Replies

Your response is consistent with the judicial doctrine of “political question.”

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress’ procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Yes, exactly. That is how the Court explains its lack of constitutional authority to attempt to interfere with some of the decision-making functions of other constitutional decision-makers. However, there are some who will not accept that reality. They believe that all questions under the sun are justiciable questions because if A sues B and raises that question, well, geez we have a case because the filing fee was paid and because, look, there is a case file now. So, the court must be able to resolve all cases and controversies.

They don't get it and they're not going to get it because they don't want to get it. If they see what they perceive to be a defect or wrong or injustice, they are just certain that some court can and must provide a meaningful remedy or there will be a gaping hole in the universe and that ordinary life just cannot continue. Fortunately, our courts (for the most part) recognize their limitations.