Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMajor case weighing survival of democratic elections is before SC today.
Link to tweet
Reich retweeted: @SDonziger@twitter.com
Link to tweet
The deranged Supreme Court case that threatens US democracy, explained
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.
The case involves the awkwardly named independent state legislature doctrine (ISLD), a theory that the Supreme Court rejected many times over the course of more than a century. Its also a theory repudiated by many of the very same sources that the ISLD proponents rely upon in their briefs to the justices.
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.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/4/23481063/supreme-court-moore-harper-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-elections
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.
The case involves the awkwardly named independent state legislature doctrine (ISLD), a theory that the Supreme Court rejected many times over the course of more than a century. Its also a theory repudiated by many of the very same sources that the ISLD proponents rely upon in their briefs to the justices.
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.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/4/23481063/supreme-court-moore-harper-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-elections
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 767 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Major case weighing survival of democratic elections is before SC today. (Original Post)
JudyM
Dec 2022
OP
JohnSJ
(92,233 posts)2. If they are stupid enough to allow that, then the country is gone
JudyM
(29,251 posts)3. Stupid, but strategic for them.
If only judicial ethics applied to them Sen. Whitehouse and the Senate Judiciary Committee are our best hope, and theyre on it
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)6. Funny how that works, isn't it, with ethics & laws.
For thee, not me.
JudyM
(29,251 posts)7. It's one of their theme songs.
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)8. Absolutely!
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,356 posts)4. Article I, Section 5 ...
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
The House and Senate can simply overrule those legislatures.
PortTack
(32,778 posts)5. Just a thought....nothing would prevent democratically held states from doing the same
The gqp would never again win another congressional seat, a senate seat or electoral votes for the president from CA, NY, NJ, IL, MI and many of the others. Not sure how thats going to work out for them
seriously.
Anybody?