knows it; it sucks that they shot Al Franken in the head but when those are your standards you gotta abide by 'em.

Like LOL, Schumer two days ago was like "Yes, Trump's 'poisoning the blood' rhetoric is troublesome, but we have plenty of problems on this side of the aisle, too", and it's just like... Haven't you run out of feet to shoot yourself in??

The Democrats are the whole of the government now, considering that the Republican congress has the agenda items "obstruction" and "vacation" and nothing else. Making the whole of the government spin around a 2024 candidate does not serve their purposes while busily funding the Ukraine War and trying to keep the Middle East from expanding into a regional conflagration.

Look: If I'm Putin? I'm letting Iran know that everybody benefits if Biden loses, and Biden loses if the US is forced to back Israel in an unpopular war. Get Triple-H moving and we'll arrange a new stalemate. That's the whole game here and if you're actually trying to govern the United States? You have no choice but to play it. Giving Trump air only fans the flames.

Can you imagine if SCOTUS reinstates Trump on the Colorado ballot under a ruling declaring that he did not commit insurrection, and then Jack Smith's case finds him guilty of insurrection shortly before the election? SCOTUS will probably go with the "he's not an officer of the U.S. as defined in the constitution" bullshit, as a cop-out, but, fuck, even then, we're really, really in for it this next election.

The Colorado supreme court already ruled that he committed insurrection. That's not the question on the table. The Supreme Court can only argue whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to the President of the United States.

BTW, entirely predictable dumbfuck Dan Patrick has already threatened retaliation.

I have seen dumb shit from all sides of the political spectrum. Fortunately social media is busily disappearing up its own asshole and the outrage and indignation of early 2023 has already been forgotten.

The world belongs to the normies. The normies don't care for drama. And the more shit like this happens, the less the normies are interested. the whole battle is whether or not Trump is a legitimate political candidate and there is exactly fuckall nothing between now and November that will increase his legitimacy. He's got nowhere to go but down.

Will he still be the Republican candidate? Of course. Will he win?

I really don't think so.