Making the Court Come to Life: Developing Effective Judicial Politics Simulations
Unformatted Document Text:
legislative domain than we ought to undertake.”
The district court here has engaged in the very
legislative invasion that Justice O’Connor has warned against.
The third principle requires that the “touchstone for any decision about remedy [be]
legislative intent.” Justice O’Connor held that the question is, “would the legislature have
preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at all?” In this case, the first question is whether
the legislative intent would have preferred the statute be struck down in its entirety and the
election process needing remedy from the legislature, or the statute being struck down in part and
requiring remedy from the court.
This court has held, on numerous occasions, that the court
must only serve to provide constitutional remedy, not remedy of policy issues. Justice Brandeis,
in one of his Ashwander rules, held that the court cannot double as a legislature, and must only
deal with policy issues in terms of their independent constitutionality.
The invalidation of the
state’s election system and replacement with a policy of the court’s own invention directly
countermands this third principle mandated by Justice O’Connor.
In sum, the United States Supreme Court is respectfully asked to grant certiorari on this
question to clarify the decision of the Second Circuit Court in regard to precedent, including but
not limited to Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England. After examining the test set
forth in Ayotte in relation to the district court’s implementation of an electoral process, the Court
can then upheld or reverse the district court’s prescription of election policy for the state of New
Id, at 7 – 8.
Id, at 8.
297 U.S. 288, at 346.