young immigrant twenty one years ago i was nineteen years so i had nothing in my pocket on the third day after landing at j f k i started walking in a chinese takeaway restaurant in pro respectfully disagree with that decision because it is inconsistent with the constitution first the first amendment guarantees every american has the right to  redress of grievances and the fourteenth amendment guarantees every american due process of law and also the right to vote shall not be a breach in any form f y the grievance you're complaining of is shared by everyone because it's part of the constitutional structure and therefore you don't have a specific injury indeed it might be said that if anyone has an injury it's the states because of how the electoral college discriminates among them so that's part of the problem here is that you don't have a particular injury to yourself this is this is a broader one do you do you understand that do you want to say why you disagree with the district judge yes your honor in the supreme court decision  would be questioned by a nobody so that is the president said by the supreme court and the court is recognized that that might sometimes be the case that no one can bring the challenge let me ask you this if because it was wrong to counsel if a so only sixty percent and we all of us here in this courtroom we are not only you knew your residence but also american citizens we are subject to the same further however i will what has been diluted and debased by the electoral college that suggests you might urge a constitutional amendment to change that practice but i'm not sure how any relief as the constitution stands now and one of the requirements of standing is that you bring a claim that a court can redress the injury so so what is it you would ask the court to by the same logic would be equally wrong and unconstitutional to count overwhelming majority of americans today less than sixty percent for the same purpose of allocating electoral votes we but also for lack of such a manager restriction on other bases including the speech or debate clause of the constitution given the fact that the fenton's named in this action are members of congress and who are so named because of their actions as members of that  legislature this court can also dismiss or affirm the dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the political question doctrine which also deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear such a claim indeed  question about how to elect the chief executive of the united states is perhaps the quintessential example of a political question that is left to the political process or as your honor suggested earlier to the constitutional amendment process is low here because as your honor suggested no federal court can compel another branch of the government to take a specific action such as the one the plaintiff is suggesting which goes hand in hand with the idea that certain political matters are not years ago in universe pelosi such a claim that the electoral college process is unconstitutional phil said acclaimed quite simply because they work for colleges part of the has to satisfy in order to meet article three standing just poly addressed injury in fact in his opinion and as your own just did the type of injury here that's claimed is for to die fuz for a court to recognize an injury in fact by plaintiff's own characterization ninety eight percent of the country shares his injury in addition however there is also the fact that there is no causal connection between before name defendants here who are the democratic and republican leaders of congress and the injury which he s right and i can see that some of the logic in that however the constitutional amendment process doesn't necessarily start with the leaders of either the congress of the house or the senate it can start in the states for instance  e if its outcome so whatever they were directed to do would be enough to achieve the desired outcome there are a lot of congressman women have to vote and then there are the states that would have  it is and even the probably even the first step of the process if it started in congress for instance as your honor suggests these four votes even if they are the leaders wouldn't guarantee that the requisite majority in each chamber would vote for s s the electoral college i think that's an argument that's been made before before this court and which has been respectfully dismissed i think the problem with that is the fourteenth amendment or reconstruction or amendments certainly speaks of equal protection in the laws but even the supreme court in applying the equal amendment clause to voting claims against states for instance have said at least in dictum that the electoral college stands alone by virtue of the fact that it is in the federal constitution that it is a an institution that may have an equal effects in the way that mr lew suggests however by virtue of the fact that it is in our constitution you can't really bring a claim under the fourteenth amendment or any other amendments right now compromise that document right exactly o