Thread by @JonathanTurley

As expected, the Supreme Court has now unanimously rejected what was described for months as an "unassailable theory." The Court showed a divided nation that we remain bound by shared constitutional values. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
jonathanturley.org/2024/02/09/the…

...While there were concurrences arguing that the decision was broader than necessary, Barrett correctly noted in her concurrence that "for present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case."

...While this "unassailable theory" was given endless and almost exclusive coverage on some outlets, it failed to garner a single vote on the left or the right of the Court. I respect some of the academics who subscribed to this theory, including some who offered important scholarship in support of it. However, many people heard little of the opposing views on many outlets on the historical, textual, and practical flaws in these arguments...

...It is important to also commend the many Democratic officials, judges, and justices who stood firm in rejecting this theory. Colorado, Maine, and most recently Illinois are the outliers. Even on the Colorado Supreme Court, three of the seven Democratically appointed justices rejected this theory and opposed disqualification. Now three liberal justices have added their voices against this theory that states can unilaterally disqualify candidates in this way.