I honestly don't understand the reluctance. The Supremes are appointed for life -- precisely for this reason. They should always make the RIGHT decision and not make decisions based on their own future popularity. They are supposed to be above such worries, right?
Is it not one SC justice who hears the original petition. If I am not mistaken it this case it would be Souter.
I honestly don't understand the reluctance. There is no reluctance. The author just made that up. The first sentence says,
The U.S. Supreme Court, still scarred by the fight over the 2000 presidential electionfight, probably will be reluctant to wade into the battle over New Jersey's U.S. Senate race, legal experts said.
"Still scarred"? "Legal experts said"?
In no rational person's mind is the SCOTUS "scarred" over Gore v. Bush.