> but there were also other equally, if not more, legally justifiable theories they could have followed to reach the opposite decision.
Only what the law actually says is justifiable in law.
> For example, a theory that would incorporate the idea that a badly acting legislature cannot be the only one to depend on to curb the badly acting legislature when the bad behavior’s goal and effect is to shape the very mechanism that provides the only check on their behavior, ie voting.
The fact these cases made it to SCOTUS basically ensures there were multiple legal theories that arguably correct. If there was only one true interpretation, the cases would have been solved by a lower court. Then SCOTUS itself was split (along partisan lines no less).
> The fact these cases made it to SCOTUS basically ensures there were multiple legal theories that arguably correct.
That doesn't seem to support the idea that
> For example, a theory that would incorporate the idea that a badly acting legislature cannot be the only one to depend on to curb the badly acting legislature when the bad behavior’s goal and effect is to shape the very mechanism that provides the only check on their behavior, ie voting.
And there were reasonable arguments on both sides. And there were 2 dissents and 1 concurrence filed, so even within the Court, there were different interpretations, even among Justices who agreed (on each side).
Well then you have 4 supreme court justices you need to argue with. What is the law of the land and what is moral don't always line up. All we get is the hope that our system tends toward morality over time.
Only what the law actually says is justifiable in law.
> For example, a theory that would incorporate the idea that a badly acting legislature cannot be the only one to depend on to curb the badly acting legislature when the bad behavior’s goal and effect is to shape the very mechanism that provides the only check on their behavior, ie voting.
On what legal basis is this based on?