“The Nightmare Scenario SCOTUS is Plotting For the 2024 Election Takeover” – Fear Mongering Over Upcoming Moore v. Harper Case

[Weatherman2020]

Lefties are filling their diapers up.
Good.

'The Nightmare Scenario SCOTUS is Plotting For the 2024 Election Takeover' – Fear Mongering Over Upcoming Moore v. Harper Case

Lefty Radio Host Thom Hartmann: 'Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced — a story that has largely flown under the nation’s political radar — that they’ll consider pre-rigging the presidential election of 2024.'

legalinsurrection.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

Lefties are filling their diapers up.
Good.

'The Nightmare Scenario SCOTUS is Plotting For the 2024 Election Takeover' – Fear Mongering Over Upcoming Moore v. Harper Case

Lefty Radio Host Thom Hartmann: 'Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced — a story that has largely flown under the nation’s political radar — that they’ll consider pre-rigging the presidential election of 2024.'

legalinsurrection.com

It’s funny, the liberals are afraid that SCOTUS will follow the very clear requirements of the Constitution. This isn’t even a case of interpretation, it’s plain language that the lower courts are disregarding for political ends. As bad as California is, at least the liberals there used a initiative to pass their gerrymandering scheme that made it impossible for conservatives to ever have any power in that state ever again. Now you have Democrat’s running against Democrats for many offices and positions.

 

[White 6]

Lefties are filling their diapers up.
Good.

'The Nightmare Scenario SCOTUS is Plotting For the 2024 Election Takeover' – Fear Mongering Over Upcoming Moore v. Harper Case

Lefty Radio Host Thom Hartmann: 'Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced — a story that has largely flown under the nation’s political radar — that they’ll consider pre-rigging the presidential election of 2024.'

legalinsurrection.com

Interesting. What do you think? Do you think the Supreme Court will rule so that voting districts can be carved up, gerrymandered at will, so that the party with the least voters can rule supreme without having to be popular with the people of the state being represented, with nothing the state or federal courts can do about it?

 

[BlindBoo]

"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.” These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”). "

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

They just overturned a near 50 year old precedent, why not go for a 100 year old one.

 

[TNHarley]

"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.” These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”). "

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

They just overturned a near 50 year old precedent, why not go for a 100 year old one.

If precedents are bad, shouldnt they be changed? Thats the definition of progress.

 

[marvin martian]

Lefties are filling their diapers up.
Good.

'The Nightmare Scenario SCOTUS is Plotting For the 2024 Election Takeover' – Fear Mongering Over Upcoming Moore v. Harper Case

Lefty Radio Host Thom Hartmann: 'Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced — a story that has largely flown under the nation’s political radar — that they’ll consider pre-rigging the presidential election of 2024.'

legalinsurrection.com

Pure projection. It's good in this case, because now we know exactly what the DemoKKKrats' plan is.

 

[BlindBoo]

If precedents are bad, shouldnt they be changed? Thats the definition of progress.

Bad precedents do cause change. Like Dred Scott. Sometimes change is messy.

 

[22lcidw]

Interesting. What do you think? Do you think the Supreme Court will rule so that voting districts can be carved up, gerrymandered at will, so that the party with the least voters can rule supreme without having to be popular with the people of the state being represented, with nothing the state or federal courts can do about it?

This is basic. Who pays and who receives? Does Nancy pay? She is demonic. Just one.

 

[TNHarley]

Bad precedents do cause change. Like Dred Scott. Sometimes change is messy.

That bad ruling, (precedent) did cause a change. Correct!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Dem voters actually believe that the Democrat Party doesn't gerrymander to their advantage.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The never-ending irony is that the idiot Dems scream "end of democracy" whilst they comit mass voter fraud and ballot rigging crimes.
They think that the Constitution is a right wing plot against them.

 

[Hellokitty]

We know liberals will go into hysterics over this, I want to hear from fat ass Barr who has been all over MSM declaring the 2020 elections were done by the book.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Interesting. What do you think? Do you think the Supreme Court will rule so that voting districts can be carved up, gerrymandered at will, so that the party with the least voters can rule supreme without having to be popular with the people of the state being represented, with nothing the state or federal courts can do about it?

I leave that to you.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Interesting. What do you think? Do you think the Supreme Court will rule so that voting districts can be carved up, gerrymandered at will, so that the party with the least voters can rule supreme without having to be popular with the people of the state being represented, with nothing the state or federal courts can do about it?

I do actually, else they wouldn't take it up.

 

[White 6]

This is basic. Who pays and who receives? Does Nancy pay? She is demonic. Just one.

I kind of doubt, ole Nancy has the Supreme Court in her handbag. Demonic? Get real. She's a piece of work, but not the anti-Christ. You guys really go after the ones you don't like. I take it, you are a Californian, due to your knowledge of her. Voter her out, but better do it fast, before she crumbles before your eyes. She's 82 and makes Bette Midler look young.

 

[AZrailwhale]

"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.” These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”). "

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

They just overturned a near 50 year old precedent, why not go for a 100 year old one.

The language in the Constitution is plain and very clear.

 

[BlindBoo]

The language in the Constitution is plain and very clear.

So is the hundred years of precedent.

 

[White 6]

I leave that to you.
View attachment 666971

Dang, Weatherdude! Your getting better at unspecific answers than I am at unspecific questions. Informative, but nothing to be pinned down on. Congrats!

 

[White 6]

I do actually, else they wouldn't take it up.

Can't say you are wrong. Weatherman's thesis title could be accurate. I tried to get his exact opinion and what he thought of it, he sidestepped with information. You'd think he was OP on a political thread on a message board.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The language in the Constitution is plain and very clear.

Except legislature can have OI intent of meaning the state's law making system, aka the state's election system are governed by the duly passed legislation. Legislatures after all, pass laws only.

Further, in the case at issue, the state legislature itself passed legislation allowing state court oversight.

Otherwise this is literally a legal loophole. It allows legislatures only to decide everything without the normal process of law making. Legislatures who themselves benefit directly. Given the structure of the Constitution is one of multiple branches and controls, it goes completely against the structure of the rest of the government.