On cursory legal analysis that I urge you to place in the "you get what you pay for" pigeonhole, it seems that the Ninth Circus'--no typo--decision could be attacked on a claim that the case doesn't present a "justiciable" case. It should therefore not have been heard in the first place. Briefly, the doctrine of justiciability requires that there be "case or controversy" among the parties.
Traditionally, someone had to show a loss, monetary or otherwise, or show the liklehood of irreparable harm, in order for a case to be decided, i.e., be "justiciable." This seems to me, admittedly on first impression, the problem with the decision--the "harm" is imaginary as it hasn't occurred. Moreover, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to show that it will occur. And, if it does occur, it can be remedied through a new election or recount, so the harm is not irreparable.
Doesn't at first glance have the smell of a "justiciable" case to me. We'll see. |
