• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the Supreme Court could make it legal to steal the next presidential election

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
112,306
Reaction score
102,505
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How the Supreme Court could make it legal to steal the next presidential election

iu

7.11.22
Our conservative Supreme Court stands ready to allow states to legally steal presidential elections by blessing a right-wing legal theory called independent state legislature doctrine. It is not an overstatement to say that this case could completely upend elections and erase the power of our votes for president. The independent state legislature doctrine, really more of a theory, relies on two portions of the Constitution: the elections clause and the presidential electors clause. The elections clause provides that state legislatures determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections. The presidential electors clause provides that state legislatures decide how to appoint electors to send to the Electoral College. Those who support this theory argue that the word “legislatures” in both clauses can only mean state lawmakers, that is, not the broader group of government officials, including governors, state judges and state secretaries of state, who are involved in lawmaking. If the court concludes that, contrary to centuries of understanding, only state lawmakers can make decisions about federal elections and how to appoint electors, then that would mean that state courts cannot review those decisions, even if they patently violate a state’s constitution.

State lawmakers’ decisions would be insulated from state judicial review. Only federal judges could second-guess the decisions state lawmakers made regarding federal elections and the appointment of electors, and then only on federal legal issues. What are some decisions that state lawmakers might want to make without anyone in the state government allowed to check them? They could make it harder to vote by making it more difficult to register, by reducing the number of polling places, by eliminating early voting and by reducing or eliminating voting by mail. Separately, lawmakers in states such as Arizona, California and Colorado could abolish the independent redistricting commissions that draw state and federal district lines in their states and then draw their own lines. And as long as they are drawing their own district lines, they could then gerrymander them to favor the party in power. The independent state legislature case that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear will be argued at some point during its term that begins in October and decided by the end of June 2023: that is, in plenty enough time for the 2024 presidential election.
Click to expand...


Way back in 2019, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that it had no role in deciding questions regarding partisan gerrymandering. But it told us not to worry, because state courts could still police those issues and protect voters’ rights from partisan overreach. Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Since then, however, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have signaled their openness to the "independent state legislature theory". The independent state legislature theory coupled with the court’s 2019 decision, essentially means neither federal nor state judges could police gerrymandering or elections.

Here's how the Supreme Court's decision in a major election case could affect voting in 2024
 
Rogue Valley said:
How the Supreme Court could make it legal to steal the next presidential election

iu




Way back in 2019, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that it had no role in deciding questions regarding partisan gerrymandering. But it told us not to worry, because state courts could still police those issues and protect voters’ rights from partisan overreach. Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Since then, however, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have signaled their openness to the "independent state legislature theory". The independent state legislature theory coupled with the court’s 2019 decision, essentially means neither federal nor state judges could police gerrymandering or elections.

Here's how the Supreme Court's decision in a major election case could affect voting in 2024
Click to expand...
There is no indication that any state legislature wants to "steal" any election. There are a lot of state legislatures who want to be able to prevent elections from being stolen.

The people objecting to this are the ones who want to be able to steal elections.
 
Mycroft said:
There is no indication that any state legislature wants to "steal" any election. There are a lot of state legislatures who want to be able to prevent elections from being stolen.

The people objecting to this are the ones who want to be able to steal elections.
Click to expand...
Yeah right. Just turn it around. No explanation. No nothing. Know nothing.
 
If the independent state legislature doctrine is ruled constitutional by the SC, the “rigged”elections that people fulminated against will come to fruition…
 
Mycroft said:
There is no indication that any state legislature wants to "steal" any election. There are a lot of state legislatures who want to be able to prevent elections from being stolen.

The people objecting to this are the ones who want to be able to steal elections.
Click to expand...
BS, just another right wing message. Everyone knows that the GO wants the states controlled by its party to steal elections they lose in the future.
 
Rogue Valley said:
How the Supreme Court could make it legal to steal the next presidential election

iu




Way back in 2019, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that it had no role in deciding questions regarding partisan gerrymandering. But it told us not to worry, because state courts could still police those issues and protect voters’ rights from partisan overreach. Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Since then, however, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have signaled their openness to the "independent state legislature theory". The independent state legislature theory coupled with the court’s 2019 decision, essentially means neither federal nor state judges could police gerrymandering or elections.

Here's how the Supreme Court's decision in a major election case could affect voting in 2024
Click to expand...
This is an ideology driven court. Prior opinions only count when they agree with it.
 
independentusa said:
BS, just another right wing message. Everyone knows that the GO wants the states controlled by its party to steal elections they lose in the future.
Click to expand...
BS. All state legislatures want to be able to prevent elections from being stolen. No one, except fake "independents" and liberals, believe differently.
 
Michael Cole said:
Yeah right. Just turn it around. No explanation. No nothing. Know nothing.
Click to expand...
shrug...

Just turning it around the right way.

Tell me...have any state legislatures indicated they want to steal an election?
 
independentusa said:
BS, just another right wing message. Everyone knows that the GO wants the states controlled by its party to steal elections they lose in the future.
Click to expand...
If "everyone knows", then you should have no problem presenting some facts to support what "everyone knows".
 
mrjurrs said:
This is an ideology driven court. Prior opinions only count when they agree with it.
Click to expand...
No, this is a Constitutionally driven court. You folks who have had it the other way for so long are having a meltdown. Prior opinions are suspect and getting another look, finally.
 
Mycroft said:
The people objecting to this are the ones who want to be able to steal elections.
Click to expand...
Does this ^ include those that continue to peddle Trump’s Big Lie?
 
Michael Cole said:
Dumb question. The fact this is before the Court answers it.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

The fact that this is before the court is that someone has made a claim. Maybe they can tell you what state legislatures have said about wanting to steal elections.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Does this ^ include those that continue to peddle Trump’s Big Lie?
Click to expand...
No. Those people include those who are peddling the nonsense that there is a "big lie".
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Confirms, yet again, status as card carrying member of Trump Big Lie club. 👍
Click to expand...
I don't need any confirmation of your alignment with the useful idiot club. You proclaim it loudly every time you post.

You are dismissed.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't need any confirmation of your alignment with the useful idiot club. You proclaim it loudly every time you post.

You are dismissed.
Click to expand...
😄 You’re in the biggest UI club in America. It truly takes a special kind of “I” to believe Trump’s gigantic lie when there’s no evidence to support it.
 
smallvoice said:
BS. All state legislatures want to be able to prevent elections from being stolen. No one, except fake "independents" and liberals, believe differently.
Click to expand...
Bookmarking this for when the GOP state legislatures throw out the will of the people just because they lost.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The independent state legislature theory coupled with the court’s 2019 decision, essentially means neither federal nor state judges could police gerrymandering or elections.
Click to expand...
Nope. If state legislature violate the Federal Constitution or Federal law, they can be stopped by Federal courts.
 
Elmo said:
Bookmarking this for when the GOP state legislatures throw out the will of the people just because they lost.
Click to expand...
How about when the Dem State Legislatures joining the Popular Vote Compact throw out the will of their people?
 
It was a decision by North Carolina's Supreme Court that brought this case before the SCOTUS. After the GOP controlled state legislature drew up a district map which suppressed the representation of those Black voters - yaknow, gerrymandering - the NC Court ruled that the GOPers were bad boys and then had an independent commission create new district maps that provided fairer representation for Democratic registered voters. Naturally, the GOPers filed suit, claiming they were only doing the people's work and that the state court had no right to change the legislature's district map.
 
There's an easy, commonsense way of setting districts.

You already have counties. Have the counties act as districts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom