|
>If 4 justices agreed to hear it, the case would have gone to trial. Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case. It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial... Only in your pea brain, Mr Rogers. Political Question ... does that term even mean anything to you? Have you a clue? REALLY?! The High Court Justices of the Judicial Branch's Supreme Court are understandably VERY reluctant to stand up and say "NO" to the candidates of a Presidential election, and the Executive Branch of the winner thereafter. The stakes are VERY high and have FAR-REACHING consequences. Where were you in 2000, when for more than a month, there was NO clear-cut Presidential winner? Three of the SCOTUS Justices in the infamous December 12th SCOTUS decision actually deemed that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution! Believe me ... those memories are quite indelible in the minds of the SCOTUS Justices, especially those benching in 2000. Considering the Democratic rancor emanating after the SCOTUS's per curiam ruling on Bush v. Gore, preceding Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, I'm surprised the concept of the SCOTUS' reluctance to rule against the Eligibility of a SITTING Executive is lost on you.
|
