As the Supreme Court confronted the independent state legislature theory on Wednesday, much of the discussion centered on parsing the Constitution, leafing through historical evidence and arguing over the meaning of old cases.
The issue is checks on power.
What ISLT does is give current state legislatures unrestricted power over everything having to do with democracy which would in fact end democracy.
That is even if today a legislature would not choose to use ISLT to ignore the will of the people and pick election winners without regard to who got the most votes, tomorrow is another day.
OH, and as I am first, a picture.
I didn’t think I would be able to despise anyone as much as Mitch McConnell, but Samuel Alito is making a serious run for the money.
Republicans unbound and able to say and do what they think is a very scary proposition. The worst of them really are a nasty lot.
That this case has made it to the Supremes is Karl Rove’s dream.
We might as well give up on “These United States.”
Mitch McConnell is to a great extent responsible for the current Supreme Court and the Justice I hate most is John Roberts because he is so nakedly political.
But as to the American I hate most, currently it is Ted Cruz but only because George W Bush is not in the news.
So much mischief is available if you take certain words and phrases of the Constitution out of the entire context of the document. The result is often a Constitution that negates itself as if that were the intent when it’s really just a middle finger to the advocates of crazy positions to their political opponents.
Article 4 section 4 says that the United States GUARANTEES a republican form of government for every state. How do you square that with a theory that state legislatures are not subject to checks and balances with other parts of the government in the state or even the state constitution which establishes the legislature. Legislatures pass laws, and those laws must comply with state and federal constitutions and judicial review in every sense. So the notion that the Constitution made an exception for legislatures to do whatever they want vis-a-vis elections is ridiculous. What about if a polling place loses power on election day for 5 hours. Does the legislature have to convene and pass a law allowing that location to remain open for more time while the courts – which can act quickly – can apply reason to a particular set of facts immediately?
Based on the coverage, I don’t think the theory will outright win, but SCOTUS will allow state legislatures to challenge state court decisions in the federal courts giving them a presumption of supremacy for the election laws they pass unless the party state acting in supposed contradiction of those law can rebut that presumption. So, for example, a state court must have a good reason to, say, allow no excuse absentee voting in a pandemic despite what the legislature passed as a law, unless the state constitution expressly forbids those kinds of changes or federal protections are violated. That is, they throw them a bone and spilt the baby 80/20 in favor of state judicial review.
The right wing hack Sam Alito missed his calling as a Fox “News” pundit.
What your post says to me is drip drip.
What I mean by that is if you are correct, the North Carolina will win the case but the Court will make the decision narrow enough so that it does not immediately give all state legislatures unfettered power to decide elections.
My concern is what your suspected outcome will do is allow the court to further expand or restrict the theory based on who it would benefit at any given time.
I think you are likely correct but it could very well be the worst of all worlds.
Gee, I’m starting to think that Sammy doesn’t like Kagan much. And that probably extends to any intelligent woman.
OT but WOW.
It isn’t so big unless one of those committees is in the Senate.
"Do you think it furthers democracy to transfer the political controversy about redistricting from the legislature to elected Supreme Courts where the candidates are permitted by state law to campaign on the issue of redistricting?”
Well, can’t STATE LEGISLATORS “campaign on the issue of redistricting”, too? Is there a point?
That is so charming!
So Alito who is nothing but a mouthpiece for white nationalism and misogyny doesn’t think that state supreme court justices should be allowed to make decisions about elections because they are elected political stooges. What then are the elected legislators. I can tell you after two plus years in Wisconsin that if you want political stooges who are the dimmest of the dim, you can look at the Wisconsin legislature’s Republicans and see a whole lot of them just salivating at the thought of eliminating all voting in Madison.
I think what Alito is saying is a lot of state court judges are just politicians like him. Which brings me to the next issue which is why did we allow the supreme court to become an unelected super legislature?
Congress is not the only entity that can deal with this sort of thing.
Give both to the Senate…
@mattinpa (beat me to it 
)
The post said they are congressional committees. It didn’t say which branch.
… Alito said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “Do you think it furthers democracy to transfer the political controversy about redistricting from the legislature to elected Supreme Courts …"
I suppose Sammy thinks everyone could be kept honest if we just got ridda this election thing and had them all appointed.
Then, better still, to avoid having to continually adjudicate that corruptible process, offices could be made hereditary.
I don’t think we allowed it. The Court assumed that role on its own initiative while also negating the legislature’s ability to do anything about it by couching its decisions in the impermeable cloak of constitutionality, e.g., Citizens United is a free speech issue.
