They're just saying that the court could rule that the amendment by itself is inactionable until the legislature enacts laws to create a process to disqualify candidates. Similar to how Article III declared a judiciary branch, but it wasn't actually established until Congress passed the Judiciary Act, describing what kind of courts there would actually be, what their jurisdictions would be, how many justices would comprise the court, etc. etc.
But in this case, the amendment is clearly prohibiting an action. With a reasonable court, I can't imagine how they'd just allow somebody to continue violating the Constitution until Congress passed additional legislation to stop it. It's as ludicrous as saying that the executive branch can unreasonably search and seize anything they'd like until Congress explicitly spells out each and every action that's unreasonable and provides the exact remedy process to follow when the 4th amendment is violated.
I mean, it's a pretty moot point because the court has already shown that they're perfectly willing to create whatever calvinball rules they want. But of course good old liberal media has to get in there and grant an air of credibility to whatever flimsy justification they come up with that's even the slightest bit plausible sounding.
If the court wants to come out and say that they judge the President isn't an officer of the United States or that he wasn't personally engaged in an insurrection, then that's one thing. But kicking it over to Congress to legislate exactly what's prohibited by the Constitution and/or what the remedies are is just opening up a huge can of worms.
Huh, I'm starting to think that the guy who hung a portrait of a mass shooter in his living room and who was exempted from mandatory IDF service for his far right political background, might not be the good guy here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir