You can read the details of the SCOTUS decision here and here. From the latter:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office who had previously served in the federal or state government before the war but then supported the Confederacy, against candidates for federal offices.

All nine justices agreed that Colorado cannot remove Trump from the ballot. But four justices – Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a separate opinion and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in a joint opinion – argued that their colleagues should have stopped there and not decided anything more.

The court’s decision comes just one day before Super Tuesday, when 16 states and one territory will hold their primary elections. Trump currently holds an overwhelming lead in the race for the Republican nomination.

That’s the gist of it. All nine justices ruled that Colorado was wrong to do this, and the only disagreement among the justices was on how far the Court needed to go in the ruling to decide under exactly what circumstances such a thing might be done. The majority stated only Congress could remove a candidate from a ballot pursuant to that part of the 14th amendment, which provides for doing so by a 2/3 vote.

This means a number of things. The first is that SCOTUS is not yet so far gone as many other courts in the United States are; the latter group includes the highest courts in the states of Colorado, Illinois, and Maine. All three states tried to do what is now forbidden by the Supreme Court. This demonstrates in bold fashion that many judges on the left are more than willing to overstep (they might say “fortify”) the law in an egregious fashion to obtain political ends. What’s more, I have little doubt there are quite a few other judges in other states who would be willing to do the same.

But why did judges in Colorado and the others do what they did, knowing SCOTUS would probably rule against them (although perhaps not unanimously)? Why hand Trump this victory? I have a theory, which goes like this: the judges and activists in Colorado, Illinois, and Maine didn’t bargain for a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. They thought the three liberal justices would rule in their favor. That wouldn’t constitute a majority, of course. But the split decision could be used in the campaign to argue that SCOTUS is awful as presently constituted and that a Democrat president and Democrat Senate in 2024 are needed to fix it by appointing and approving more leftist justices as some of the old ones retire.

And why did the three Democrat-appointed SCOTUS justices rule against Colorado, anyway? Legal principles might well be involved, although that’s not always in evidence with judges, to say the least. But I definitely think they realized that such an act by states, if allowed to stand, represents a future danger to candidates of both parties.

And what of the legal “experts” around the country who said it would be perfectly okay to do what Colorado and the others tried to do? Will they be discredited in the future? No.

The main value of the various lawfare cases against Trump is to show very clearly how dangerous the left has become, how willing to “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil” – the Devil in this case being Trump. The three liberal justices are saying – in this case anyway – that they believe that cutting down the law in such a way would mean that neither side could “stand upright in the winds that would blow” as a result.

NOTE: Here are some of Trump’s remarks: