Replies

You said -----That's actually rather depressing. So this judge says that the only procedure is that we vote in November, let the Electoral College vote in December, and then find out whether someone meets the constitutional requirements?????-----

Consider it empowering, not depressing. What this judge says is that each and every voter has the power to determine a candidate’s qualifications/eligibility: “Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election.”

In short, the Judge has taken the position that we voters don’t need a single judge to decide such an important issue. Rather, it is in our hands – the voters’ hands to evaluate the available evidence and make our own determination.

SECOND, according to the Robinson court, the Constitution places a “check and balance” on the voters’ decision: “Once the election is over, (lack of qualifications/eligibility) can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.” The judge describes the process for raising and resolving objections in the Senate and the House. (Makes one realize how important the “downticket” elections are too, no?)

THIRD – then, and only then, according to the Robinson court, should judicial review occur.

I don’t see this as depressing at all. After all, isn’t it a core “conservative value” that a single judge (or set of judges) should not legislate from the bench or interfere with matters properly assigned to the electoral/political process?

Think about this for a minute. The current situation may make us want a judge to make this decision. But – what if the shoe were on the other foot: What if some liberal Texas judge actually ruled that McCain was not eligible for the presidency and, thus, could not be on the Texas ballot. What if that judge’s opinion was upheld by the appellate court and did not get to the Supreme Court for reversal before the election?

While it may be "convenient" in the current situation, I think such a precedent could be very very damaging to the political process established by the Constitution. To let judges determine eligibility for public elective office, in the first instance, would, I fear, create a “a clear and present danger” that the judiciary could totally take over the elective process. I’m leery of “slippery slope” arguments, but I think that in the long run, this would be a very dangerous thing.

It seems to me that the Robinson court’s ruling is consistent with this principle. Voters are granted the power, and the responsibility, in the first instance to determine who is most qualified. Here, voters who believe that Obama is not qualified or eligible to be president will not (and should not) vote for him. It’s really that simple. And that powerful.