A well known very conservative retired judge Michael Luddig, US Court of Appeals, must have a number of interviews on TV video explaining that this is a self-executing
article, as is the age and other qualifications are. The people understood what that 14th back in 1877 on was. .
He is the one who told Pence what he must do and what the constitution demand.
judge michael luddig - Google Search
But then no one can overrule the supreme court.
I tend to agree with a lot of Luttig's legal reasoning, but it is certainly true that the Supreme Court doesn't have to agree with Luttig's position.
I wouldn't go quite so far as saying that no one can overrule the Supreme Court, at least not in the absolute sense of the word. The Supreme Court can overrule prior Supreme Court decisions, and Supreme Court decisions can also be
overturned or
overridden (not quite the same thing as overruled, but similar result) by Constitutional Amendments or new federal laws.
There are basically two things that the U.S. Supreme Court does. The first is construing the meaning of federal laws passed by Congress (statutes), and the second is construing the Constitution as it applies to both federal and state laws (state supreme courts have the final "say" with regards to interpreting state law, so the U.S. Supreme Court accepts state Supreme Court decisions interpreting state law*)
With regards to interpreting the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision can be overturned by Constitutional Amendment. The 13 and 14th Amendments are examples of this:
>>>
The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution overturned the 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, and the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all people born in the United States.<<<
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time/
Congress can override rulings concerning
interpretations of federal law by passing a new law (provided the interpretation itself is not based on a Consitutional issue). The tobacco laws are an example of this:
>>>A bare majority of Supreme Court justices in 2000 ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lacked the authority to regulate tobacco. The Clinton-era case arose when the FDA in 1996 enacted regulations that aimed to curb smoking by kids and adolescents.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that the FDA erred by defining nicotine as a drug under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Nine years later, Congress responded by passing the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which for the first time empowered the federal government to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products.<<<
The Senate is slated to vote Wednesday on legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade, following news last week that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision that enshrined …
thehill.com
*In the Colorado case, one of the dissenting judges argued that the majority incorrectly construed Colorado state law:
>>>Justice Berkenkotter dissented on similar grounds,29 and
she also attacked the majority’s false and atextual claim
that section 1-4-1203(2)(a) allows only “qualified” candi-
dates to appear on a party’s presidential primary ballot.<<<
This is a dead issue on appeal because the U.S. Supreme Court is required to follow the majority opinion interpreting the qualified candidate requirement of Colorado law.
Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court could nevertheless hold that the interpretation applied by the Colorado Supreme Court leads to an unconstitutional result.
I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court will find a way to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision, but it's far from clear what the basis might be. Many of the arguments in the media for overturning it are policy-based. There's no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court is (for better or worse) influenced by policy considerations, but it still needs to reach the policy result it wants based on the law (or a fig leaf it can label "law" in an effort to avoid embarrassing itself).
