Judge Luttig on SCOTUS granting cert on case involving State Legislature's power over elections

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Unrolled thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1543317049312780289.html


The argument from the constitutional text of the Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1) that the North Carolina Supreme Court properly interpreted the United States Constitution

in its decision in Moore v. Harper rejecting the state General Assembly’s congressional map is as follows

-- whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately embraces the “independent state legislature” theory of constitutional interpretation.

The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides that, “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections . . . shall be prescribed in each State . . . by the Legislature thereof.”

Where, as in North Carolina, the legislature has “prescribed” the “Manner” in which the federal congressional “Elections” shall be “held” to include judicial review of the legislature’s own elections and congressional districting decisions,

“the Legislature [has] prescribed the Manner of holding Elections” to incorporate judicial review of the legislature’s elections and congressional districting decisions -- within both the letter and intendment of the Constitution.

Any eventual conclusion by the Supreme Court of the United States otherwise
would entail an unconstitutional commandeering of the powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Interpreting either the Elections Clause of Article I or the Electors Clause of Article 2 to authorize such commandeering

would offend not only the fundamental structural command of the Tenth Amendment, but also the essential design of the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court to Hear Case on State Legislatures’ Power Over Elections
The case, about a North Carolina voting map, has the potential to amplify the influence of state lawmakers over federal elections.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/politics/state-legislatures-elections-supreme-court.html?smid=url-share
• • •

[brush]

1. Judge Luttig is on the side of justice. The SCOTUS Taliban 6...

not so much.

[dpibel]

2. I give Luttig credit

for having now had a come to jesus moment.

But he's been part of the right-wing lunacy for a long time.

This is another example of Dr. Frankenstein trying to say, "I had no idea the monster would do THAT!"

When any sane person would have known that, by their nature, monsters monster.

[calimary]

6. I've heard him described as "a conservative's conservative."

Wonder if they’ll try an end run around him?

[TigressDem]

3. This seems promising:

North Carolina authorized state court review of the redistricting legislation, then when the courts did as they were asked, had a fit.


They CAN'T have it both ways. By their own authorization, the state courts were permitted to review it and they did.




https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/politics/state-legislatures-elections-supreme-court.html?smid=url-share


Lawyers defending the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling in the new case said it was a poor vehicle for resolving the scope of the independent state legislature doctrine, as the legislature itself had authorized state courts to review redistricting legislation.

[dweller]

4. That's the way I read this

and the whole ‘independent state legislature theory’ (not doctrine) is just an attempt to rewrite the state constitution based on a rwnj (read right wing legislators) interpretation without legislation to do so … ie, ‘we want a do over’
so we pulled this ‘doctrine from our fascist tuchas’

What’s concerning is the SCROTUS accepting it for hearing


✌🏻

[TigressDem]

5. BUT IF they go Mike Pence or Liz Cheney and decide the State needs to abide it's original intent...

Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2022, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe we need LARGER crowds at the Supreme Court Building.

DON'T DESTROY DEMOCRACY JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO!!



Yes, Clarence Thomas, we mean YOU.

Yes, Samuel Alito, we mean YOU.

Yes, Brett Kavanaugh, we mean YOU.

Yes, Amy Coney Barrett, we mean YOU.

Yes, Neil Gorsuch, we mean YOU.


QUIT LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH!!

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Hey!!! Keep those bozos in line!!

Apologies to John Roberts who actually voted to uphold Roe.

Yes, John Roberts, we mean YOU. - removed


DO THE RIGHT THING.


LET AMERICANS VOTE COUNT.


DO NOT DESTROY AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

[TigressDem]

8. Apologies to John Roberts. He DID NOT vote to overturn Roe V Wade

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-voted-against-roe-v-wade-how-each-supreme-court-justice-ruled-on-overturning/2866182/

Justices Who Voted to Uphold Roe v. Wade

Stephen G. Breyer

Sonia Sotomayor

Elena Kagan

Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor warned overturning Roe v. Wade would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and even potentially contraception.

The majority “eliminates a 50-year-old constitutional right that safeguards women’s freedom and equal station," according to their dissent. "It breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote constancy in the law. In doing all of that, it places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage. And finally, it undermines the Court’s legitimacy.”

John G. Roberts, Jr.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts urged the court not to overturn the landmark decision.

“Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis,” he wrote.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. There is a possibility we may have seen our last fair and free presidential election

Link to tweet