Justice Souter's opinion in dissent is the one I would have hoped the Court would have written; rather than accepting the state's interests at face value, it probed to see if the evidence actually supported it. Because the state failed to do so, the Court should have struck down the law entirely, not relegated future challenges to "as applied" litigation. Justice Breyer, taking a somewhat more moderate approach to the state's interest, finds fault in the details of the Indiana plan — there is no justification, he says, for [its] more severe aspects.Nary a churlish, 'Get over it, Sore Loserman' from Justice Scalia.
It is amazing to me how allergic all the Justices of the Court are to Bush v. Gore. ... Nary a word from any Justice on what their own handiwork may have caused in this country.
Election Law Blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment