Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett says 9-0 ruling keeping ex-president ... trends now
Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued an unusual concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision that keeps Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot – issuing a plea to 'turn the national temperature down' during a fierce election season.
Like a trio of liberal justices on the court, Barrett, a Trump appointee, decided the majority had gone too far in its 20-page ruling that 'states may not unilaterally disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot' and voted to reverse a Colorado court's decision striking Trump.
She joined in the overall decision, but warned against 'stridency' in divisions on the court – during an election season where the high court is making weighty decisions on presidential immunity while lower courts make scheduling decisions that will determine whether Trump faces jury verdicts before the November elections.
That separated her from the three liberals in tone, even if not on legal reasoning, while the liberals pondered how to apply the law to an 'oathbreaking insurrectionist.'
'The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,' Barrett wrote in her one-page opinion.
It is 'not the time to amplify disagreement,' wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her concurring opinion as the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to keep Donald Trump on the ballot
'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 wrote.
Barrett, who was confirmed by the Senate just eight days before the 2020 election in the culmination of a process that infuriated Democrats, wrote that she agreed states lack the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th amendment, which includes language barring people who took part in insurrection from holding any 'office' in the U.S.
'That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that.' But she writes that the majority went too far by setting out conditions where only the Congress through legislation.
'The 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,' she wrote.
In a
