Four of the nine justices - its three liberal members and its newest member - disagreed with the rest of the court about decision, saying the outcome powered by five conservative justices went further than necessary.

It ruled that barring state enforcement avoids a “patchwork” of candidates being declared ineligible in some states but not others. On that point all the justices agreed.

But liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, as well as conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in separate opinions faulted the other five justices for going further to specify that Section 3 can be enforced only through federal legislation. Given the profound partisan divisions in Congress, any such legislation is highly unlikely.

(George Mason University constitutional law professor) Ilya Somin said he was disappointed the justices did not delve into tricky questions that the Colorado Supreme Court tackled, including its conclusion that the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack was an insurrection and that Trump took part.

  • Greyghoster
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Insurrection affects people at all levels of civic life including those who want to be dog catchers. Does this ruling make Congress the arbiter of all these assessments or merely the president?