I thought conservatives abhorred judicial activism?
They do except when it applies to their cause. About like big business and doctors: they hate lawsuits where they’re the defendants and love lawsuits where they are the plaintiffs.
parsy, who is LOL
Enforcing the Constitution is not judicial activism. Finding things that aren't there, or changing things that are, especially governmental powers, that is judicial activism.
This clearly a case and a controversy, as those terms were understood until the early 20th century.
Incomplete thought. Sorry. In my view, it is incorrect to find these plaintiffs don’t have standing to bring the action. That is what I find morally abhorent. It seems to me that ANY US Citizen of voting age should have standing to challenge the eligibility of ANY elected official representing him or her. That would include, at the Federal level, any elected official in the Executive branch, either of the Senators representing the voter’s state of residence, and the Representative elected in his/her district of residence.
In addition, specific to the office of President, that standing should extend to any member of the US military, active or reserve, current or retired (subject to recall).
I know that there are specific plaintiff characteristics that substantiate standing as established by precedent. It seems to me, though, that precedent is wrong in this area.
The most frustrating thing is that this particular question lingers, festers, unanswered, without ever being fully examined for its facts, for the truth.
This question deserves a full and complete hearing and resolution within the scope of the US Constitution as written. To this point, we have not gotten that...