Not quite. Article III §2 of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." neither of which are defined in the Constitution. However, over the last 210 years or so, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that to invoke federal court jurisdiction under the Constitution, the case and controvery must be "justiciable," and that "political questions" are non-judiciable. There are other non-justiciable controversies as well, including moot questions (i.e., whether a person was properly sentenced to death after the sentenced has been carried out); advisory questions (i.e.,asking the court to decide an issue that will not have an immediate impact on the parties, such as the constitutionality of proposed leglislation that has not been enacted into law); and lack of standing (i.e., the person seeking judicial relief has not suffered a harm or consequence that is distinct from the harm or consequence suffered by the public at large).
"Justiciability" and its various subparts is not a recent invention by liberal judges, rather it has been part of our jurisprudence since the earliest days of our Country and is derrived from the English commonlaw. And you are correct in that justiciability is somewhat of a moving target in that judges from both the left and right have used justiciability over the years to side-step cases that they don't want to hear.
“Political” issues are those over which the Constitution gives Congress express jurisdiction.
The 20th Amendment involves a “President elect” - which is somebody who has already made it past all the requirements, procedures, and input of the voters, the states, and Congress. There is thus no way that this issue could be under the jurisdiction of the voters, Congress or the states.
Once the voters, Congress, and the states have all had their input, the 20th Amendment STILL says that if the President elect “fails to qualify” they cannot act as President.
Who would enforce this? The interpretation of the Constitution is that nothing is in there that is unenforceable, so SOMEBODY has to be able to enforce this, AFTER the electoral winner has been declared by Congress. Whose Constitutional duty is it, to enforce this - that is, to overturn the outcome of an election by the expressed requirement of the 20th Amendment?
IOW, the court is SUPPOSED to resolve political questions. This does NOT say they aren't supposed to.
However, over the last 210 years or so, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that to invoke federal court jurisdiction under the Constitution, the case and controvery must be "justiciable," and that "political questions" are non-judiciable.
I already said it was a legal invention, but for kicks and grins, find a case from 210 years ago the says political questoins are nonjusticiable.