• 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!

Supreme Court wrestles with 'independent state legislature' theory in election case

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,275
Reaction score
10,371
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the arguments are laid out nicely by the OP. not much to cooment on except I am a great believer in the "4 corners" of the text being decisive
The high court is tasked to decide whether state election laws and political maps passed by state legislatures should continue to be subject to judicial review in state courts. The issue specifically pertains to a Republican gerrymander of North Carolina's 14 House seats that the state's Supreme Court found ran afoul of the state's constitution earlier this year.


Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told the Washington Examiner on a conference call Thursday that Moore is an "immensely important case" and is "fundamentally about what the [U.S. Constitution's] elections clause says," adding that the case outcome could decide "which institution is in the driver's seat" when it comes to establishing election laws and redistricting.

North Carolina GOP lawmakers who say “the times, places and manner” of holding elections was specifically assigned by the Constitution to state legislatures. In essence, the legislatures argue state courts should have no more say in overturning or changing election laws than they can in overriding other federal laws with nationwide impact.


On the other side of the argument, critics of the independent state legislature theory allege a near-complete embrace of the North Carolina GOP's argument could have lasting impacts including depriving constituents of crucial voting rights protections and upending historical understandings of the Constitution.
 
Title should be: Federalist Society wrestles with what objective-sounding legal language to use to make it sound quasi-reasonable to give the GOP what it needs to steal elections in perpetuity.

If three justices are part of a six-justice overwhelming majority and those three justices lied their asses off by telling hypertechnical truths ("Roe is settled law") so that they could overturn Roe, thus completing the first stated Federalist Society mission, you can't trust anything they say. I don't think people realize just how staggering this is.

They said it was settled law despite intending to throw it out the first chance they got. They know what they were being asked, and it sure as hell wasn't "justice, I'm stupid, could you please tell me whether or not Roe is the law of the land right now"
 
Title should be: Federalist Society wrestles with what objective-sounding legal language to use to make it sound quasi-reasonable to give the GOP what it needs to steal elections in perpetuity.
The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would take up a widely anticipated elections case that has the potential to upend state courts’ ability to regulate federal elections.
The high-stakes case, Moore v. Harper,
If three justices are part of a six-justice overwhelming majority and those three justices lied their asses off by telling hypertechnical truths ("Roe is settled law") so that they could overturn Roe, thus completing the first stated Federalist Society mission, you can't trust anything they say. I don't think people realize just how staggering this is.

They said it was settled law despite intending to throw it out the first chance they got. They know what they were being asked, and it sure as hell wasn't "justice, I'm stupid, could you please tell me whether or not Roe is the law of the land right now"
stare decisis is still able to be overturned. I thought it bad ideas for that reason however the fact the implied right just wasnt supportable But enouh deflection. This case is the plain text of the Constitution is in play not an implied right
 
Two justices are automatic shoo-ins; the question is whether three more will be just as insane.
 
stare decisis is still able to be overturned. I thought it bad ideas for that reason however the fact the implied right just wasnt supportable But enouh deflection. This case is the plain text of the Constitution is in play not an implied right

If you're going to lecture an attorney about constitutional interpretation, you should at least try to be coherent. You should also make sure you understand basic history, which would provide knowledge such as that the founders in no way intended the constitution to be an itemized exhaustive list, and in fact that all but two framers at that hot Philly shindig intended that the Supreme Court use English common law methods of interpretation. You should probably also gain a bit of understanding of how the English common law functioned.

This court isn't to be trusted.
 
The issue of election laws (in general) is made more complicated since federal, state and local elections are (generally) intermixed (combined?) at the polling places. If the only thing being challenged is who can determine US House (congressional) district boundaries then the US Constitution should prevail, otherwise it’s a more complicated matter.
 
I wonder how much horrible stuff Gen Z is going to have to come along and reverse.
 
the arguments are laid out nicely by the OP. not much to cooment on except I am a great believer in the "4 corners" of the text being decisive
The high court is tasked to decide whether state election laws and political maps passed by state legislatures should continue to be subject to judicial review in state courts. The issue specifically pertains to a Republican gerrymander of North Carolina's 14 House seats that the state's Supreme Court found ran afoul of the state's constitution earlier this year.


Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told the Washington Examiner on a conference call Thursday that Moore is an "immensely important case" and is "fundamentally about what the [U.S. Constitution's] elections clause says," adding that the case outcome could decide "which institution is in the driver's seat" when it comes to establishing election laws and redistricting.

North Carolina GOP lawmakers who say “the times, places and manner” of holding elections was specifically assigned by the Constitution to state legislatures. In essence, the legislatures argue state courts should have no more say in overturning or changing election laws than they can in overriding other federal laws with nationwide impact.


On the other side of the argument, critics of the independent state legislature theory allege a near-complete embrace of the North Carolina GOP's argument could have lasting impacts including depriving constituents of crucial voting rights protections and upending historical understandings of the Constitution.
This case should never have been heard. Refer to the Supremacy clause, the Elections clause and the Necessary and Proper clause
 
Title should be: Federalist Society wrestles with what objective-sounding legal language to use to make it sound quasi-reasonable to give the GOP what it needs to steal elections in perpetuity.

If three justices are part of a six-justice overwhelming majority and those three justices lied their asses off by telling hypertechnical truths ("Roe is settled law") so that they could overturn Roe, thus completing the first stated Federalist Society mission, you can't trust anything they say. I don't think people realize just how staggering this is.

They said it was settled law despite intending to throw it out the first chance they got. They know what they were being asked, and it sure as hell wasn't "justice, I'm stupid, could you please tell me whether or not Roe is the law of the land right now"
I’m sorry that killing children is slightly more difficult now. I know that greatly upsets you.
 
the arguments are laid out nicely by the OP. not much to cooment on except I am a great believer in the "4 corners" of the text being decisive
The high court is tasked to decide whether state election laws and political maps passed by state legislatures should continue to be subject to judicial review in state courts. The issue specifically pertains to a Republican gerrymander of North Carolina's 14 House seats that the state's Supreme Court found ran afoul of the state's constitution earlier this year.


Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told the Washington Examiner on a conference call Thursday that Moore is an "immensely important case" and is "fundamentally about what the [U.S. Constitution's] elections clause says," adding that the case outcome could decide "which institution is in the driver's seat" when it comes to establishing election laws and redistricting.

North Carolina GOP lawmakers who say “the times, places and manner” of holding elections was specifically assigned by the Constitution to state legislatures. In essence, the legislatures argue state courts should have no more say in overturning or changing election laws than they can in overriding other federal laws with nationwide impact.


On the other side of the argument, critics of the independent state legislature theory allege a near-complete embrace of the North Carolina GOP's argument could have lasting impacts including depriving constituents of crucial voting rights protections and upending historical understandings of the Constitution.
As I understand it, the case does not concern whether state constitutions can limit the legislature’s discretion in regard to federal elections, but only whether the State Supreme Court can willfully misinterpret it to help their party. The presently state of affairs is that State Supreme Courts have unlimited discretion in misinterpreting their state constitutions, though some SCOTUS justices seem open to changing that.
 
If you're going to lecture an attorney about constitutional interpretation, you should at least try to be coherent.
i was coherent - you cant refute the simple notion stare decisis is still able to be overturned so you go into a song and dance deflection here:
You should also make sure you understand basic history, which would provide knowledge such as that the founders in no way intended the constitution to be an itemized exhaustive list, and in fact that all but two framers at that hot Philly shindig intended that the Supreme Court use English common law methods of interpretation. You should probably also gain a bit of understanding of how the English common law functioned.
framers opinions arent binding . the final text is. Marbury vs. Madison is the controlling way for SCOTUS to interpret and they aren't bound by any other legal precedents
This court isn't to be trusted.
your opinion dressed up as Constitutional review. They testified they respect to stare decisis. I also recall Barret at least making the distinction between precedent and "super precedent" - so she is not contradictive
 
Here is a thought to avoid the politics of "political boundary maps".

- Continue with how the number of House Representatives is determined.
- The election for Representatives would be done on a Statewide basis like it is for the Senate.
If a State has 4 Representatives, the top 4 would get seats on Congress.
- State can layout whatever Congressional Districts they want.
- After the election the State would conduct a drawing to determine which elected Rep would get what district.
- Maybe then the elected Representative would actually go to work to represent the people in the district.

Not knowing what area one might represent would take the political bs out of it.

It would also eliminate the running unopposed that occurs.
 
As I understand it, the case does not concern whether state constitutions can limit the legislature’s discretion in regard to federal elections, but only whether the State Supreme Court can willfully misinterpret it to help their party. The presently state of affairs is that State Supreme Courts have unlimited discretion in misinterpreting their state constitutions, though some SCOTUS justices seem open to changing that.
i read this a few time. i cant disagree except on the face of -it's simply saying the plenary power of state legislature
on the "time place and manner" of federal elections cannot be over-riden by executive branch sec of states
and the state supreme court cannot rule in favor of such....basically what you say, agreed
 
As I understand it, the case does not concern whether state constitutions can limit the legislature’s discretion in regard to federal elections, but only whether the State Supreme Court can willfully misinterpret it to help their party. The presently state of affairs is that State Supreme Courts have unlimited discretion in misinterpreting their state constitutions, though some SCOTUS justices seem open to changing that.

1670446323270.png

Incorrect. One of the foundations of the case is that there are no constraints on the State Legislatures under either State Constitutions or State Election Law AND that the State Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with State Legislatures regardless of what the State Constitution says.

Basically the State Legislatures are NOT bound be state law.

WW
 
Title should be: Federalist Society wrestles with what objective-sounding legal language to use to make it sound quasi-reasonable to give the GOP what it needs to steal elections in perpetuity.

If three justices are part of a six-justice overwhelming majority and those three justices lied their asses off by telling hypertechnical truths ("Roe is settled law") so that they could overturn Roe, thus completing the first stated Federalist Society mission, you can't trust anything they say. I don't think people realize just how staggering this is.

They said it was settled law despite intending to throw it out the first chance they got. They know what they were being asked, and it sure as hell wasn't "justice, I'm stupid, could you please tell me whether or not Roe is the law of the land right now"
That's much clearer and more succinct (not to mention with far fewer swear words) than I was gonna put it. Thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom