I did not say how many justices doubted the FSC intervention, in the end, so my statement could not have been flat out false. You concede that some did, which means it was flat out true.
As long as they were in the contest phase, it was arguable that it was appropriate for the FSC to overrule the trial judge (I think they had insufficient grounds to overrule, but will wave that). The point is that the legislature was determined that the contest phase should end in time for the safe harbor, and there was an implicit conflict between that, which was more than a "preference", and the continuation of the contest after a remand. Since the legislature determines the means of selection of electors under Article II of the Constitution, and is under no obligation to choose them through general balloting, it has an absolute right to end the contest when it wants to. Thus, equity considerations cannot override the deadline established by the legislature itself, in conformity with the U.S. Code........ |
