Step back a bit and you'll see the real battle here: in the main, the courts want the elected reps to handle electoral problems, and the elected reps want the courts to handle them.
That's not always the case, of course. Roberts' dismissal of the Texas lawsuit was clearly wrong; there was no question of "standing" (nor the new trick, 'laches') involved; Roberts simply didn't have the guts to do what SCOTUS was invented to do. Same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the Wisconsin Supreme's decision, written by Chickenshit Hagedorn.
Same with the Gohmert suit, which sought court clarification of the question surrounding the Vice-President's actual role in the January 6th procedure. After all, the law appears to conflict with the Constitution--isn't that exactly what Fed Courts are supposed to decide? (Personally, I would rather that the law be upheld, but that's not the point.)
All this is merely a variation on what Congress has always done. Rather than taking responsibility by writing clear and clean laws, they fudge and fiddle the language, or let regulators 'clarify,' forcing a court to define the law. Congressman screams at how awful the courts and regulators are, gets re-elected, finds remarkable bargains in the stock market, retires rich. Judges get to keep their black robes.
Too bad the entire country has to be crippled in the process, eh?
1 comment:
Congress, Federal and State, has spent the last 50 years abdicating their duty and power to who ever they can foist it off on, mainly the bureaucracy. This was all done so our elected officials could avoid the "hard Votes". This, IMO, has bred a breed of cat that is more interested and engaged in the minutia of the system than protecting freedom.
Post a Comment