The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in which North Carolina Republicans pushed the independent state legislature theory, the idea that only state legislatures, to the exclusion of organs including state courts and constitutions, are allowed to control federal elections.
Nice to see that they want to stop the approaching meteor.
…so they can board and ride it?
Thanks, Kate, for the great summary. I listened as long as possible and was fascinated by CJ Roberts, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett’s questions and skepticism of ISLT. Alito and Gorsuch were predictably condescending and came across as loathing everyone in the room except themselves. Gorsuch interrupted Katyal just as he was making persuasive points due to tut tut time.
Just perhaps they have though that if they let the GOP case prevail, a Democratic controlled state could do the same thing?
Or would they add a footnote, “This case only applies to NC, and should not be used as precedent.”
The question of when federal courts would get to swoop in and review state court decisions bedeviled the justices from both ideological sides
As @sniffit said in another thread, the Court will fashion a 6-3 decision that lets the Court either sit on the sidelines and watch (i.e., red state legislative authority) or step in and overturn (i.e. blue state legislative authority) state action.
The very fact that this case was heard by the Supreme Court should scare everyone.
It takes 4 votes to hear a case and 5 to win.
Trump’s fake elector scheme rises from this theory, that state legislatures have unchecked power to appoint electors and otherwise decide elections regardless of who gets the most votes.
As others have stated, this is not about originalism or it would have been decided by John Marshall 200+ years ago. This is a Republican and NOT conservative court looking to get around democracy and keep power for themselves on into perpetuity.
The only question is how obvious is “The Roberts Court” willing to be. What I most fear is they will rule in North Carolina’s favor but put some weasel words in that the press will say that it is a narrow ruling which anybody with a brain will mean they will continue to apply the ruling except when it benefits the other side.
“Some Members of GOP SCOTUS majority express skepticism about flushing the constitution down the toilet, along with free and fair elections.”
Skepticism. How open-minded of them.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. They’re “skeptical” that we should celebrate the oncoming meteor.
This paragraph seems messed up:
“On Wednesday, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Barrett — two of the three who would likely have to side with the liberals to thwart the ISLT — each at times expressed dubiousness about various parts of North Carolina’s argument.”
First, that’s three people, not two. Second, it only requires two of them to side with the liberals to thwart ISLT.
Perhaps an edit to clarify writer’s intent is in order?
They will never reach that issue if they Don’t Look Up.*
* Because this case is so damned scary it helps to interject a little dark humor.
“We’d like to, but have to consider the economic cost of immediate action.”
Or vice versa…i.e., SCOTUS will interfere when, say, the WI Supreme Court overturns the gerrymandered minority-rules Congo-level-democracy state legislature and it cries that the ruling over an election law designed to further entrench GQP minority rule was an abuse or usurpation of power.
The idea that a state’s supreme court and constitution are powerless over state election laws is not deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.
So in essence the argument is we’ve been doing it wrong for 233 years?
And in all that time no one said so until now?
That was Scalia’s argument when he upended 217 years of 2nd Amendment law.
One should take note that it is reported that Rick Scott “scowled” while standing behind Sen. Braun. That might be of some significance, but it should also be reported that Rick Scott’s countenance (and skull) is a perpetual scowl.
