The Supreme Court asked for an additional round of briefings on what it should do with a major, potentially mooted election law case out of North Carolina over a month ago. Since then, crickets.
I’m up way too early. But here’s a lynx.
OT (as if a lynx isn’t), here’s some more bad news for the mango Mussolini:
A continuing legal beat down is just so marvelous.
Both Roberts and Barrett (and Kavanaugh, to a lesser degree) expressed skepticism towards North Carolina’s position during oral arguments, seeming to indicate that they weren’t on board with at least a maximal interpretation of the ISLT."
Ok, maybe this is before caffeine, but what does this mean? “North Carolina” doesn’t have a position in this case. It’s an intrastate dispute. And what is a “maximal interpretation of the ISTL”?
I would think a maximal interpretation of the ISTL means a legislature can do anything they want. But the paragraph before explains the usual suspect regressive justices are fully on-board with ISTL. And since I don’t know who “North Carolina” is in this sentence, I’m left confused as to what oral arguments hinted at with regard to the positions of Roberts and Barrett (and Kavanaugh).
He doesn’t know when to just STFU.
One would think conservative jurists would adhere to the strict prohibition on issuing advisory opinions when there is no longer a case or controversy.
Conservative jurists think about outcomes, not process. If they can deliver an early 2024 win to the GOP, they would do so.
Ok, somewhat clearer. The linked article, which I breezed right over at first, explains pretty clearly that Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh expressed notable skepticism toward ISTL.
I guess I just misinterpreted, but the sentence is awkward … “they weren’t on board with at least a maximal interpretation” is a messy way of expressing the intended thought in that sentence.
Editor taking day off now. I hasten to add the article is a good read. I was just left initially not understanding one of its key points.
Roberts & Kav are interesting these days. Outside of Dobbs, I think Kav has made 2-3 decisions that surprised me in a good way. Can’t remember what they were, maybe I dreamt it.
I guess the best way to express it is that Kav is no Alito. At least so far. I’ll try to dig deeper if I can find the time, but if anyone follows the Court more closely, please ring in at let me know I’m not dreaming this.
TBF: STFU is not a thing he’s capable of. He’s just barely capable of “object permanence”, his frontal cortex has not developed sufficiently to have self-control and to contemplate consequences.
That would be the position that because the Constitution gives authority over elections to the state legislatures (save the overriding authority that is given to Congress), the legislatures alone (barring Congressional action) have the authority to do whatever the fuck they want to elections. No governor veto, no judicial review, and screw the voters if the lege wants to certify a different outcome.
It’s the John Eastman/Ken Chesebro bad-faith view of how Trump could be Preznit again.
Rapey McBeerface most recently joined Roberts and the libs in declining to kill Section 2 of the VRA, the one that allows private parties to sue when states dilute minority voting power. He also wrote a gratuitous concurring opinion that even though he agreed the states can claim dominion of women’s wombs, women should still be allowed to cross state lines. There are other outliers.
A completely bogus, made-up interpretation of the document. It is silent as to the review of such actions. More conservative BS.
Not if you ignore 230 years of history and multiple binding Supreme Court precedents. Suck on it, libtard!
I think that, simply, Kav understands politics and Roberts van reach Kav on some things.
I tend to agree that Rapey has some belated sense of when he should back off.
Yes, that’s a sexual assault joke.
My hunch on this is that Kav is on his best behavior because of the skeletons in his closet that could emerge at any time. Also, he sees Trump and maybe Trumpism on it’s back feet right now and so this is his time to defect.
This case would hand deliver the entire country to the GOP. The SCOTUS is holding back because recent decisions they were 100% sure on turned out to be less popular among the raped. Shocker.
The independent state legislature bullshit means no Democrat ever wins a state the GOP holds today. It is a bag of gravel in the machine of democracy. Under its doctrines Trump would be President today.
I’d say more since 1990, when CT was installed. That started the decline and fall of the Supreme Court.
For all but about 25 years of its history, the Supreme Court has been actively horrible.
Yep, he sees how hot it is for Clarence right now. Laying low.
Also…I wonder if Kav is still drinking bud light?