I can see why Democrats didn’t even bother pretending to claim that they want to expand the Supreme Court because of its workload. Our current SCOTUS is handling that issue by simply refusing to hear a lot of cases that truly demand their attention.

We had two examples on Monday. First, the SCOTUS refused to consider a lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s power to change mail-in voting laws on the now-familiar grounds that it’s “moot” because the election is over.

I honestly don’t understand this argument unless it’s fear of stirring up attacks from the left on anyone who doesn’t robotically swear that the last election was the “most honest, trustworthy, warmest, most wonderful election I’ve ever known in my life.” Even if this election is over, another is coming up, and if nobody settles the question of who’s allowed to write election laws (which I thought we settled by agreeing on Constitutions), then it’s just going to happen over and over again, each time eroding more public faith in the honesty of the outcome.

The SCOTUS also rejected a gun rights case that it should have taken up. The SCOTUS has previously ruled that there can be limits on the Second Amendment, such as barring convicted felons from owning guns; and this appeal was brought by three convicted felons who lost their right to own firearms. But theirs were nonviolent crimes totally unrelated to guns. One was convicted of DUI, another of importing and selling counterfeit cassette tapes, and the third of making a false statement on her income tax form (I assume that’s how the Democrats plan to ban all of us from owning guns.)

Yes, those are felonies, but are they really the type of crimes that should cost someone their Constitutional right to self-defense for life? The Court should at least weigh in. Particularly since the Democrats are arguing that violent felons should get their right to vote returned, but selling fake Milli Vanilli cassettes should cost you your Second Amendment rights permanently.