Four of the nine justices - its three liberal members and its newest member - disagreed with the rest of the court about decision, saying the outcome powered by five conservative justices went further than necessary.

It ruled that barring state enforcement avoids a “patchwork” of candidates being declared ineligible in some states but not others. On that point all the justices agreed.

But liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, as well as conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in separate opinions faulted the other five justices for going further to specify that Section 3 can be enforced only through federal legislation. Given the profound partisan divisions in Congress, any such legislation is highly unlikely.

(George Mason University constitutional law professor) Ilya Somin said he was disappointed the justices did not delve into tricky questions that the Colorado Supreme Court tackled, including its conclusion that the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack was an insurrection and that Trump took part.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I promise you that isn’t the case. I’m not a fan of my species and have come to understand we have no interest in an equitable world, so I’m just here to watch and comment on the freakshow without hope or agenda.

      Humanity largely doesn’t deserve nice things, which sucks for the relative few innately kind, empathetic among us, but I have no power to help them, and most of my species wouldn’t let me if I did.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m just here to watch and comment on the necrotic freakshow without hope or agenda, merely for entertainment.

        So are you not interested in prioritizing human happiness, or are you interested yet refuse to do so?

        • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I’m just a cynic who absolutely would, but understands that humans en masse are far more interested in getting mooaar than their fellow humans, and largely need humans to look down on to feel content, that what we want is incompatible with who and what we are, using all of human history, right into last century’s most prominent genocide victims deciding genocide looks like fun and they’ll have a go, as evidence.

          I want humanity to get it’s head out of its ass so that we can all maximize being a little happy instead of a relative view being gluttonously happy at the expense of most’s misery, but I recognize that I might as well want humans to be able to flap their arms and magically start flying like birds, it’s just as pointless and impossible, both are beyond our capacity.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m just a cynic who absolutely would, but…

            I want humanity to get it’s head out of its ass so that we can all maximize being a little happy instead of a relative [few] being gluttonously happy at the expense of most’s misery, but…

            It couldn’t hurt to try. You have the will to do so.

      • thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Finally someone who gets it. It’s not that we don’t want these things, it’s just that we’re powerless to enact change. Even violence doesn’t solve anything - because the one thing we have that might be able to enact some change, usually just ends up pushing more totalitarian regimes because then they can use ‘violence’ as an excuse to remove even more rights.

        Short of everyone refusing to do anything starting tomorrow morning, until proper teeth are sunk into the corporate elite, then nothing will happen.