Claiming that we shouldn’t uphold the law, especially when we can see what a huge risk is posed by not holding it, because some other group may try to abuse the law, doesn’t strike me as a very strong argument.

Also, they were explicit during the crafting of this that it was not meant for just the civil war. In fact, the first draft of the amendment explicitly limited it to the civil war, but they generalized the language so that it would apply to future insurrection as well.

The only real question I think the scotus has a legitimate out on this is if they claim it doesn’t count as an insurrection or that he didn’t take part. They might be able to argue that he technically didn’t take an oath that counts he ever took an oath that counts for section 3, but that would clearly just contradict their claim of being originalists in favor of being textualists. Which wouldn’t surprise me because the conservatives on the court appear to have no objective moral compass.