It’s sounds trivial, but the biggest hallmark of Roberts jurisprudence is “don’t make me have to openly look like an idiot.” It’s why he sided with the libs in June Medical even though he took the opposite in Hellerstedt and why he made a last minute flip in Dept. of Commerce v New York. 2/2
Why exactly doesn't Roberts look like an idiot after (hypothetically) ruling that the 22nd Amendment has basically no meaning whatsoever? Thus far he's cosigned remotely like that in terms of contradicting the letter of the law (he's merely eviscerating the spirit).
He’s already done that for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in Trump v Anderson. I don’t see why he wouldn’t apply the exact same reasoning in this case.
I'd still call that a spirit and not letter violation. I mean, people do not collectively agree that "of course" Trump is an insurrectionist, but should be president anyway. By contrast, everyone agrees that Trump is in his second term.
It's been a real long few years since June Medical. Roberts has mostly given up fig leaf pretentions now that he can't swing the vote.