Trump banned from Colorado ballot

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 08:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Having read it I don't see where my initial assessment is that far off, if at all.

A milquetoast opinion would have been just relying on the idea that the chaos caused by the removal of a candidate by the states is too much of an issue for it to be allowed. Had they stopped there, the PC opinion wouldn't have had any concurring dissents. However, the majority chose to instead opine on who had the authority and how it could be applied in order to disqualify a federal candidate. They caused additional questions by stating legislation needs to occur because that allows an override by a simple majority rather than the 2/3rds required by the Amendment. It also calls into question the ability for disqualification by the joint session during verification as well as the current situation where rules in the congressional chambers allow each house to handle these issues for their own members themselves.

For example, if legislation is required to disqualify a federal official, then would the removal of George Santos hold up? Based on the rationale's provided, there is a question about that some are raising.

In essence, the majority decided to go further abroad in their opinion than they needed to and used some really off-the-wall lawyering to do so that could have ramifications in the long run.