You obviously don’t understand how.the judicial system works. That is the only decision the lower.court could make.to assure that it gets to.the SCOTUS and be consistent with constitution. . Lower courts cannot rule.on cases that are not based on caselaw.but only based on the intent of the constitution. They can only rule on case law Only the SCOTUS can make those rulings. This is a once in a hundred year case not your normal caselaw.lawyer decision. The very best of our constitutional.scholars will be presenting amicus brief and vying to present their side to.the court to go down in the legal history books..
All previous cases have been based on standing not merit.
Its an here we go decision.....
Its a shame it will not be videoed for future law scholars
I disagree. The PA Supreme could have said courts have the power to decide the issue (agreeing with Pellegrini), and then reversing Pellegrini on any of the arguments raised by Elliott or the amici. This way, Cruz could appeal to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS could, as it will with Elliott's petition, whether or not to take the case. Either way, SCOTUS is given an opportunity to act on the outcome of the PA Supreme Court decision.
The original court was limited to ruling on the facts and the law. And, since determination of eligibility rests with the several states, a challenge had to start there. But, SCOTUS is not obliged to hear the case, and I doubt they will. They might remand it to a Federal Appeals Court, or they could refuse to take the case, leaving the Pennsylvania Court decision to stand. If that happens, it will be years, but more likely, forever before the Supreme Court revisits this.
I'm sure that all of the Justices agree with the unanimous decision of PA Supreme Court, so they are not going to waste time on this issue.