What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
81,705
Reaction score
49,693
Points
2,605
Location
Left Coast, Classified

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,736
Reaction score
4,395
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Lefties are filling their diapers up.
Good.

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

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
25,969
Reaction score
15,093
Points
1,290
Lefties are filling their diapers up.
Good.

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

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
45,685
Reaction score
10,360
Points
2,030
"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”). "


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

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
81,745
Reaction score
35,476
Points
2,290
"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”). "


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

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
16,353
Reaction score
26,125
Points
2,288
Location
Texas Hill Country
Lefties are filling their diapers up.
Good.


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

BlindBoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
45,685
Reaction score
10,360
Points
2,030
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
30,481
Reaction score
12,822
Points
1,585
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
81,745
Reaction score
35,476
Points
2,290
Bad precedents do cause change. Like Dred Scott. Sometimes change is messy.
That bad ruling, (precedent) did cause a change. Correct!
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
25,958
Reaction score
24,292
Points
2,415
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.
 
OP
Weatherman2020

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
81,705
Reaction score
49,693
Points
2,605
Location
Left Coast, Classified
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.
1657125999313.png
 

Zincwarrior

Platinum Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
3,589
Reaction score
1,796
Points
918
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

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
25,969
Reaction score
15,093
Points
1,290
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,736
Reaction score
4,395
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
"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”). "


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

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
45,685
Reaction score
10,360
Points
2,030

White 6

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
25,969
Reaction score
15,093
Points
1,290
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.:auiqs.jpg:
 

Zincwarrior

Platinum Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
3,589
Reaction score
1,796
Points
918
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.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top