Discussion So... are we just going to pretend that oral arguments in Moore v Harper aren't happening today?

[GodisanAtheist]

This is the big one folks, lets see if the SCOTUS holds, edges closer to dystopian ruin, or just goes all the way in one fell swoop:

Docket for 21-1271

www.supremecourt.gov

Moore v. Harper

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

What Happened During the U.S. Supreme Court Argument in Moore v. Harper

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.

www.democracydocket.com

 

[Jaskalas]

Lot of technical questions and statements there...
Makes it difficult to gleam what the actual subject is.

And if by "pretend" you mean "never heard of" this case, then yes, yes we are.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck I have 0 faith in this SCOTUS

 

[compcons]

Sorry. Fuck states rights if it affects people in other states. Asshat congress critters in other states directly affect my every day life with the legislation they propose and what gets passed.

 

[MrSquished]

Hey we can just pack the court no problem! Problem solved!

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The question at hand is whether or not state legislatures are beholden to basically anyone else when conducting federal elections. This is known as the "independent legislature theory" and is strongly supported by the more hardcore right leaning election denying crowd.

It would effectively allow states to gerrymander as they saw fit, refuse to certify elections, up to an including even pulling the "alternate slate of electors" crap that the republicans tried to pull off during the 2020 elections. Given republicans control the majority of state houses across the country, this would basically be an initiation to defacto one party rule.

If the Supreme Court goes balls deep on ILT then our democracy is in deep shit. If you've had more conservative family members parroting the whole "We're a Republic, not a Democracy" (nevermind republics are democracies) astroturfing that has been happening over the last several years, its all an effort to prime people to accept a pro-ILT outcome.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey we can just pack the court no problem! Problem solved!

That would solve this problem, yes, haha.

 

[Jaskalas]

The question at hand is whether or not state legislatures are beholden to basically anyone else when conducting federal elections.

Any relation to this? I ask because it was the only legal challenge I was aware of.

AG Paxton Sues Battleground States for Unconstitutional Changes to 2020 Election Laws
December 08, 2020

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.​

​

This is known as the "independent legislature theory" and is strongly supported by the more hardcore right leaning election denying crowd.

Sounds different....

 

[Fenixgoon]

Any relation to this? I ask because it was the only legal challenge I was aware of.

AG Paxton Sues Battleground States for Unconstitutional Changes to 2020 Election Laws
December 08, 2020

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.​

​

​

Sounds different....

i don't see how a texas AG has any standing in the matter...should get dismissed pretty quickly.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Any relation to this? I ask because it was the only legal challenge I was aware of.

AG Paxton Sues Battleground States for Unconstitutional Changes to 2020 Election Laws
December 08, 2020

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.​

​

​

Sounds different....

Nope, this is the North Carolina GOP.

Here is a clean, easy to read Wiki on the whole thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Harper

We basically already have 4 of the 6 conservative justices agreeing with ILT in some form or another. Question is whether or not the last two come along.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ah, this is a redistricting case.
That !@#$ is bloody awful.

And the question is if the State has the ultimate authority over... elections?
Well that escalated quickly.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Harper

Throughout the litigation, the General Assembly argued their case based on the independent state legislature theory (ISL). This theory is based on language from the Elections Clause in the Article One of the U.S. Constitution, stating: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." The theory is based on the reading that Article I imply that only state legislatures may make any decisions related to election law and prevent any actions from courts or the executive branch from challenging it. This would allow the state legislature to set redistricting as well as other voting choices. While the Supreme Court and other courts had already rejected this concept, including as late as Smiley v. Holm (1932),[8] the theory gained more traction with Republicans and conservatives since Bush v. Gore, thus making it a potentially landmark case according to legal experts.[9]​

 

[nickqt]

I posted a month ago that this case was going to be far more important in determining the future of democratic republican government than the 2022 midterms.

I'll quote myself.

If Republicans take both the House and Senate in 2022, it doesn't mean the end of democratic republican elections in the future, but it sure won't be a step in the right direction.

More important is Moore v. Harper. If that is decided to allow a state legislature to gerrymander as much as it wants, there's no reason for any state legislature to ever give the minority party more seats than it wants, which essentially is the end of democratic republican elections.

And the answer remains the same. If a state legislature is allowed to gerrymander a minority party into an infinitesimal minority of seats, then State legislatures and the federal House of Representatives is going to become a facade of democratic republican fair elections.

Given this particular court, I can see a 6-3 decision allowing the legislature to essentially crack-n-pack districts to hilariously tragic levels, with little room for state or federal courts to unfuck the fuckery. Maybe Roberts attempts to "preserve the integrity" of the court and grabs Barrett or Gorsuch to prevent it, but I'm not counting on it.

 

[Moonbeam]

If the one and only true party of Christianity and therefore of God can no longer win elections constitutionally, it is the duty of all the righteous to institute new law as suites their sacred beliefs. Good people do not allow their country to fall into the hands of the Devil. Anyone of real faith can see this. All that is needed is no real faith in God and you know better than He does what is right and wrong.

 

[kage69]

Maybe Roberts attempts to "preserve the integrity" of the court and grabs Barrett or Gorsuch to prevent it, but I'm not counting on it.

Pretty much what it comes down to for me. Maybe Kavanaugh surprises us, but I doubt it.

The conservative members of the court forfeited any credibility and trust they had some time ago. Gives me a bad feeling no matter how ridiculous ISL theory is.

 

[Dave_5k]

Yep, basically this case brought by the GOP would allow any currently GOP-controlled state legislature to completely end democracy in the US ~ as they could use this same theory to not only gerrymander a permanent super-majority in the state, but even strike any or all future Democrat candidates from elections without federal oversight and install whatever (R) candidate they want as the winner, regardless of any future public votes.

And it appears at least 5 of the supreme court nutcases are aligned with this (edit: note it already took 4 justices agreeing to even hear this insane case, which never should have even made it to the supreme court)

 

[Moonbeam]

Amy Coney Barrett appears likely to block the GOP’s latest attack on democracy

Moore v. Harper, one of the scariest election cases in the Supreme Court’s modern history, probably won’t end in catastrophe.

www.vox.com

Maybe hope that a full on conservative whack job won't succeed.

 

[trenchfoot]

Pretty much what it comes down to for me. Maybe Kavanaugh surprises us, but I doubt it.

The conservative members of the court forfeited any credibility and trust they had some time ago. Gives me a bad feeling no matter how ridiculous ISL theory is.

Maybe with the obstructionist team of Manchin/Sinema and their refusal to end the filibuster in order to help the Republicans block Biden's agenda somewhat neutered in the Democrat caucus by Warnock's victory, the process of packing the SCOTUS with a majority of liberal justices can begin post haste as well as moving on to other policies and programs that those two traitors blocked for two years straight. Don't know what utilizing reconciliation can do to help Biden with his agenda though.


edit - added filibuster comment

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Doesn't 'Separation of Powers' disregard 'Check and Balances'?

 

[pmv]

Seems to me it's a case study in whether it's ever possible to write a Constitution that doesn't have dangerous loopholes.

One would think the "framers" would have been a bit more careful in how they worded things, rather than just referring to 'state legislatures'. I mean, in theory, a strictly literal interpretation of the wording would mean once a state assembly was elected the first time, it could subsequently rule like a dictator, including picking the state's electoral college votes.

Counsels explained in these briefs that the standard interpretation of “legislature” over several centuries broadly includes the state’s entire lawmaking process—not only state courts and the parameters of state constitutions, but also the governor’s signature or veto.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Moore v. Harper Discredit Election Theory That Could Undermine Democracy

Litigants’ oral arguments, along with questions from Supreme Court justices, revealed that the independent state legislature theory is meritless and should be rejected.

www.americanprogress.org

I do wonder if it's like that Godel incompleteness theorem stuff - in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved. Maybe it has a political analog with regard to written Constitutions as well. Taken solely on their own terms Constitutional systems can always be undermined, as they always have self-destroying loopholes. They hence always rely on factors outside themselves to sustain them.

(Which once again makes me wonder what the point is of having a written constitution at all - if the outside factors aren't conducive for sustaining a democracy, having a written constitution won't make any difference...as with Wiemar Germany)

 

[Meghan54]

I posted a month ago that this case was going to be far more important in determining the future of democratic republican government than the 2022 midterms.

I'll quote myself.



And the answer remains the same. If a state legislature is allowed to gerrymander a minority party into an infinitesimal minority of seats, then State legislatures and the federal House of Representatives is going to become a facade of democratic republican fair elections.

Given this particular court, I can see a 6-3 decision allowing the legislature to essentially crack-n-pack districts to hilariously tragic levels, with little room for state or federal courts to unfuck the fuckery. Maybe Roberts attempts to "preserve the integrity" of the court and grabs Barrett or Gorsuch to prevent it, but I'm not counting on it.

I’m probably wrong, but isn’t one of the “issues” in this is this legislation essentially removes and excludes judicial oversight of elections. Kinda like when the SC stated a few years ago that the courts had no business meddling in elections…a statement preceded by the SC and its actions in the FL Bush/Gore recounts.

 

[pmv]

Funny that the future of US democracy seems to depend on the whims of "I like beer" Kavanagh, and the hand-maiden. The fact that they were appointed almost exclusively because of their views on abortion, I suppose means they can't be relied on for every other aspect of the right-wing agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems to me it's a case study in whether it's ever possible to write a Constitution that doesn't have dangerous loopholes.

It is not. The reason why some democracies die and others don't has very little to do with how carefully their constitution is written. After all, you guys famously don't even have one while North Korea's constitution is (on paper) a wonderful human rights document that promises all sorts of freedoms.

One would think the "framers" would have been a bit more careful in how they worded things, rather than just referring to 'state legislatures'. I mean, in theory, a strictly literal interpretation of the wording would mean once a state assembly was elected the first time, it could subsequently rule like a dictator, including picking the state's electoral college votes.

They very purposefully worded things vaguely for a lot of things in this case the wording was clear, it just meant something different back in 1789. 'Legislature' then meant 'whoever makes laws', which would encompass the entire government of states, not just the 'legislative branch' part of the government.

But yes, the situation you describe already exists in some states like Wisconsin. The Republicans in the state legislature have gerrymandered their state to an extent it is effectively impossible for them to ever lose power, no matter how badly they are defeated.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Moore v. Harper Discredit Election Theory That Could Undermine Democracy

Litigants’ oral arguments, along with questions from Supreme Court justices, revealed that the independent state legislature theory is meritless and should be rejected.

www.americanprogress.org

I do wonder if it's like that Godel incompleteness theorem stuff - in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved. Maybe it has a political analog with regard to written Constitutions as well. Taken solely on their own terms Constitutional systems can always be undermined, as they always have self-destroying loopholes. They hence always rely on factors outside themselves to sustain them.

(Which once again makes me wonder what the point is of having a written constitution at all - if the outside factors aren't conducive for sustaining a democracy, having a written constitution won't make any difference...as with Wiemar Germany)

Every system of democratic governance relies on the good faith of all parties involved - if you don't have that then the writing is on the wall. I think this is shown in recent years where Republicans no longer entirely act in good faith when it comes to elections and it's getting worse. For that reason I think you're right that a written constitution is not particularly important.

 

[hal2kilo]

Ah, this is a redistricting case.
That !@#$ is bloody awful.

And the question is if the State has the ultimate authority over... elections?
Well that escalated quickly.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Harper

Throughout the litigation, the General Assembly argued their case based on the independent state legislature theory (ISL). This theory is based on language from the Elections Clause in the Article One of the U.S. Constitution, stating: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." The theory is based on the reading that Article I imply that only state legislatures may make any decisions related to election law and prevent any actions from courts or the executive branch from challenging it. This would allow the state legislature to set redistricting as well as other voting choices. While the Supreme Court and other courts had already rejected this concept, including as late as Smiley v. Holm (1932),[8] the theory gained more traction with Republicans and conservatives since Bush v. Gore, thus making it a potentially landmark case according to legal experts.[9]​

The whole thing is a bad joke. Basically NC is arguing their state supreme court has no standing when its their state Constitution that creates the state legislature, giving it it's power in the first place. The SC is who interprets their Constitution.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The problem the United States will always have is that it was never founded to be this egalitarian, participatory democracy that we keep striving for day by day.

It was always meant to be this hyper exclusive club and all of our fixes have been the systemic equivalent of duct-tape applied by lobotomized monkeys.

The whole thing really works because we believe it works, otherwise anyone can really read a whole lot of anything into the constitution as its written or come up with whatever conclusion they want. We've been lucky that on average the read has been toward a more open and inclusive society, but that's not really enshrined in our constitution like counting slaves as 3/5 of a person is.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem the United States will always have is that it was never founded to be this egalitarian, participatory democracy that we keep striving for day by day.

It was always meant to be this hyper exclusive club and all of our fixes have been the systemic equivalent of duct-tape applied by lobotomized monkeys.

The whole thing really works because we believe it works, otherwise anyone can really read a whole lot of anything into the constitution as its written or come up with whatever conclusion they want. We've been lucky that on average the read has been toward a more open and inclusive society, but that's not really enshrined in our constitution like counting slaves as 3/5 of a person is.

Yep - I think this is true of every democracy though. Things in the US are getting pretty bad with how the Constitution is being twisted though.

It still blows my mind that this year SCOTUS ruled a regulation invalid despite the fact that they did not dispute it was authorized by a duly passed statute that they considered constitutional. Their only reasoning was that because the regulation was big Congress needed to pass a new law saying they really meant it this time. There's obviously no basis in any law or the Constitution for this, SCOTUS just made it up.

This is the real problem - people have decided winning is more important than the system. Once they've decided that we get to a dangerous place.