"They wrote — quote — "The majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course."
They are clearly not happy with this, something to remember when we see all these headlines that this was a unanimous ruling."
Follow
@GoWeaponsHot but that was in a dissent that the court did not agree to take as its stance. And it seems like it's just getting the majority ruling of it wrong, which is why the court didn't agree with it.
