Technically Minnesota doesn't have to allow anyone on its ballots, if they have legal justification to prevent them. And there is precedent for this. Alabama kept Harry Truman off their ballot in 1948, even though he was the incumbent president.

If Trump is convicted in Georgia he would run afoul of Minnesota fair campaign section of the state constitution (211B), or hell, I think he has already been fined for infractions that qualify as legal justification to remove him from the ballot in MN based on both campaign finance laws and the fair campaigns section of the MN state constitution.

As the GOP has been doing for the last decade, they have been eroding the federal ability to monitor and manage states' elections (reducing the voting rights act, etc) current precedent is that the state has the right to handle matters with regard to elections with near impunity.

While the court has its issues, it doesn't seem to care to side particularly with Trump. They've had a few opportunities and have so far mostly sided against or at least failed to side with Trump in matters that either made it that far or tried to make it that far.

Or, even better, that this part of the constitution doesn’t count for this specific person, in this specific case, at this specific time.

But that it counts for anyone else, at any other time.

Coming up with some asinine excuse to let him off, would in fact be providing aid and comfort to an insurrectionist. That person should also be removed from office (if office counts as any public service beyond presidency and congress)

And with each corrupt ruling, the legitimacy of the federal legal system weakens. Recently polls show faith in SCOTUS (by the public) at 15%

The Weird Sisters have flown in from Scotland to watch.

Hmm, does the supreme Court have jurisdiction over how states conduct elections?

You see though this 17th century witch burner once wrote a speech that said our laws don't matter.

They won't even have to do that. They'll just invoke due process and rights of the accused and argue that there is a significant difference between doing a thing and being accused of a thing and thus it has to wait on the courts to decide whether or not he did what he was accused of (and thus whether or not he is barred from holding office).

Then you all will yell about how they're ignoring that part of the constitution just because he's Trump. While either arguing that anyone accused of that sort of thing should be barred from running (you really don't actually want this) or engage in special pleading regarding Trump.