To be clear, to read my take on the Fourteenth Amendment, read the post I quoted:
https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/
Stephanie was raising a few points. She had much more to say than these few posts.
Please don't think that these posts include all of her thoughts (or mine).
Mine are here: https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/
@Teri_Kanefield: I think it's interesting that while the decision was 9-0 (as it should be), it seems like the right ruling for the wrong reasons - or more specifically for overreaching reasons. The majority on the court pushed it so far that their decision bars further challenges using the 14th Amendment should Trump win the election by forcing any remedy to lie with Congress and additional legislation rather than court challenges, something that was vigorously debated during oral arguments.
The rebuke by the three liberal justices that the majority exceeded the question before the court in this case was on point in their concurring opinion. The decision severely limited options for using the 14th Amendment in the future even more than their Dobbs decision did.
The ruling is an interesting read.
@goodreedAJ Well why would court challenges be the appropriate venue for remedy?
The constitution seems pretty clear that the running of elections is a matter for the other branches.
@goodreedAJ It doesn't change it, though, it wasn't really touched on by the opinion which was focused on the election process.
Other implications of the 14th remain untouched by today's opinion which did not address them.
@volkris @goodreedAJ @Teri_Kanefield: For elections, yes, but if somebody attempts to take/hold office who is constitutionally unqualified, then there are other avenues for remedy. Today’s opinion changes that.