Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


Barrett Joins Liberal Justices in Criticizing Trump Ballot Ban Ruling as Overreaching

via CBS News
This article was originally published at Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak, UltimateNewswire and others. To learn more about syndication opportunities, visit About Us.

Former President Trump achieved a unanimous victory at the Supreme Court in a case related to his ballot ban invoking the 14th Amendment.

The court ruled in favor of Trump, preserving his status on the ballot in Colorado.

However, a 5-4 division among the justices emerged, with Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals criticizing their conservative colleagues for going beyond the necessary scope of the case.

“This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced,” Barrett wrote.

“The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond,” Barrett added. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” she said.

The decision highlighted the exclusive authority of Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment and sparked debate among the justices.

“These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices,” the court’s opinion read.

“But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case,” it added. “In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.”

“Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision,” wrote Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” the liberal justices wrote.

Most Popular:

FBI Informant Who Criticized Biden Gets Bad News

Drag Queen Principal Learns His Fate Amid Controversy

You May Also Like