The Supreme Court’s decision this week not to let Colorado unilaterally kick Donald Trump off the ballot doesn’t come as much of a surprise. As the high court correctly points out, piecemeal, state-by-state determinations of whether the former president is disqualified under the 14th Amendment for engaging in insurrection would result in “chaos.” So far, so good.
But the devil is in the details, especially when it comes to the reasoning in Supreme Court decisions.
While the court unanimously agreed that a Colorado court didn’t have the authority to disqualify a presidential candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, four justices — including Justice Amy Coney Barrett — thought that the majority went too far. Three justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, even accused the majority of “decid[ing] novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and [Trump] from future controversy.”
In the genteel, rarified domain of Supreme Court opinions, this is genuinely shocking language indicating a real discomfort with the court’s reasoning.
The minority........