Supreme Court keeps the curveballs coming

Ballot ruling leaves a window for the insurrectionist next time

The Supreme Court’s ruling to allow Donald Trump to remain on the Colorado ballot was unanimous but troubling in the variety of opinions that justices expressed (“Top court agrees on Trump’s eligibility: No part of ruling addresses whether former president committed insurrection,” Page A1, March 5).

A fundamental principle of our judicial system is to decide only the case at hand — the case that has been briefed and argued by the parties. Chief Justice John Roberts is famous for having made a baseball analogy in his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing: ”My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” However, with this case five justices went way beyond what was necessary to allow Trump to remain on the Colorado ballot. By additionally ruling that Congress must act on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits insurrectionists from holding office, their majority opinion effectively said: “Ball four, take your base! And, by the way, we hereby repeal the infield fly rule and declare catcher interference to be legal.”

The court’s three liberal members wrote that deciding a novel question not before the court appears motivated to insulate the court and Trump “from future controversy.”

They wrote that the decision forecloses judicial enforcement. For example, a party being prosecuted by an insurrectionist would be precluded from raising Section 3 as a defense. That specter is particularly alarming given Trump’s declared objective to exact revenge and retribution if elected president again. JOHN GRAHAM Concord