Prof. Seidman, in his essay, attempts to defend the Rucho v. Common Cause decision. While acknowledging that this is not easy, he hopes that the reader will at least allow him some points for degree of difficulty. There is no denying that partisan gerrymandering is a very serious evil, and there is no defending Chief Justice Roberts’ dreadful opinion justifying the Court’s refusal to do anything about it. Still, Prof. Seidman argues, on balance, we are better off without the Supreme Court mucking around with this problem. Moreover, the reasons why we are better off go beyond this particular issue and impeach some of the standard arguments for judicial intervention more generally.

Prof. Simard argues in her article that when political questions arise, courts should treat, in most cases, them like every other dispute by relying upon traditional tools of adjudication to resolve the questions presented. When ordinary constitutional interpretation suggests there is no constitutional violation that is remediable by the courts, there is no need to invoke the political question doctrine because courts may rely upon traditional procedural safeguards that test the adequacy of a complaint—lack of standing or failure to state claim.