Your claim is quite simply nonsense. The Constitution does not grant the people the right to pick electors, it never has and it never will. And electors, once chosen, are not bound by any law to vote in a particular way.
In the most recent case, Gore v. Bush in 2000, the vote denying the Florida Supreme Court's action was 7-2. People focus on the 14th Amendment dimensions for that decision, but the truth is that the three conservative Justices then on the Court (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) did not agree to an equal protection violation. They ruled -- correctly -- that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature, and they made it clear that the Legislature alone had the authority to choose the manner of selecting electors. If that vote were held again tomorrow, the vote would have 4 votes for the Article II violation, and the equal protection clause would become the subordinate (concurring opinion) and the plenary power of the legislatures of the states to name electors would be not only de facto but de jure as well. You are simply wrong. No federal court would overturn the legislatures' authority. There are a number of precedents beside this most recent one, and they do not support your position.
As for popular election of Senators, it was a mistake to do that. It weakened a Federalism already weakened by the 14th Amendment. But it was done itself by Amending the Constitution, and was not done by the people nor was it done by the Courts, neither of whom have anything to say about it.
“Your claim is quite simply nonsense. The Constitution does not grant the people the right to pick electors, it never has and it never will. And electors, once chosen, are not bound by any law to vote in a particular way.”
My claim is totally true. You can’t separate what the constitution says from political realities. Do you actually think any state legislature, or the Supreme Court would take an action that removed the people’s vote for presidential elector’s, or their indirect vote for president?
One more vote recently and some part of the right to bear arms would have been lost in the DC case. What does the constitution say about the right to bear arms? Why was there even a case that threatened that right? And you claim that such deviations from the constitution just can’t and won’t happen.
What the constitution says (and it’s not always clear what it says) and the political realities that exist are not always in perfect harmony.
And, I never claimed the constitution gave the people a right to pick electors, but that they presently vote for the electors and that no action will be taken to remove that because of political realities.
And neither you, nor anyone else knows precisely how the Supreme Court might rule on any question. You never hear the complaints about legislating from the bench, or amending the constitution with court rulings rather than amendments?
And what weakened federalism more than anything was the court battles during the Civil Rights Movement, where state’s rights was used often to deny rights to black Americans, and state’s rights suffered many defeats. And there are plenty of activists who’d like to see state’s rights ended once and for all.