"According to the three liberal justices on the court " Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor - Monday's ruling should go down as a dark day for American democracy. In their concurring opinion they argue that, with the sole exception of Barrett, the conservatives have in effect defanged the 14th amendment.

Just a reminder that if Hillary had won in 2016, none of this would be happening. Instead we have folks who want to double-down on Trump presidency by re-electing him. What could possibly go wrong? So much more.

Does this ruling allow the January 6 insurrectionists to run for Federal office?
#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

It seems so, emphasis mine:

Taniel
@Taniel

Kagan, Sotomayor, & Jackson concur in the judgment while taking issue with scope of what colleagues did.

"Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork."

BUT: "the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement."

Further quote from Sotomayor: "By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office."

No one can prove Bernie wouldn't have beaten Trump in 2016. I personally don't think he would have.

You know who I blame? The electoral college.

It's like democrats just don't get it. They should be pushing for new blood. Instead, playing games like elucidated in this article. A terrible decision? Because what - the Supreme Court headed off what would have turned into Balkanization of the United States? Because we all know damn well if Trump was allowed to be removed from the ballot, next thing would be a bunch of red states following the logic that no criminal conviction is needed, and any idiot can decide the president committed treason, so Biden's got to go. Aiding and abetting our enemies not securing the border (as if any president has) or some such crap. Until we get to the point there aren't enough electoral votes for someone to break that 270.
Like it or not, this was the correct decision.
#18 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG

The 9-0 part of the ruling may be the correct decision, but the 5-4 part of the decision in which the 3 liberal justices issued an opinion and ACB also issued an opinion is not the correct decision:

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Colorado Supreme Court decision removing Donald Trump from the ballot because of his engagement in an insurrection on Jan. 6. But that top-line holding is where the unanimity ended because five conservative justices just couldn't help themselves: They went much further than the case required, announcing an entirely new rule that Congress alone, through "a particular kind of legislation," may enforce the constitutional bar on insurrectionists holding office. As the three liberal justices pointed out, in a separate opinion that glows white-hot with indignation, the majority's overreach "attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office." They are, of course, correct. After this decision, it is impossible to imagine a federal candidate, up to and including the president, ever being disqualified from assuming office because of their participation in an insurrection. . . .

Notably, the liberals actually had Justice Amy Coney Barrett on their side too. She authored a separate opinion expressing her disapproval of the majority's overreach but declining to say more because "the court should turn the national temperature down, not up." So, in effect, Anderson is a 5-4 decision, with a bare majority effectively repealing the insurrection clause for federal officeholders. The liberals' disapproving citations to Bush v. Gore and Dobbs give a sense of how disastrously they believe the majority went astray.

@judgeluttig
@judgeluttig

My thoughts about the Supreme Court's decision today, with CNN's Jake Tapper just now.

The ruling is astonishing and unprecedented, not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow--and only--question presented

(though, significantly, four of the Justices agreed only with the "result" of that decision, and not with its reasoning)

but rather, for the five-Justice majority's decision to reach out gratuitously and decide essentially all of the equally, if not more momentous, constitutional questions that would need to be decided

in order for the former president or any other person in the future to be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment.

And in the course of unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case, the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification,

but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment's Disqualification Clause --as the concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explain.