[Political Junkie Too]

That the states didn’t follow their legislatures’ laws on conducting elections was something the court could rule on- but what could they DO? Nothing. ( as Alito said). I don’t know the technical term, but courts don’t take cases they can’t provide relief for.

I'm confused.

In a murder trial, the court can't "fix it" by bringing back the dead.

In a theft trial, the court can't "fix it" by giving back the money.

In an arson trial, the court can't "fix it" by giving back the property.

But they still hold the trial.

This wasn't a case before the Supreme Court in an appellate form, it was original jurisdiction. They were the triers of fact in this case.

Like the stolen money or burned building, they know they can't "fix" the loss, but that doesn't absolve them of the accountability of hearing the case and finding guilt.

And the truth is that the "fix" is there in the Constitution and US Code. The only thing the "fixers" needed was the finding from the court on the facts.

That was the job of the court, to make a finding of fact. The "fix" was the responsibility of others.

-PJ

[mrsmith]

Murder, theft, arson- the court’s relief is at least punishment of the guilty.

If the court found the state Executive branch guilty of not following the state’s laws what could they do?
It’s up to those legislatures to act. And the state’s courts. Not the federal SC.

Yeah, we desperately need findings of facts, maybe that job was intentionally avoided by the SC... but note even Alito said “no relief”.