One of the most important things Trump accomplished in his first term – with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s support – has been to place strict constructionists on federal courts across America, including the Supreme Court. These judges interpret legislation and determine whether it is constitutional, rather than legislating from the bench.
This matters because Democrats are using the Wuhan virus as an excuse to ignore longstanding state legislation governing elections. On Tuesday, both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit ruled against activist judges. These decisions may reflect the fact that at least some judges believe that siding with the status quo could help prevent a civil war.
In Andino v. Middleton, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal district court could use the Wuhan virus as a reason to overturn the South Carolina legislature’s refusal to change the state’s existing voting laws. These laws, enacted in 1953, required that residents voting by mail get a witness to sign their ballots. Democrats were not asking the Court to determine whether the existing legislation was unconstitutional. Instead, they wanted the judge to override the legislation because they were peeved that the Republican majority refused to do so.
The district court judge, an Obama appointee, eagerly seized the opportunity to change the existing law to do away with the witness requirement. She didn’t include the legislature in this decision. She did it by judicial fiat.
(Excerpt) Read more at:
