Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas1999
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The argument is that since the presidency is a federal level election whose outcome affects all states, individual states violating their own internal laws has a meaningful and tangible effect on other states who did not violate their own internal laws. I agree that states can't sue one another based on alleged violations of any law, this was specifically about election laws in a presidental election.
Also I'm pro-choice until the end of the first trimester, and for legitimate rape victims. Just to clear that up.
|
I don't think you understand the way the court system works in terms of the concept of judicial review and past precedent. If the court had agreed to hear the case, it would mean that states have standing to sue other states for violations of any laws. It wouldn't be limited to presidential elections. Maybe eventually after 10 years or so of court cases we might get to the point where SCOTUS issued enough opinions that it was only limited to presidential elections and that was 100% settled, but hearing this case would have basically destroyed the independence of the states. And it's pretty funny that Republicans wanted it to be heard considering it would ultimately result in the exact opposite of what the Republican party stands for (i.e. state independence and ability to run their show the way they want to).
Hypocrisy at it's finest.