General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe deranged Supreme Court case that threatens US democracy, explained
Voxhe opening brief in Moore v. Harper, an extraordinarily high-stakes election case that the Supreme Court will hear December 7, is one of the least persuasive documents that Ive ever read in any context. And Ive read both Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged, and Donald Trumps Art of the Deal.
Moore is also potentially the biggest threat to free and fair elections in the United States to reach the Supreme Court in my lifetime and I was alive for Bush v. Gore. Four justices have endorsed the utterly nonsensical legal theory underlying Moore, which means that, unless one of those four has second thoughts, the future of US elections will be decided by Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Under the strongest form of this doctrine, members of each states legislative branch have unchecked authority to decide how elections for Congress and the presidency will be conducted in their state indeed, a state legislature could potentially pass a law canceling the presidential election in that state and awarding its electoral votes to Donald Trump. Any state constitutional provisions that protect the right to vote, that limit gerrymandering, or that otherwise constrain lawmakers ability to skew elections would cease to function. State governors would lose their ability to veto laws impacting federal elections. And state courts would lose their authority to strike down these laws.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2020 concurring opinion endorsing the ISLD, the Constitution provides that state legislatures not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials bear primary responsibility for setting election rules. Notably, this opinion was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who currently sits at the conservative Supreme Courts ideological center.
Link to tweet
raging moderate
(4,314 posts)They want the old first version of the United States, the loose confederation with very few requirements. Or the Confederacy which some southern states tried to form, a similar version with customs similar to European medieval feudalism. They do not want the United States government that was formed by the U.S. Constitution.
LaMouffette
(2,042 posts)or better yet (for them) no elections at all.
CrispyQ
(36,547 posts)MarcA
(2,195 posts)an Unelected Job for Life Court, Electoral College and a Filibustered Senate for the Benefit of the Oligarch$.
LudwigPastorius
(9,220 posts)If Rapey McBeerboy is the idealogical center of the bench, then the other five SCROTUS must be to the right of Atilla the Hun.
Cha
(297,911 posts)Bookmarked.
Marthe48
(17,079 posts)and how do we put a stop to the power grab?
Whoever is planning and plotting has absolutely no regard for democracy, government by the people, for the people. How is it that the people who love freedom are losing out to a bunch of traitors? Because you know the mfrw unelected fake judges sitting on the (formerly) s.c. will vote for this and have orgasms while they destroy the country.
ancianita
(36,190 posts)ancianita
(36,190 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2022, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)
"originalism,"
"states rights,"
"non-delegation'"
"takings,"
"unitary executive theory" doctrines.
All productions of the "doctrine factory" funded by Koch:
the Mercatus Center calls itself a "university-based research center," to give its output of donor ideology an academic varnish;
Geo Mason U., the hothouse that seeds, grows, fertilizes and propagates cover doctrines to spread to
Federalist Society,
Cato Institute,
Heritage Foundation
Cover doctrines get laundered legitimacy through these dark money networks that promote corporate interests and fake freedoms as American public interests. SCOTUS is their tool to hand back to the states the 'doctrinal' power to degrade lawful government and dismantle its lawful protections.
Marthe48
(17,079 posts)I have wished for a long time that the U.S. would have let the the fascists go. I think they'd fit in one state and they could have run it into the ground by now. But no, they live among us, dimming the beacon of what lit the world.
ancianita
(36,190 posts)Imo, it not a matter of whether the U.S. "would have let the fascists go." They've been here since the 30's.
It's the matter of keeping them from coming anywhere near the halls of governmental power in statehouses and Congress.
Yes, they believe that their light grows brighter by blowing out the lights of others. But it doesn't. It darkens the country.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,078 posts)... I have followed PAC's and the dark money network they fostered for decades. It is what gave us the Citizen's United decision of unlimited dark money.
Zeitghost
(3,886 posts)That is entirely Constitutional and was the way we elected Presidents for a number of years. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or federal law that requires a public vote for President.
Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector."
The Supreme Court battle is primarily over Congressional elections, where state legislatures do not have unchecked power.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators."
roamer65
(36,747 posts)They want what Colorado did in 1876. Not hold a popular vote and simply have the Repuke legislatures choose their own electors, Repuke of course.
This will be the end of the republic. Why would states like CA, NY, etc, etc stay for this shit???
They wont or definitely will switch to a sovereignty association model.
Zeitghost
(3,886 posts)And was the normal way to pick a President for the first part of this country's history.
Each state has since passed laws to mandate an election, but there is no federal or constitutional requirement to do so.
This is about congressional elections.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)But if the SCOTUS rules in favor of ISLT, it will negate any possible route of litigating the actions of the state legislatures regarding elections.
Thats what is so dangerous about this case.
Zeitghost
(3,886 posts)It's extremely important.
flying_wahini
(6,679 posts)the curb?
roamer65
(36,747 posts)But they can issue rulings that debase it or mutate its true intent.
Just like they have the 2nd Amendment.
The SCOTUS's job is deciding what's constitutional and what's unconstitutional. Women got the right to vote via an actual amendment to the Constitution that was enacted according to the procedure spelled out in the Constitution itself. That means it is, by definition, constitutional for women to vo
I'm sure they could find ways to screw with it, as you say, but I think there are a lot of other things that are higher on their list of priorities right now. (I almost said "hit list," lol.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)as can the 17th....or any of the others ...
as set forth in the constitution ...
bdamomma
(63,941 posts)she is not qualified to be on the SC.
Orrex
(63,247 posts)Then the people will find other means of effecting change.
Stinky The Clown
(67,834 posts)I can imagine a 5-4 vote with the three liberals and the cowardly chief being on the losing side.