[Ditter]

He talks again about Bush v Gore claiming that it was wrong. As I remember the Florida Supreme Court told the election officials that the election laws already on the books had to be followed on the recounting of the votes. The election laws were not changed to elect Bush they were followed as written. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Yosemitest]

"He talks again about Bush v Gore claiming that it was wrong.
As I remember
the Florida Supreme Court told the election officials
that the election laws already on the books had to be followed on the recounting of the votes.
The election laws were not changed to elect Bush
they were followed as written.

Correct me if I am wrong."

I think that your point is different than the author's point in the article.
Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... If Cruz gets enough electoral votes this fall,
then Congress
and not the Supreme Court
should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility.
The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

Presidents should pick judges,
not vice versa.
This is one reason why
the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore was a disgrace
and is now widely viewed by experts as such.

...

So the author, Akhil Reed Amar, is saying

BECAUSE
it is a "nonjusticiable political question"
and the Constitution ITSELF specifies what body of government is "THE JUDGE" of such questions,
the "JUDICIAL SYSTEM" has no "CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY" to rule on the matter.

But you're suggesting that

the author said "the court's judgment" was wrong.

And I believe that the author is saying that "THE COURT" should NOT HAVE RULED ON IT ... AT ALL !