Do you agree with this answers about why courts decide to not to decide ?

"...

The reason some courts don't make a decision on a case is because of two main things that I gathered from this chapter. The first is whether or not the case has justifiability which as defined by the textbook is that justifiability "allows courts to exercise restraint and deny access to cases not deemed 'fit' for resolution" (294). The second most common reason is that a person has to have standing for a case be have a ruling. As so our textbook states they have to have "a personal stake in the outcome" (289) otherwise it will not be reviewed.

I think to a reasonable measure, everyone should have their cases looked into. However, there are some cases where they shouldn't like if an individual is trying to get a case heard in retrospect to another person. In that case I'm not sure that case ruling will help that individual. Regardless I do think that to a limitation there should be a policy to review these cases.

I think one beneficial issue that has not yet been decided on would be the electoral map issue as stated in our chapter. Where the states districts aren't being drawn fairly, but for a political power towards one radical side or the other. I think with a fair ruling on this issue and set draw districts we could also create fair voting and better representation for everyone, and maybe even begin to truly remove racism..."