Not that many state engage in partisan elections, 7 in factOr like a large number of states do?
It’s really a horrible way, politics shouldn’t play a role in judicial process
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not that many state engage in partisan elections, 7 in factOr like a large number of states do?
No different than if you filed a lawsuit, but didn't put sufficient postage on the papers you filed with the court. So they get returned for postage, causing delivery by a required date to miss the deadline, And your case is thrown out.Your first sentence is gobbledegook and incorrect
The illegal package failed
You mean like how voters got to choose Kamala to run against Trump instead of Joe?If democrats had their way, there would be no supreme court. You just take a poll and the majority rules.
It was thrown out on the merits. The issue was the dems illegally put the referendum on the ballotNo different than if you filed a lawsuit, but didn't put sufficient postage on the papers you filed with the court. So they get returned for postage, causing delivery by a required date to miss the deadline, And your case is thrown out.
It was thrown out, not on the merits, but on a technicality.
Some stare decisis is more equal than others?
Not that many state engage in partisan elections, 7 in fact
It’s really a horrible way, politics shouldn’t play a role in judicial process
That was a procedural violation. How the referendum was conducted, and it's conclusions were properly done. And would have produced valid results.It was thrown out on the merits. The issue was the dems illegally put the referendum on the ballot
The court said yes yes they did
That’s not the same as missing a deadline and getting your case tossed
It's ironic how throughout the 20th century when we saw radical decisions come out of SCOTUS that benefited the left's agenda Democrats never called the court corrupt or illegitimate (nor did the Republicans). Now that we have a court that rules the closest to the original intent of the Constitution in my lifetime it's suddenly corrupt and needs reformed. This is the same kind of rhetoric and proposed actions we see from far-left socialist regimes throughout the world. They get into power and install their own corrupt thugs to destroy the judicial and constitutional institutions to give them everything they want that they can't win through legitimate means.
![]()
Cory Booker calls Supreme Court ‘profoundly hypocritical’ after voting rights ruling: Full interview
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) joins Meet the Press after the U.S. Supreme Court imposed new limits on the Voting Rights Act and the Virginia Supreme Court overturned a new Democratic-leaning congressional map approved by voters.www.nbcnews.com
No they weren’t, because it was illegally placed on the ballotThat was a procedural violation. How the referendum was conducted, and it's conclusions were properly done. And would have produced valid results.
What you fail to grasp is that Roberts and Alito have from early in their legal careers wanted to get rid of the voting rights act / roe v wade / etc.
And the rational behind doing so doesn't use prior law (stare decisis) or even a through legal analysis,
but instead relies on their own judgement of the state of racism in America. Using the conclusion that racism no longer exists.
Thus the laws enacted by congress and signed into law, no longer have a compelling government interest, and violate the constitutions equal protection.
The Virginia failed gerrymander was ruled unconstitutional by the Virginia court and not by SCOTUS.
The VA court wasn't ask to rule on whether the maps were unconstitutional. They were asked to rule on the procedural effort to get there. They did rule on that and Dems violated the Constitution.The gerrymander wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The procedures to bring about the vote were ruled unconstitutional.
The maps that were drawn would pass constitutional scritiny.
But…but…when when….if…if..When a more unified court determines that a less decisive decision was wrong, then it is correct to throw out the old judgement.
It's no different then when it happens to scientific theories or best practices. When you convince a greater number of scientists or doctors that the old theory or method was wrong, and more of them agree to replace, than had taken the opposite view, that new judgement was rightly made.