03-05-2024, 11:05 AM
(03-05-2024, 08:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was definitely an interesting opinion. The pro curium opinion from the court really runs contrary to other decisions they have made in regards to the 14th Amendment. This court especially has specifically limited Congress's ability to pass legislation based on the 14th Amendment Section 5 while in this case saying that it is Section 5 that requires Congress to act in this case. Very...interesting.
It is also just a bad opinion. Their reasoning for the requirement of congressional legislation was illogical because the language in Section 3 regarding the removal of the disqualification by a two-thirds majority indicates that the disqualification already exists. If legislation was required to place the disqualification then why would the writers have allowed a simple majority to block that disqualification? It makes no sense. They also said the amendment was just about Confederates, but that's not what the amendment says. Had that been the intention it would have specified that but they stated broadly insurrectionists which indicates that they intended this to apply to future instances as well.
Also, while all of the justices agreed with the end decision, the dissent from the Democratic appointees was scathing. They called out the faulty reasoning and just straight up called out the court for being in the bag for Trump. This is going to be a stain on the Roberts Court.
Interesting article that says similar things
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-metadata-sotomayor-trump-dissent.html
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
