[Genoa]

This boggles the mind. The Constitution doesn’t allow the judicial branch to interfere? Judicial review of laws based on unconstitutionality is well established. Why not judicial review of a presidential election if the candidate might not have been constitutionally qualified? This does not add up.

[Perdogg]

The Courts have been very consistent on these matters, re Jones V Bush and Bush V Gore.

[SaraJohnson]

It looks to me like he gave the plaintiffs wiggle room in the appeal by basing his decision on an idea that 69 million votes rules over the constitution. Wonder if the Supremes would agree with that idea? We are a constitutional Republic - not a democracy. The mob does not rule. The constitution, the high law in the land, rules.

[Publius Valerius]

Why not judicial review of a presidential election if the candidate might not have been constitutionally qualified?

The Court pointed out in its opinion that the outcome may have been different had plaintiffs not waited around until after Obama was sworn in to bring their claim. Yet another screw up from plaintiffs' counsel.