Since the opinion goes beyond just overturning Colorado's attempt to keep Trump off the ballot, and instead explains that only the US Congress can do that, it follows that the majority believed weaponized prosecutors would try to gain a "conviction" against Trump for insurrection somewhere and then states would use that precedent to argue they have grounds now to keep Trump off the ballots.
So the majority knew that lawfare is a thing and they tried to head it off.
And the concurring minority cried foul because they too were acknowledging in their protestations that they didn't want to neuter the prosecutors.
Our SCOTUS is saying they see the lawfare and the conservatives are trying to stop it while the liberals are trying to encourage it.
This story and others like it point out what a terrible job Trump’s lawyer did. After the verdict we’re seeing things that should’ve been presented as evidence during the trial.
A bad lawyer is not grounds for appeal.
After the Democratic National Convention has chosen its nominee, if Biden were to drop out, the DNC leadership gets to unilaterally decide on the successor. I promise you that’s what will happen.
https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2024#Replacing_a_nominee_between_the_national_convention_and_the_election