re: #597 alexknyc

It’s my understanding that the Court said the FL Supremes change of the legislature’s deadline had violated Article II, Section i which says, in part, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct…”

I’m not sure how States Rights arguments enter against the ruling as I understand it.

You had a group of conservative judges, who typically advocate for states’ rights and for “judicial restraint,” who ruled on a states election contest and essentially shut it down.

You also had a group of liberal judges, who typically look more favorably at the federal court ruling on states’ rights issues, advocating for states’ rights in that case..

Please note that the case has never been cited as precedent, and the conservative judges specifically stated that they didn’t want the ruling to serve as precedent on states’ rights issues.

Why do you suppose that was? Perhaps, because the ruling was contradictory to how they typically rule, and intend to rule in the future, on states’ rights issues?