What exactly are the "stridencies" in the majority opinion on the Colorado ballot exclusion to which the two concurrencies refer? [closed]

Question

In CNN's March 5, 2024 Retired federal judge blasts Supreme Court ruling: 'Stunning in its overreach' retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig says the following (excerpted from YouTube auto-transcript with small edits):

Today's ruling, Jake, was both astonishing and unprecedented, not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow question presented by the case. though that issue was important, but rather for its decision to reach and decide a myriad of the other constitutional issues surrounding disqualification action under the 14th amendment. In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court - the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024, or ever for that matter. but even more importantly, as the concurrence said affectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment, regardless whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states.

and later:

It's stunning in its overreach. It's a textbook example, Jake, of the kind of judicial activist, judicial opinion(s) from the 1960s and the warren court era that begat the conservative legal and judicial movement in the 1970s and 1980s. But of course, it's different here because this is unmistakably a conservative active court. most of whose members were leaders of that conservative movement, at least in the 1980s and forward.

and to Tapper's question "...what do you say to a young person watching this who says the fix was in?...":

The best answer I would give to those young people, Jake, is this. the concurrence said what I just said that they said. And justice Amy Coney Barrett, who did not join the the other five in the overreaching decisions that it made, accused the three concurrences of stridency in their opinions. For your reader, for your listeners and your viewers. there was not one word of stridency in the concurring opinion by justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. not one single word of stridency.

Indeed, Justice Barrett's opinion ends with:

In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

and that of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson begins with:

“If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic. This Court is authorized “to say what the law is” only because “[t]hose who apply [a] rule to particular cases... must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added).

Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.

I'm certain the answer can be found within this decision and/or with other sources written about it, but it is hard for those not "skilled in the art" to wrap our minds around it with accuracy. So I'd like to ask:

Question: What exactly are the "stridencies" in the SCOTUS majority opinion on the Colorado ballot exclusion case to which the two concurrencies refer?

If possible, somewhere within the answer, it would be nice if there were either headings, or a list, or an enumeration. (if possible, thanks)

Answer 1

I'm not entirely sure what 'stridency' refers to, but the 3 liberal justices' main complaint (in their concurring opinion) was that

In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed.

[...] The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose.

Whether Barrett takes aim at that, or at the majority, or at both with the 'stridency' charge YMMV. The entirety of her concurring opinion was these two paras:

JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

One possible reading is that 'stridency' is how she describes the other 3 [liberal] justices choice of (longer, 6-page) response on the matter, rather than Barrett's terse one. Or possibly she disagrees more deeply with the way they describe the effect (and possibly the intent) of the majority judgement, e.g. the 3 liberal justices also wrote, in their concluding remarks:

By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

WaPo's analysis suggests it was more likely something like this that Barrett had in mind:

But she [Barrett] seemed to take issue with the tone of the three liberal justices’ concurrence [...]