Your "analysis" is just flat out wrong -- and all 9 justices would disagree with you, by the way -- because a presidential election is an election of electors by each of the 50 states, on a state by state basis, not a national vote with "cross border" implications. Each state has the right to select its electors "in the manner" directed by the legislature of that state. Under Title 3 of the US Code, no role is reserved to the Supreme Court to interjet into that process - a role is reserved for the Congress, if there is a dispute on how the electors were selected, but NOT the Supreme Court. Indeed, the federal statute says that you qualify for the safe harbor if the result is certified "afer all contests -- judicial or otherwise -- are resolved by the state" prior to the December 12 deadline. Which is to say that the role of the State legislature is recognized, the role of the state courts isrecognized, adn the role of the Congress is recognized. However, there is NO role for the federal courts. The creation of that role by SCOTUS last week causes direct injury to the intent of the Congress in passing Title 3, and has no basis in the constitution. It was a naked political power play. Period.
In the case of Florida, the "manner" designated by the legislature to select electors was a secret vote of the citizens of the State of Florida. The laws which provided for that vote also provided for the contest of any result, and the various bases upon which such a contest could be conducted. That was the province of the FSC to interpret, not the US Supreme Court.
I find it difficult to believe that you read the dissents -- if you had, you might have even a slight appreciation for the damage this decision does to principles of federal judicial restraint. |
