This decision was about whether the whole "not being allowed on the ballot if you incite an insurrection" thing was intended to apply to the president, or just everyone else.

Obviously, by any rational reading of the English language. But law is about arguing over what things that seem obvious actually mean, and this was slapping down a lower court that was arguing that it did NOT mean what it obviously means.

“The decision reverses a ruling by a lower court judge who found Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting his supporters to violence, but concluded that, as president, Trump was not an "officer of the United States" who could be disqualified under the amendment. The Biden campaign declined to comment.”

From the Constitution, Article II Section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years… :

… No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office…

… Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States…

But sure. The person running the Executive Office of the President is not, in fact “an officer”…

150+ year old documents written by law makers is how this country works. We can focus on both.

https://learnconlaw.com/78-the-disqualification-clause goes into this in detail - the short answer is that the federal supreme court will probably rule that the amendment doesn't specifically call out the president as a person who can be disqualified and overturn the decision.

There is an argument to be made that the president is a "federal officer" so the ruling does stand, and that the intent was to bar confederates from public office so it would be weird to read the law as disqualifying a person from low level state office but not from the presidency, but it seems unlikely that the court would choose to do that given how partisan it is

It's a toss up from what i can tell. Generally speaking it's up to the states to determine how elections are done. And the supreme court doesn't like to tell states how to do it. That's why gendering is up to state laws and decisions.

But Trump's court... Who knows? I'm willing to bet Thomas will be flying in an awful lot of private jets to nice resorts over the next few years.

As a foreigner who's spent a lot of time in America, this may actually be good for Trump. I am not 100% sure how elections work in the US, but at most this will keep his name off a ballot Trump would never win and at best it will ensure his name has to be on every ballot. Assuming the SCOTUS overturns it, it sets a precedent that the POTUS is not an officer and therefore isn't included in any legal language that concerns officers. Which opens up expansion of the powers of the executive. Still assuming that the SCOTUS overturns it it could play right into the Project 2025 playbook.

As I'm reading this further, I have to say, this ruling is full of so much spiciness that I'm surprised the media hasn't reported on it more. A few of my favorites so far (emphasis mine):

• If the Presidency is not an “office . . . under the United States,” then anyone impeached—including a President—could nonetheless go on to serve as President. This reading is nonsensical

• When interpreting the Constitution, we prefer a phrase’s normal and ordinary usage over “secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

• While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed [from the final draft of the 14th Amendment], his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power. Representative McKee explained that, under the proposed amendment, “the loyal alone shall rule the country” and that traitors would be “cut[] off . . . from all political power in the nation.”

• Representative McKee desired to exclude all oath-breaking insurrectionists from all federal offices, including the Presidency

They even went so far as to reference the fucking dictionary for those saying Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution.

• The language of the presidential oath—a commitment to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—is consistent with the plain meaning of the word “support.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Modern dictionaries define “support” to include “defend” and vice versa. See, e.g., Support, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support

It feels very much like a political show of sorts. Trump wasnt gonna get the CO vote regardless. Similar to how in kind, Texas is threatening to remove Biden from the ballot. Texas is gonna be a red vote no matter who is running until at least the boomers and gen xers die off.