- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 24,892
- Reaction score
- 10,598
- Location
- daily dukkha
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.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.
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 rightIf 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
This case should never have been heard. Refer to the Supremacy clause, the Elections clause and the Necessary and Proper clausethe 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.Supreme Court wrestles with ‘independent state legislature’ theory in election case - Washington Examiner
The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments in Moore v. Harper on Wednesday, a dispute between voting rights advocates and North Carolina's Republican-controlled General Assembly, which has the potential to increase the power that state legislatures have over voting issues depending on how...www.washingtonexaminer.com
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.
I’m sorry that killing children is slightly more difficult now. I know that greatly upsets you.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"
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.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.Supreme Court wrestles with ‘independent state legislature’ theory in election case - Washington Examiner
The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments in Moore v. Harper on Wednesday, a dispute between voting rights advocates and North Carolina's Republican-controlled General Assembly, which has the potential to increase the power that state legislatures have over voting issues depending on how...www.washingtonexaminer.com
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.
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:If you're going to lecture an attorney about constitutional interpretation, you should at least try to be coherent.
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 precedentsYou 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.
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 contradictiveThis court isn't to be trusted.
i read this a few time. i cant disagree except on the face of -it's simply saying the plenary power of state legislatureAs 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.
Two justices are automatic shoo-ins; the question is whether three more will be just as insane.
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.
That's much clearer and more succinct (not to mention with far fewer swear words) than I was gonna put it. Thank you.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"
What a ****ing moronic statement. Nobody wants to kill children.I’m sorry that killing children is slightly more difficult now. I know that greatly upsets you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?