Trump appointed Justice Amy Barrett concurred in the specific case against Trump.
However, she challenged the broader agreement that Section 3 of the Amendment can only be enforced through federal - not state - legislation.
Not sure what Barrett is up to.
My first guess - she supports some circumstances where states can enforce the amendment against Conservatives and Republicans, but not against Democrats.
She seems to be suggesting that congress can enforce the provision by some act other than “appropriate legislation” which the amendment calls for. Such as just refusing to seat the president without existing legislation allowing them to do so.
Or maybe she is pure and simply stated the court can only answer the question at hand. To wit: can Trump be blocked from the Colorado ballet. She did her job as a judge. She judged what was before her. I don’t have any problem with her statement.
Although not you specifically I have noted other responses on this thread where people are shaking this is a 5-4 decision. It absolutely is not. It is 9-0 decision. The three witches of eastwick all start their joined opinion “concur in judgement”. ACB on her own behalf writes “concurs with judgment and in part with opinion”. I think certain freepers specialize in finding a cloud to every silver lining. In this particular case the only thing people will remember is 9-0, the subtext is just academic hand wringing by justices who want to opine how smart they are for the world to see.