But it’s not. There is no question: it’s explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a political question. Or just abandoning the Constitution is an option. And of course the Constitution gives Congress the political power to re-add someone to the ballot by a political vote. The Court did what they should (except I think there is legitimate legal question about whether this should only have applied to the final ballot instead of primaries). What is done next is the political part.
IMO this issue should be considered a political question by the courts, based on the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, in which voters can approve or correct the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision.
But it’s not. There is no question: it’s explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a political question. Or just abandoning the Constitution is an option. And of course the Constitution gives Congress the political power to re-add someone to the ballot by a political vote. The Court did what they should (except I think there is legitimate legal question about whether this should only have applied to the final ballot instead of primaries). What is done next is the political part.