Once again, the WSJ is moderating away any criticism. Another example is a whine about how the statewide recount somehow compares to what happened in Florida in 2000. Nonsense in so many ways, not the least of which would be remedy. There may be one area in common, which is that the U.S. courts probably shouldn’t have jurisdiction in a state matter.
It is my recollection as well that The US Supreme Court had said that the decision should not be cited as precedent. While I can’t find the statement, the obvious logic was that the Supreme Court was under the gun for a decision where the electors had to meet, which is not the case here. A decision under pressure often leads to bad law and charges of partisanship. While I would accuse the Wall Street Journal of such partisanship with incessant and inane attacks against seemingly any and every Democrat, I do not so charge the court. However, the logic behind the decision is questionable, based on their starting point as to whether or not they even had jurisdiction to intervene.