Could one of her constituents sue on her behalf? She was elected to be their voice. They no longer have a voice. First Amendment issue, or too much of a reach?
Even if the court agreed that they had standing, based on this ruling, it would still be a political question and thus be ignored by the court.
As I said before, courts have traditionally been stupidly deferential to the power of a legislative body to manage its own affairs and conduct its own parliamentary business, using the theory of Separation of Powers and the principle of Political Matter. It’s a weakness in what functions as an honor system, when the participants have no honor.
The Republican party has weaponized this.
These Republican legislators are getting rapturous applause from the conservative voters in their gerrymandered districts, which is all that matters to them.
If the correct 40% of Amerika wants an RW authoritarian dictatorship, it is completely lawful for them to erect one over the lawful objections of the other 60%. At least within the letter of the law if not the spirit. And once the courts are loaded with judges who know which of those two attitudes their bread is buttered on, there is nothing to stop this. Nothing.
We may not like this reality, but it is the reality.
And it has already started:
True, but if the courts push this far enough, they could eventually lose their legitimacy (at least in the eyes of the 60% that disagree with their rulings). At that point what you’ve got is a constitutional crisis, and where things go from there is anyone’s guess.
I have a guess: revolution. We’re getting closer and closer.
I didn’t say it was reasonable, only that it was the reason given.