Originally Posted by Chris

Incorrect.

The judgment was unanimous, which is by no means uncommon when the question has a clear answer. Obviously, one state cannot rule on the constitution in a way that affects the entire Federal government. However, the opinion was unsigned, meaning that while the justices agreed the substantive verdict they disagreed as to the wider ramifications and the remedy. And having decided by majority this was a matter for Congress, they did not rule on whether Trump actually is an insurrectionist at all.

In fact , the 3 liberal justices objected to SCOTUS ruling that only Congress could determine whether an individual is barred from office under 14(3). *And* one of the Conservative justices also objected to this, though she issued a brief written opinion criticising Sotomayor Kagan and Brown for speaking out about their dissent at a time when unity was required.

So there was a 6-4 split on whether Congress should determine if someone is an insurrectionist and therefore barred, or if the courts may do so. And it was not a party lines split but a genuine legal disagreement.

Mick, you’re banging on about corrupt Dems is so 2016. Face it - you hitched your wagon to a rapist and a despot. You may not have realised it back then, but you’ve no excuse now. Whether or not he’s still popular with the uneducated rednecks of Amerca’s vast interior is neither here nor there. He was, is and will/would be a disaster for America and the world.