The US Supreme Court's most momentous ruling in 23 years

On Thursday the US Supreme Court judges will begin hearing arguments about whether Donald Trump should be allowed to carry on campaigning for the presidency or whether he should be barred. It will be a stupendously huge decision either way, but especially if the judges decide he should be ineligible to run for office because of his perceived personal involvement in a series of events which led to the assault by his followers on the Capitol on January 6 2021. It can be safely predicted that if the Supreme Court bans Trump from standing for the White House in November, there will by violent demonstrations by his loyal fans. It could even lead to a mini civil war. But should the judges take this into account when they make their decision? To put it another way, should they give Trump the green light to stand for the presidency on the basis that were they to decide the opposite it would be tantamount to an invitation to provoke widespread violence and civil disobedience. As judges they should be concerned about the law and the constitution and shouldn't be frightened to make a controversial ruling because of the potential consequences. There is a third alternative which I predict will be the one they choose. They could rule that until Trump is convicted or acquitted of the crime of incitement to violence in violation of the 14th Amendment it would be both wrong and inappropriate to remove Trump's name from the ballot because it would be making an assumption about his guilt. If convicted in a trial, that would be a different matter. Then a ruling would be considerably easier. So my prediction is that the judges will not ban Trump but nor will they agree with the fomer president's lawyers that whatever he may or may not have done in the lead up to the January 6 attack, he should be immune from prosecution because he was the president. I don't see any judge agreeing to that premise.