Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse

[berg80]

This is what makes the decision on Moore v Harper so potentially dangerous.

The Supreme Court just said federal courts can’t stop partisan gerrymandering

It was a 5-4 ruling, with the conservatives in the majority.

www.vox.com

The ruling the SC has no place ruling on gerrymandering cases sets up actions taken by legislatures as unreviewable by any entity should the Court give them unilateral power. Not just to gerrymander but to set election laws.

 

[miketx]

This is what makes the decision on Moore v Harper so potentially dangerous.

The Supreme Court just said federal courts can’t stop partisan gerrymandering

It was a 5-4 ruling, with the conservatives in the majority.

www.vox.com

The ruling the SC has no place ruling on gerrymandering cases sets up actions taken by legislatures as unreviewable by any entity should the Court give them unilateral power. Not just to gerrymander but to set election laws.

Anything so demoskanks can cheat, eh?

 

[berg80]

Activists have long hoped that the Supreme Court would act to rein in partisan gerrymandering — but on Thursday, the justices dashed those hopes.

“Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the Court’s other four conservatives, wrote in the 5-4 Rucho v. Common Cause decision. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

The upshot of the ruling is that the federal courts cannot strike down district maps because they are designed to help or hurt a particular political party. This will put an end to a trend of the past few years, in which several lower court judges have tried to do just that.

Federal courts still have the power to strike down maps designed to dilute the voting power of racial minorities, or maps that violate the “one person, one vote” principle. Supreme Court precedent in both areas is well established, and Thursday’s decision did nothing to change it.

I can't help wondering if Moore V Harper, a case with a ridiculous premise that never should have been taken up by the SC, is part of a coordinated effort to allow Repub controlled states to eventually have the legislature decide on the slate of electors sent in for presidential elections.

 

[berg80]

Next Time Trump Tries to Steal an Election, He Won’t Need a Mob

This radical interpretation of the Elections Clause of the Constitution also extends to the Presidential Electors Clause, such that during a presidential election year, state legislatures could allocate Electoral College votes in any way they see fit, at any point in the process. As I argued earlier this year, we could see Republican-led states pass laws that would allow them to send alternative slates of electors, overruling the will of the voters and doing legally what Donald Trump and his conspirators pressured Republicans in Arizona and Georgia to do illegally. Under the independent state legislature doctrine, the next time Trump tries to overturn the results of an election he lost, he won’t need a mob.

There are many problems with this doctrine beyond the outcomes it was engineered to produce. Some are logical — the theory seems to suggest that state legislatures are somehow separate and apart from state constitutions — and some are historical. And among the historical problems is the fact that Americans have never really wanted to entrust their state legislatures with the kind of sweeping electoral powers that this theory would confer.
Opinion | Next Time Trump Tries to Steal an Election, He Won’t Need a Mob

 

[miketx]

Next Time Trump Tries to Steal an Election, He Won’t Need a Mob

This radical interpretation of the Elections Clause of the Constitution also extends to the Presidential Electors Clause, such that during a presidential election year, state legislatures could allocate Electoral College votes in any way they see fit, at any point in the process. As I argued earlier this year, we could see Republican-led states pass laws that would allow them to send alternative slates of electors, overruling the will of the voters and doing legally what Donald Trump and his conspirators pressured Republicans in Arizona and Georgia to do illegally. Under the independent state legislature doctrine, the next time Trump tries to overturn the results of an election he lost, he won’t need a mob.

There are many problems with this doctrine beyond the outcomes it was engineered to produce. Some are logical — the theory seems to suggest that state legislatures are somehow separate and apart from state constitutions — and some are historical. And among the historical problems is the fact that Americans have never really wanted to entrust their state legislatures with the kind of sweeping electoral powers that this theory would confer.
Opinion | Next Time Trump Tries to Steal an Election, He Won’t Need a Mob

Nice lie Goebbels.

 

[scruffy]

Please don't.
Your message is being read but don't expect a rational reply from those who applaud the issue you raise.
There are still some ways of being effective without going with the spamming.

Your country is at risk of a fascist takeover of democracy.

That should make it worthwhile to you annd other Americans to keep your hand in.

Shut up, foreign cuck.

 

[scruffy]

Apparently, I need to speak the depraved language of Repubs on the board to get folks to respond. So here goes.

You guys are fucktards.

You're not worth responding to.

You've already clearly demonstrated that you fail to grasp simple logic.

It's not worth talking to you.

 

[Independentthinker]

A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6​

The Supreme Court’s announcement on Thursday that it will hear Moore v. Harper, a case that could concentrate an unprecedented amount of power in gerrymandered state legislatures, should alarm anyone who cares about democracy.

The case is perhaps the gravest threat to American democracy since the January 6 attack. It seeks to reinstate gerrymandered congressional maps that were struck down by North Carolina’s highest court because they “subordinated traditional neutral redistricting criteria in favor of extreme partisan advantage” for the Republican Party.

The plaintiffs argue that the state supreme court didn’t have the authority to strike down these maps, and rest their claim on legal arguments that would fundamentally alter how congressional and presidential elections are conducted.

Moore involves the “independent state legislature doctrine,” a theory that the Supreme Court has rejected many times over the course of more than a century — but that started to gain steam after Republican appointees gained a supermajority on the Supreme Court at the end of the Trump administration.

A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6

Moore v. Harper is a grave threat to US democracy, and the fate of that democracy probably comes down to Amy Coney Barrett.

www.vox.com

Given the Court's propensity for making ideological rather than legally based rulings, this one seems like a foregone conclusion. It will empower Repubs to structure districts to ensure they remain in power even when they receive a minority of votes.

Today, we answer this question: does our state constitution recognize that the people of this state have the power to choose those who govern us, by giving each of us an equally powerful voice through our vote? Or does our constitution give to members of the General Assembly, as they argue here, unlimited power to draw electoral maps that keep themselves and our members of Congress in office as long as they want, regardless of the will of the people, by making some votes more powerful than others? We hold that our constitution’s Declaration of Rights guarantees the equal power of each person’s voice in our government through voting in elections that matter.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/20220317132500136_2022-03-17-Moore-Appendix.pdf

It is naked power grabs like this that cause me to encourage Dems to fight fire with fire. Manchin's naivete comes to mind. Holding to the silly notion there are still Repubs of good will, willing to compromise for the greater good. If Trump's presidency and McConnell's duplicity in stealing two SC seats teaches us anything it's we have jettisoned the era of tradition, protocol, mutual respect, and precedent. Nowadays, it's all about obtaining power by any means available with no regard for the consequences. And boy, the Repubs are good at it.

Why do you attack our democracy? The judicial branch makes up one third of our government and the US SC is the highest part of the judicial branch.