This comment doesn’t exactly make sense in the decision. They say it should be addressed by the legislative branch, but that the ‘remedy’ is through ‘their (plaintiffs) votes.’ How does the legislative branch having anything to do with a remedy obtained through voting?? The legislature doesn’t control voters’ votes. It’s complete gobbledy-gook.
They also admit that Kerchner had distinguished himself as a plaintiff from the Berg case, BUT that “Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court.”
Who and how is it decided that a class is ‘impermissibly large’ and how is the complaint too ‘general’ when said class has a ‘unique ability to sue in federal court.’ This court completely undermined its own reasoning for dismissing the case.
No, it makes complete sense. Because a president’s ineligibility affects every voter, there is not a unique injury to one voter - military or civilian. (And in this particular case, the injury is mere conjecture because Kerchner isn’t active military.) So the scope of the issue then falls under the political question doctrine. All such issues should be addressed by the legislative branch. Congress could hold hearings to investigate or even remove the president.
The Court acknowledges that the plaintiffs are frustrated by a perception that Congress has failed to act on this issue. The Court takes no position on whether or not Congress failed to act. They essentially tell the plaintiffs that if they are not satisfied with how the legislative branch has handled this matter, then the remedy to their frustration is to vote the b@st@rds out!
(FR attorneys: If I’ve incorrectly described how this issue falls under the political question doctrine, please correct me.)
And according to those standards Roe v Wade should have been rejected by the court for lack of standing. By the time any woman with standing could get the case through the courts to SCOTUS she would already have given birth and would no longer have standing. SCOTUS took up Roe v Wade because they wanted to rule in behalf of POTENTIAL people with standing. None of them having any great grievous harm above and beyond every other pregnant woman, who were all treated equally under the existing laws.