4 ms·
It's really disingenuous to lay everything at the feet of SCOTUS. Anything related to elections could be seen as a voting rights issue, and if SCOTUS issued bin
by jeffdavis 7y ago
It's really disingenuous to lay everything at the feet of SCOTUS. Anything related to elections could be seen as a voting rights issue, and if SCOTUS issued binding opinions on all of them it would be a disaster.
It would simultaneously federalize elections, and subvert Congress.
You really don't want a bunch of appointed-for-life judges to have total control over all elections in the country.
The Constitution has little to say about voting, but we all know voting is a complex topic. Voting policy should come from the legislature and SCOTUS should merely oversee it.
- duxup 7y agoI'm not sure what you mean by disingenuous. I can understand folks being concerned / upset that SCOTUS wasn't involved, and they can too still recognize that the question maybe wasn't really posed to SCOTUS. I suppose anything 'could' be a voting rights issue, but the important thing is to actually talk about what that anything is. Limited polling places, being required to wait hours, risk your own health to vote ... to me there is an argument to be made there. I'm not at all sure what your comment about judges deciding are... a judge(s) did decide already.
- jeffdavis 7y agoMy point was that SCOTUS restrained the lower courts from getting involved in specific and somewhat creative remedies to the problem. I think that restraint is good, because the alternative is worse.