|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Moore v Harper 1
#27844409 - 06/30/22 11:10 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So, this case could, seriously, end democracy as we know it.
Remember when SCOTUS declared that federal courts have no jurisdiction over gerrymandering? This case will, potentially, declare that state courts have no jurisdiction to stop gerrymandering, even if it's in the state constitution.
Thomas, alito, gorsuch, and kavanaugh have made statements in favor of banning state courts from being able to rule on redistricting, even if it's blatantly against the state's constitution.
State legislatures would basically be exempt from judicial oversight when it comes to drawing districts.
And, probably, other things as well, in the future.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27844490 - 07/01/22 01:02 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I don't see how they are going to twist the Constitution to take that power away from the states.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27844688 - 07/01/22 07:50 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
They wouldn't take any power away from states, my understanding is that they would simply take away the state courts' power to interpret and strike down any laws concerning elections.
Since the constitution, to my knowledge, doesn't mention courts being able to weigh in on partisan gerrymandering or other election laws, it seems that a strict textualist philosophy makes this a no-brainer.
And SCOTUS has, in recent times, used strict textualism, when it was convenient.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27844876 - 07/01/22 11:34 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You seem to be operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution GIVES power to the federal government and takes it from the States. The underlying principle is that the states have all of the power, and gave some up to form the union. As a result, states have general police power as to everything EXCEPT those things the Constitution either reserves the power to the fed or denies the states the power. The federal government has no police power except for those things the Constitution gives them power over.
In other words, the SCOTUS would have to find that the states lack the power because of one of two reasons: 1) The federal government has exclusive power over the subject matter (this has already been found to be untrue in this case), or 2) There is some fundamental right found in the bill of rights that precludes the states from exercising power over the subject matter.
There are very few things that fall in this second category. These are things like speech protection, bear arms protection, due process, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.
As to whether they can somehow take the power from state courts independent of taking the power from the states, this is an absurd notion which has never been a part of the law anywhere in the U.S. The only thing that comes close is when the SCOTUS determines an issue to be a non justiciable political question, but the SCOTUS can only determine that for itself and federal courts. It has no power to decide this for state courts.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 18 minutes, 54 seconds
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845149 - 07/01/22 03:03 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I don't see how they are going to twist the Constitution to take that power away from the states.
Especially when they’re angling to rule that the establishment clause can’t force states to participate in federal elections.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
|
This was better described in an article I read, but the constitution says that "state legislatures" have the power to run elections. Until 2015, a state legislature was seen as the summation of state government, including the governor, the legislature, and the courts.
However, a strict textual reading could interpret that as, literally, state legislatures. As in, only the legislature of the state government gets a say in elections, and the executive and judicial branch cannot intervene.
This would be a pretty novel reading, I'll admit, and would also be SCOTUS essentially putting themselves on the path of irrelevance, but we've had some pretty novel rulings lately.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 18 minutes, 54 seconds
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845197 - 07/01/22 03:33 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah that’s true, honestly have no idea where they’ll draw the line or where the public stands on where the breaking point is.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
|
I was reading some stuff from shivas.wisdom's anarchist library and I came across a line the other day that stuck with me:
Quote:
A true revolutionary must first accept that he is a Doomed man.
And it's easy to say "I'm doomed", but it's a very different thing to actually accept. When people say that, it's always a joke. It's never an actual acceptance of being doomed.
What that means is that you, fundamentally, cannot be a part of the world that you seek to create. You must become the monster that you seek to vanquish, but you will fight for the other side. The worst part is that you will never get the rewards that the monsters of the status quo get. It's like special forces--they do the fucked up dirty shit, but they get medals for it. As a revolutionary, you must do the same fucked up dirty shit, but you will never get a medal, or acknowledgement, or anything of the sort, as you do not have the backing of a state.
That is different from simply giving your life to the cause. Anybody can give their life, but you need to go further. You need to give your humanity to the cause. You must become the thing that goes bump in the night, the thing that makes others afraid of the dark. For the vast majority of people, that is a lot worse than death.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845218 - 07/01/22 03:48 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It's an absurd reading. State courts are created by state legislatures. The legislature of any state has the power limit the state court jurisdiction. What you're suggesting is that the Supreme Court could rule that the legislature has the power to run elections, but does not have the power to appoint courts to settle disputes under those election laws. such a ruling, setting aside it's clear unconstitutionality, would mean that the legislature itself would have to make decisions when a dispute arises.
With the number of election law disputes that occur every year, the legislature wouldn't have time to do anything else
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845222 - 07/01/22 03:50 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Correct. Thus giving total authority over elections to the state legislatures, the majority of which are controlled by the GOP.
Again, my argument is not that this would be absurd, my argument is that the absurd has happened a lot recently.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845227 - 07/01/22 03:52 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But they already have total control. A state legislature could at any time take away the state court's jurisdiction to hear election law disputes.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845229 - 07/01/22 03:53 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
For that matter, Congress could completely eliminate the federal court system if they wanted to.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845258 - 07/01/22 04:08 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Could they? That seems like one of those things that would require an amendment.
Further, there is the political aspect of this. A state legislature dissolving the court system would be...well, a giant red flag for a lot of people. I think this is happening because the big showy coup attempt was an abject failure. As much as the GOP and Trump wish it weren't true, the masses are not on their side, that has been made apparent since Jan 6th.
To me, this feel like a sneaky coup attempt via the courts, which are still controlled by the GOP. Since the people are not on their side, they can't do anything so obvious that people notice again.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845265 - 07/01/22 04:11 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes they could. The only court Required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The rest of the federal system is completely a creature of statute.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845284 - 07/01/22 04:17 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Welp, then see point 2: optics.
After all, perception is more important than truth.
|
asterix
L7
Registered: 12/26/21
Posts: 188
Last seen: 3 months, 18 days
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845658 - 07/01/22 08:00 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846184 - 07/02/22 08:52 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Yes they could. The only court Required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The rest of the federal system is completely a creature of statute.
For that matter, even judicial review by SCOTUS is just a courtesy/convention conjured from thin air and extended by the good graces of congress
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
|
I don’t want to live in the 18th or 19th century
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846387 - 07/02/22 11:52 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, me either? I guess right now might be the time to point out that the convention of judicial review by SCOTUS was imagined and implemented in 1803...
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
|
1803 occurred in the 19th century
|
|