The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The justices offered different reasons, but the decision was unanimous.
Yes the ruling was “per curiam.” My understanding is the main ruling doesn’t technically have one author and is supposed to be from the entire court. Individual justices have written concurring opinions though with more thoughts or where they might differ on some points from the others.
At least the dumb “doesn’t apply to the president argument” is dead.
“President Trump asks us to hold,” the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion, “that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3."
Yes the ruling was “per curiam.” My understanding is the main ruling doesn’t technically have one author and is supposed to be from the entire court. Individual justices have written concurring opinions though with more thoughts or where they might differ on some points from the others.
At least the dumb “doesn’t apply to the president argument” is dead.
Supposed to, but there’s also a dissenting opinion, and it’s not actually signed. Hmmmm