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.
Generally when a lower court makes a questionable ruling, a higher court goes on to validate the legitimacy. What I don’t get about this whole process, is that logically a higher court should look at this case and determine if it holds true that Trump should be excluded across the US or not. Regardless of which way they decide.
The constitution doesn’t say you’re allowed to bar them if they’re an insurrectionist. It says you MUST. SCOTUS should be ruling on whether Trump is an insurrectionist and if Colorado was fair in their proceedings.