UPDATE: There is a part of the ruling that I missed until this afternoon. Not only did the SCOTUS state what I wrote above, this is the part that I missed: "...the majority’s holding that only Congress can enforce the Insurrection Clause, and only with the approval of SCOTUS."
...and with only approval of SCOTUS?!? WTF??
That's not in the language of the 14th!
I completely agree. The determination is not consistent with the language, purpose, or interpretation of the Constitution that has prevailed over 100 years. As you note, "it arrogates power to SCOTUS at the expense of Congress". This is part and parcel of the judicial takeover of the government - it is called, a "Dikastocracy"? It's one label for "rule by judges". Sometimes referred to (incorrectly, but more understandably) as "juristocracy" (mashing Latin and Greek roots together), or kritocracy/kritarchy/critocracy. Whatever label, we're living in it. And it is a recipe for Dikastophy!
Contrary to what the media reported saying the decision was 9-0, there were actually four dissenters - all of the women.
You are correct. Indeed, Mark Joseph Stern discovered they were actually written that way.
The Supreme Court’s “Unanimous” Trump Ballot Ruling Is Actually a 5–4 Disaster (Slate)
The media Bill Barr'd us.
Actually, it was both the Supreme Court
and the media.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share The Supreme Court Is Not Up to the Challenge (Quinta Jurecic, Atlantic) - gift Article)
The decision in
Trump v. Anderson is another sign that the nation’s highest court will not help the country out of its political crisis.
"The justices chose to avail themselves of an escape hatch, reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to disqualify candidates for
state office but not for
federal office. This neatly allows them to dispose of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling by focusing on a seemingly dull, technical issue concerning the mechanics of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The problem with this reasoning is that it is wrong. Despite the justices’ paeans to history, this line of argument is deeply disconnected from what the historical record shows about the Reconstruction-era understanding and implementation of Section 3. The Court claims that the amendment wasn’t meant to allow states power over federal elections, but, for example, the election-law expert Edward B. Foley 'https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/supreme-court-colorado-oral-argument-trump-disqualify/677408/' how Ohio’s state legislature chose in 1868 against electing a Senate candidate who was arguably disqualified for the seat under the Fourteenth Amendment. In this sense, there’s a palpable desperation to the Court’s ruling: The justices were looking for some way,
any way, to get themselves out of this bind, even if their reasoning is profoundly unconvincing.
...
But the liberals’ concurrence shatters Barrett’s insistence that, “for present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity.” The tone of their opinion is strikingly angry, citing both
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and
Bush v. Gore—two Supreme Court rulings that damaged the Court’s legitimacy by giving the justices the appearance of engaging in unprincipled politicking. And they warn that “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”
...
The Court wants to be seen as above politics, but it isn’t. Politics has arrived at its door. The
Anderson decision achieves, in its own way, a remarkable feat: It manages to expand the Court's own power while also expressing a deep uncertainty about what, in a moment of crisis, that power is actually for.
"The justices chose to avail themselves of an escape hatch, reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to disqualify candidates for state office but not for federal office. This neatly allows them to dispose of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling by focusing on a seemingly dull, technical issue concerning the mechanics of the Fourteenth Amendment.[size:11pt][/size]
