The Supreme Court sought guidance as it asked the parties in Moore v. Harper, the term’s banner election law case, to explain what it should do with the case now that the North Carolina Supreme Court is rehearing the underlying redistricting dispute.
The ISL would be the end of the Republic. We talk about that alot, “threaten” it, bemoan it coming, bemoan it being in process, etc., but this would in fact be the real deal. The Constitution was not a suicide pact for the majority of the population whereby they signed away all right to rule as a majority and win elections as a majority because the minority gets to cheat the system. Should CJ Colorblind and the Fascist Five side with that bogus nonsense, it should be our turn for end game and the blue states should gather to decide on a united course of action for cutting off the red states from our treasure and initiating the Constitution’s complete destruction.
[the Supreme Court] asked the parties to submit briefings advising on whether it still has jurisdiction over the case.
CJ Colorblind and the Fascist Five (h/t @sniffit) are asking the NC GOP if it is confident that the state Supreme Court will give it everything it wants or if it will be necessary for the Court that “is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks” to intervene on its behalf.
Seems to me that the Independent State Legislature Theory is just that, a THEORY. It is not law. It is not in the Constitution. It is little more that a figment in of some maniacal right-wing idiots perverted imagination regarding how they think a Democracy should work. The whole concept, along with all those who are advocating for it should be thrown out on their collective asses.
Wow. Is she saying that the NCSC rules in favor of the repubs they’d give up all decisions about all voting laws to the legislature or just gerrymandering?
It is absolute proof of the fascist tilt of this country when every possible historical record unequivocally screams that the founders intended for three co-equal branches of government to be a check on one another that we’re even discussing the unhinged notion that one branch gets to dictate their way or the highway without the other two allowed to say anything about it.
I’m with the DOJ on this one. I see where Common Cause is coming from, but they should point their efforts towards Congress (ha) and get this nonsense outlawed that way (haha, a guy can dream). Do not ask this Court to be activist.
If this Court can muster five votes in support of the independent state legislature theory it will effectively neuter the Legislative Branch. Even if Congress were to pass a law (ha noted) to outlaw this nonsense (ha ha noted) the Court would overturn the legislation as a clear violation of its interpretation of Article I, Section 4. It’s the same thing the Court did when it wrapped Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in the protective cocoon of the 1st Amendment.
Even our current SC should have a problem with the basic concept of a legislative majority revoking all checks and balances built into their state legal system in a way that gives them unilateral power, and doing so simply to rid themselves of a recent legal decision that is inconvenient to them.
Constitutional questions are supposed to be avoided when the case can be decided on non-constitutional grounds. So the fairly obvious outcome here is that they’ll dismiss the cert. as improvidently granted, without prejudice to refiling after SCONC issues its opinion on rehearing.
ETA: Though I suppose it’s just barely plausible that SCOTUS will invoke its modern doctrine of “We get to interpret state law when it suits our jurisdictional purposes” to decide that the petitioners blew their rehearing deadline at SCOTNC, thereby divesting that court of jurisdiction to rehear. I confess that it’s a mystery to me how on earth the state lege managed to get it reheard, procedurally speaking, after SCOTUS had long ago accepted review.
Talk about ripping off the bandage…!
This. It’s a very poor legal theory, imo. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the judiciary from reviewing legislative actions. I think the plaintiffs are trying the same move as Netanyahu and Likud. Neuter the judicial branch? I don’t think so….
With the 2022 midterms came an influx of right-wing judges onto the North Carolina bench, who agreed to state Republicans’ long-shot bid to get the court to rehear the case.
That’s not a basis upon which to decide the Constitution (oops) actually does allow arbitrary political parties to gerrymander without any balance or oversight.
I agree. Doesn’t it mean that state legislatures could eventually just pick the presidential candidate they wanted and I guess not even bothering with the people voting, in other words approving their own slate of Electors? That can’t fly. Or even more egregiously drawn Congressional districts than they have now resulting in even an more unrepresentative Congress.
Maybe Margorie will get her wish.
It would take a lot of walls to keep the illegal immigrants from the Confederacy out though.
These wingnut lawyers are playing Calvin ball and they need to be called out on it. The case should never have been brought and the SC should never have taken it. Two original sins don’t make a right.
They pulled it from their collective asses. Shat out a unicorn.
edit: That should be “collective ass”.
I hope txlawyer turns out to be right.
BTW: This story buries the lede.
I find a strange rabbit hole with the independent state legislature theory.
By that same logic, does the commerce clause give congress sole power of regulating commerce outside of presidential veto power or the courts?
On the contrary, it’s a theory dreamed up by right wing maniacs to destroy democracy and bring on permanent minority rule by white right wingers at every level of government.
That’s a good question by the standards of conventional legal reasoning that assumes outcomes are the result of legal reasoning rather than legal “reasoning” being the result of desired outcomes. But in our brave new world, that’s now how it works. SCOTUS is now a superlegislature, making policy pronouncements solely on the basis of political dogma and the Catholic extremist strain of right wing cultural grievance.