The Supreme Court of the United States has apparently ruled unanimously that the former President of the United States, Donald Trump, is eligible to run for president this year, but behind the scenes there is discord.
The “concurring opinion” issued by the three liberal justices does not hide their anger at the final ruling. The three have harshly criticized the conservative judges for needlessly weakening Article 14, Section 3 of the amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits people involved in the rebellion from holding public office.
“Sensitive cases strongly called for judicial restraint, and the Supreme Court did not proceed in that direction,” Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote in their concurrence. Unlike the title, the content is seen as an opposing view.
Former US President Trump (4th)
Photographer: Alon Skuy/Getty Images
Five days before the publication of the opinion, written by an unknown author, the Supreme Court decided on another important case involving Mr Trump. The Supreme Court announced last week that it would extend a moratorium on the criminal trial to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, when it considers presidential immunity. There is a risk that the case will not end before the November elections, but no magistrates have publicly disagreed with the decision.
In the case of Colorado, liberals made no effort to fake harmony. In the opening statement of the consent document, liberals echoed the words of Chief Justice Roberts himself when the Supreme Court denied the constitutional right to abortion in June 2022: “Conservative justices have gone too far.” Quote. The criticism is aimed directly at Chief Justice Roberts, who is believed to have written the Supreme Court opinion that upheld Trump’s eligibility to run.
US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade upholds the right to abortion (3)
Liberal views may have initially been in partial opposition. According to Mark Joseph Stern of the web magazine Slate, the link metadata disclosed by the Supreme Court initially appeared to be a partial dissent, indicating that Justice Sotomayor authored it on her own.
The five conservative justices, including Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice Roberts, emphasized the seriousness of the section, saying that the other justices “agree with many of the reasons based on the opinion.”
US Supreme Court upholds Trump’s candidacy for president – overturns Colorado decision (2)
The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 14, Section 3 of the Constitutional Amendment can only be enforced by legislation from Congress. If Mr. Trump wins the November election, Congress may no longer be able to refuse to certify the number of electoral votes won based on Section 3.
“Honestly, I feel a lot of anger toward both sides,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor of election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to give a unanimous opinion on an important case that is legally important and politically influential,” he said.
Justice Barrett said on the 4th that the Supreme Court had decided a point that was not necessary, and while she agreed with the liberal justices, she implicitly criticized their tone by not naming them in their concurring opinion.
“My view is that now is not the time to overtly emphasize our disagreements,” Judge Barrett wrote. “In terms of immediate significance, our disagreements are much less significant than our agreements. The people should receive that message.”
At the National Governors Association conference held in Washington late last month, Justices Sotomayor and Barrett spoke side by side. Both men denied there was a partisan divide, saying the Supreme Court carefully debates disagreements.
“All of us judges wear black robes. No red, no blue,” said Judge Barrett.
Original title: Unanimous Trump Ruling Belies Supreme Court’s Polarization (1) (excerpt)
#opposition #Supreme #Courts #unanimous #vote #Trump #run #Bloomberg
