[Alberta's Child]

I may be in a small minority here on FR, but I’ve said for years that having the Supreme Court directly involved in presidential elections is a recipe for disaster. The author makes two ludicrous points in this piece:

1. His description of the Supreme Court as a “coequal branch” of government with the President and Congress makes no sense in this context. He’s using this argument to make the case that every branch of the Federal and state governments should DEFER to the Supreme Court as the SOLE ARBITER of disputes related to presidential elections.

2. Using the 2000 election case as a “precedent” that justifies — even necessitates — Supreme Court involvement in national elections is a bad idea. The Supreme Court greatly exceeded its authority in that case even though it was correct in its main ruling.

For the life of me, I can’t imagine why any intelligent conservative would want Federal courts involved in ANY matter of consequence.

[bennowens]

OK you have a point, but who else is going to cure this mess? And don’t say voters.

[The MAGA-Deplorian]

I may be in a small minority here on FR, but I’ve said for years that having the Supreme Court directly involved in presidential elections is a recipe for disaster.

The cases that went in front of them wasn't to determine the elections, it was uphold states voting laws that were blatently being violated by Govenors and Secretarys of State making election law that had no power to interfere with state election law. I mean this was a simple reading of the Constitution to see who has the power to make election law; the state legislatures, which SCOTUS ignored. SCOTUS are cowards, living in fear of Roberts. However Kavenaugh and Barrett I feel are totally worthless picks.