> "Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the
Presidency would raise heightened concerns... state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer"
That's a political consideration, not a legal one.
> "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. 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."
That's a political consideration, not a legal one.
Yes that is an excellent endorsement of Colorado’s Supreme Court decision to remove Trump from the ballot. Essentially all the incredible things about CO’s decision (as the author says, even if you disagree with their conclusion) are notably absent from SCOTUS’s.
For example, SCOTUS took literally every escape hatch possible NOT to decide the case on its merits, which they transparently say is because it would be politically undesirable.
That’s an excellent read though, thank you for sharing.
> "Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns... state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer"
That's a political consideration, not a legal one.
> "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. 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."
That's a political consideration, not a legal one.