House Democrats Just Got Serious About Reining in the Supreme Court

[riversedge]

House Democrats Just Got Serious About Reining in the Supreme Court

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-democrats-just-got-serious-about-reining-in-the-supreme-court/ar-AANy3WN?ocid=winp1taskbar

Mark Joseph Stern - Yesterday 1:57 PM


On Tuesday, Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, also known as H.R. 4. As Ian Millhiser explained in Vox, H.R. 4 essentially overturns the Supreme Court’s recent attacks on voting rights: Its central provisions give both the Justice Department and federal courts sweeping authority to block voter suppression laws. But one crucial section takes a more creative approach: The House bill actually repeals the court’s own rules for deciding election-related cases—which strongly favor states’ ability to suppress votes—replacing them with voter-friendly directives that would force the justices to safeguard equal suffrage. H.R. 4 also takes on the “shadow docket,” prohibiting the Supreme Court from issuing unreasoned emergency orders reversing lower court decisions that protected the franchise. And it abolishes the legal doctrine that allows the justices to shield anti-voting laws from judicial scrutiny in the run-up to an election.


H.R. 4, in short, is court reform. It is the clearest indication yet that House Democrats are getting serious about reining in an out-of-control Supreme Court.

To understand H.R. 4’s court reform provisions, it’s important to remember how the Supreme Court tried to curb voting access during the 2020 election. In light of the pandemic, many citizens filed lawsuits alleging that various voting restrictions were illegally burdensome. These suits typically sought modest alterations to election law, such as liberalizing vote-by-mail, allowing curbside voting for at-risk groups, and expanding ballot drop boxes. Lower courts frequently granted these requests, finding that Americans’ right to vote without fear of a COVID infection outweighed states’ interest in enforcing their election laws.

The Supreme Court’s conservatives repeatedly quashed these lower court decisions, reinstating stringent voting restrictions in the midst of the pandemic. They issued these decisions on the court’s shadow docket, with minimal briefing and no oral arguments, in unsigned orders that provided little to no reasoning. When the court did deign to justify its actions, it relied upon several dubious arguments.

First, the conservatives turbocharged “the Purcell principle,” the doctrine that federal judges shouldn’t change voting laws on the eve of an election. The Purcell principle began as a modest warning against confusing voters who are already on their way to the polls. But throughout the 2020 election, SCOTUS wielded the Purcell principle to insulate state voting procedures from judicial review in the months before Election Day. Second, the conservatives consistently ignored or rejected district courts’ factual findings that election regulations would severely burden the right to vote. Third, and relatedly, these justices valued states’ interest in enforcing their own election laws over citizens’ right to cast a ballot. They even seemed to reject the notion that the public has an interest in protecting the right to vote; instead, they assumed that the public’s only interest lay in enforcing restrictive statutes. Because the court had to weigh the public interest when deciding whether to halt a lower court order, this hostility led the majority to block multiple orders expanding access to the vote.................................

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

[UpInArms]

2. The CONservatives would roll us back to the dark ages

They want to use the internet and cellphones, all the while forcing the public to use a stone tablet and chisels

[MichMan]

3. Can congress really pass rules dictating what the SC can or cannot do?

[wryter2000]

7. Not sure they could say "the Court can't do X"

But they can pass any bill they want about how people vote.

[lastlib]

8. Absolutely!

Congress controls their appellate jurisdiction (but not their original jurisdiction--see Article III).

Theoretically, Congress could ELIMINATE their appellate jurisdiction entirely.

[paleotn]

12. Yes. In appellate jurisdiction. Article III section 2 of the Constitution

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

A check on the court's power.

[MichMan]

15. Prohibition of all firearms with the stipulation that the SC can't overturn ?

Works for me.

[dickthegrouch]

18. +1000

[paleotn]

21. What???? Umm, no. That's not how it works.

2nd Amendment. Rights specifically denoted in the constitution. Like Freedom of speech, religion, on and on, the Congress cannot pass legislation completely abridging those. Period. My point covers everything else where SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction, including voting rights which are not mentioned in the Constitution specifically and are primarily controlled by the states.

[PhylliPretzel]

20. There is no "Judicial Review"

in the Constitution. That right was taken unto itself by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803; Thomas Jefferson was apoplectic! "Judicial Review" makes the members of the Supreme Court de facto unelected dictators of our country and members of Congress impotent.
Congress should take back its power and add to each congressional act a statement that the Supreme Court may not review this legislation.

[paleotn]

22. No, they're not dictators. H.R 4 shows that, along with Article 3, Section 2.

They may be misguided many times, but dictators is a little extreme. There's plenty Congress and the executive can do to rein them in even when it comes to constitutionality. Just ask Lincoln and FDR. Plus, I like a bit of tension between the branches of government. Keeps any one of them from running rough shod over the others...particularly Congress and the executive branch. As far as Jefferson, what wasn't he apoplectic about? A brilliant, yet many times unrealistic mind.

[Lonestarblue]

4. Now we need Senate Democrats to get serious about protecting voting rights.

I’m not sure whether the Senate will do anything but dither and waste a lot of time. They already know that no Senate Republican will vote for this bill. So why waste time negotiating with them—just abolish the filibuster for voting rights and get on with things. Republican states are busily gerrymandering districts already. That needs to have restraints put on it because once they’re done and implemented, the courts will rule that they have to be used in 2022 because it’s too late to make changes. That means almost guaranteed loss of the House majority. And it is the House that has been the source of new bills intended to move the country out of its current quagmire of do nothingism.

[Bettie]

5. K and R

Now, to get enough senators to actually support the right to vote.

[wryter2000]

6. It sounds wonderful

Dems in the Senate need to be as serious by getting rid of the filibuster for voting rights bills so this can pass.

[Orrex]

9. K/r

[Fla Dem]

10. Great 1st step. But H.R. 4 only introduced.

Many steps to go. Hopefully it will clear the House expeditiously and go to the Senate where it's going to be difficult to get through.

Step 1: The bill is drafted

Step 2: The bill is introduced This is where the bill currently resides.

Step 3: The bill goes to committee

Step 4: Subcommittees review of the bill

Step 5: Committee mark up of the bill

When the hearings and subcommittee review are completed, the committee will meet to "mark up" the bill. They make changes and amendments prior to recommending the bill to the "floor". If a committee votes not to report legislation to the full chamber of Congress, the bill dies. If the committee votes in favor of the bill, it is reported to the floor. This procedure is called "ordering a bill reported".

Step 6: Voting by the full chamber on the bill

Step 7: Referral of the bill to the other chamber
When the House or Senate passes a bill, it is referred to the other chamber, where it usually follows the same route through committees and finally to the floor. This chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it or change it. Congress may form a conference committee to resolve or reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. If the conference committee is unable to reach an agreement, the bill dies. If an agreement is reached, the committee members prepare a conference report with recommendations for the final bill. Both the House and Senate must vote to approve the conference report.

Step 8: The bill goes to the president

Step 9: Overriding a veto

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/How-Bill-Becomes-Law

There are explanations for each of these steps in the link.

[dlk]

11. Pelosi's and House Democrats mean business

Now it’s time to rein in recalcitrant Democratic senators. No less than the future existence of our democracy is on the line.

[GB_RN]

13. No Idea What To Do About...

Those “recalcitrant senators” you mentioned. They seem content with the status quo, and the status quo is going to clobber us next year.

[dlk]

19. There must be a way

Sinema is apparently friends w/Meghan McCain, so it could be tricky in that particular instance. I don’t envy Schumer having to wrangle everyone. I have to believe there are pressure points somewhere, though.

[Wednesdays]

14. Awesome, but Mitch McTurtle will never allow it

He and his senate posse will bury it. It will be DOA.

[yaesu]

16. the Supreme Court should never have the power to undermine a democracy, its seems this one does nt

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Yes, the conservative Court upholds the Republic while subverting the democracy

They're validating states' election laws as written by elected representatives while burying the will of the people who voted to put them in office. Power originates from the people. That is our grand foundation that the SCOTUS is missing.

[Justice matters.]

23. How about expanding it up to 13?

Add 4 good Justices.