Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
The problem that I have with it is that if the judiciary in this case is charged with upholding the constitution and the manner in which another state conducts its elections brings its compliance with the constitution into question or violates the constitutional rights of another state then that's a cognizable interest in that manner in which another state conducts its elections.
It's technically possible the case didn't fully raise a fully constitutional objection instead just pointing out the misconduct leaving it up in the air and SCOTUS wants it on a silver platter. I haven't read it though. I suspect some of this stuff is going to be rushed and that might cause some problems. Collecting all the evidence is only part of the process.
Regardless the wording is defective. How a state conducts a FEDERAL election is not an isolated personal affair. Maybe if they were voting for their governor or something it would make sense.
that's why I didn't get them referencing Article III, which blatantly states the SC takes (original jurisdiction) every case where the state is a party.
also, they completely had legal standing. even the fucking left was saying they did. lol whotf are they supposed to go to about disputes with the constitution, which is the contract the states use to stay together?
so that was a strange and blatantly incorrect decision.
The supreme Court should have at least allowed the airing of grievances by both parties, then wrote an opinion that left it at the doorstep of the state legislature.
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
Legal standing is not bullshit. But it's difficult to see how else to adjudicate disputes among the states.
The problem that I have with it is that if the judiciary in this case is charged with upholding the constitution and the manner in which another state conducts its elections brings its compliance with the constitution into question or violates the constitutional rights of another state then that's a cognizable interest in that manner in which another state conducts its elections.
It's technically possible the case didn't fully raise a fully constitutional objection instead just pointing out the misconduct leaving it up in the air and SCOTUS wants it on a silver platter. I haven't read it though. I suspect some of this stuff is going to be rushed and that might cause some problems. Collecting all the evidence is only part of the process.
Regardless the wording is defective. How a state conducts a FEDERAL election is not an isolated personal affair. Maybe if they were voting for their governor or something it would make sense.
there is no other way.
that's why I didn't get them referencing Article III, which blatantly states the SC takes (original jurisdiction) every case where the state is a party.
also, they completely had legal standing. even the fucking left was saying they did. lol whotf are they supposed to go to about disputes with the constitution, which is the contract the states use to stay together?
so that was a strange and blatantly incorrect decision.
The supreme Court should have at least allowed the airing of grievances by both parties, then wrote an opinion that left it at the doorstep of the state legislature.
Do you think this is Festivus? Asking for a friend.
The airing of grievances is a cherished tradition both in Fetivus and the Court system. I would have really enjoyed it if they had a hearing.
You've fallen for another Legal Illusion.
won? won what?
I’m guessing you’re not a lawyer
Go to law school, practice a few years and then tell me about standing.
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
Alexander F'in Hamilton
Dont be an idiot. Legal standing had existed since common law. And it's a vital pillar to our legal system.
BRANDEIS. Is that Presbyterian?