actually...a lot of people need to do something. which is the purpose behind talking about it first. getting support and consensus for possibly making a case can lead to cases actually being made. it's not like on TV where the district attourney of america walks up to the judge of america and convicts him. educating people why there are arguments and convincing them they are powerful don't happen overnight.

A lawsuit isn't required, if the state election officials do the right thing.

An insurrectionist is an ineligible candidate for US president, just like a non-citizen or someone who's not 35 yet. The states merely need to follow that existing law, just as they would do if a teenager named Pierre from Paris filed to run for US president. They wouldn't have to be sued to say no; and Pierre wouldn't have to be convicted of anything — they'd just say no, he's not eligible, he doesn't get listed on the ballot.

Trump is not eligible, just as Pierre is not eligible. Trump's ineligibility rests on his own actions rather than his age or nationality. But all of those are (dis)qualifications spelled out in the Constitution; they're not civil or criminal penalties from a court. It's the job of election officials to enforce them, and a lawsuit only makes sense if they fail to do their job correctly in the first place.

So much this. It feels like 2015-2016 all over again and I'm so sick of it already.

Not to the American voter it's not

For real. You could have the best argument in the world, and Thomas etc al will just say, "No"

I mean, they're perfectly willing to ignore parts of the constitution *cough*well-regulated*cough*

Let them fight it; it is their right to do so, in the courts. That is where legal disputes are adjudicated. It would be appropriate for courts, if so requested, to determine as a finding of fact, whether the Jan 6 invasion of the US Capitol for the purposes of preventing legal federal business is an "insurrection" (NM already decided that it was), and whether the actions of a given person rise to the level of "participation," or "giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States."

The answers to the above are ones that it would be good for the judicial system to rule on, no matter what answer(s) come out of such hearings. The sooner we get to that point, the better.

That's true but in this case, the republicans in power would like nothing more than to have him gone. The best way that could play out for them is this but blame the Democrats for it after it's done.