A Modest Revelation About Trump v. Anderson

Recent reporting by the New York Times has shed light on the Supreme Court's deliberations regarding disqualification from office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The article, authored by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak, reveals that Chief Justice John Roberts played a crucial role in seeking consensus among the justices on key cases. The majority opinion suggests that disqualification requires specific congressional legislation, a view supported by the concurring opinions of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the liberal justices. The article indicates that while all nine justices agreed on keeping Trump on state ballots, four conservative justices advocated for a ruling that would necessitate congressional action for disqualification to be effective. This perspective implies a broader interpretation of the Constitution's requirements regarding disqualification, which could have significant implications for future cases. The report highlights the potential for a misalignment between the justices' intentions and the binding text of the ruling, raising questions about the self-executing nature of Section 3. Critics argue that the majority's decision was poorly reasoned and that the justices underestimated the risks of allowing individuals involved in insurrection to regain power. The implications of this revelation are profound, as it may influence how the Court approaches similar disqualification issues in the future. The forthcoming article by the author critiques the Court's reasoning and emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the dangers posed by insurrectionists in positions of power.