The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory in a bombshell decision Tuesday, turning back a right-wing attempt to vest the sole power in administering federal elections with state legislatures.
After Dobbs I legit expected SCOTUS to go full speed ahead turning America into a Christofascist autocracy, but it seems like they're content to just uphold the status quo outside of that one specific issue. Maybe my standards are dangerously low but it's nice to know we're not on the actual worst timeline right now.
I agree that Roberts might be worried about reputation, but I am worried they are just holding back for the next election. I think he realizes Dobbs hurt them last time around and are keeping their powder dry to try and help Republicans. If an R wins in 24 it will be pedal to the metal for christian nationalists.
yeah I was honestly terrified that starting 2024 we were just fucking doomed, but now it seems like things are finally looking up. DeSantis' approval rating is in the shitter, and a lot of the anti-trans bills are being blocked throughout the country.
DeSantis could come back if something happens to Trump. I can't believe I hope Trump doesn't succumb to all the hamburgers he consumes for a bit longer.
As I said in another post, I believe Justice Roberts is trying to haul the reins back from the stampeding conservafascists. Not that his own tendencies don't lie that way, but he's widely reported as caring about his legacy, and right now the reputation of SCOTUS for corruption and poor decisions seems to me to be at an all time high. (That is to say, I'm not a deep SCOTUS scholar, just an observer -- there might be a time when the organization was worse.)
This seems to part of it. Another part is a large portion of their power comes from the reputation of abject impartiality... and the dobs ruling definitely calls that into question.
What you call "Christofascism" isn't a special variety of Christian ideology. It is simply the political ideology which says that Christianity should rule. By a fairly precise analogy with Islamism, it should be called Christianism.
The insanity in the ruling is that 3/9 justices voted in favor if this nonsense. Seriously. I expected Thomas and Alito, but Gorsuch also voted in favor? These conservative justices need to be replaced.
My understanding is that Gorsuch took issue with standing or some other more technical issue. Thomas and Alito are little more than partisan hacks, but Gorsuch generally maintains consistent principles. He was also a key vote in guaranteeing federal employment protections for LGBT people.
They reject level 10, clearly unconstitutional BS that wouldn't even be taken up by the court in a legitimate SCOTUS all so they can then pass level 7 BS that also wouldn't be taken up by a legitimate court.
Holy SHIT, I actually just gasped out loud. I was genuinely terrified this case was going to be the nuclear bomb that dumped us headlong into full federal fascism in 2024. I can't believe we got a 6-3 ruling against it.
Seems like SCOTUS wants to keep all the power of deciding what's best for us poor civilians to themselves and out of the hands of the legislature. I'm not sure that's ultimately better, but it's certainly going to slow the demise.
I'm surprised that this isn't getting more attention. All my parents ever talk about now is the stupid fight against trans people, and yet we were a hair's width away from polling stations being surrounded by armed guards at every election like what happened with Bolsonaro in 2022.
SCOTUS just soundly rejected an idea called "independent state legislature theory" in a case called Moore v. Harper. Here's a good summary of the implications if it had been upheld:
"Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections. The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them."
The lawmakers contended that the federal Constitution's provision delegating to state legislatures the power to set the "times, places and manner" of elections means that only the state legislature can make election rules, not courts, and regardless of state constitutional provisions.
By that wording, the precedent would have eliminated all federal enforcement of all federal voting requirements including the following, allowing state legislatures to unilaterally decide whether mandate all these themselves or deliberately stop following any/all them:
Constitutional amendments: Right of every citizen to vote
(Multiple acts): Prohibit voting discrimination based on race, gender, poll tax, and age
VRA: Federal review of voting changes to ensure there is no new discrimination
I could be wrong, but I don't think the decision would have extended to the actual voting rights. At least directly.
Like they wouldn't be able to make a law saying that black people can't vote; after all, it's only "time, places and manner", which in no way includes who. But they could make it much, much harder for specific groups of people to vote.
The nightmare scenario was that a highly gerrymandered state legislature could simply ignore the voice of its voters and direct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for a Republican regardless. It is a plausible textualist reading of the Constitution, though obviously very counter to actual practice.
Thank fooking christ. Ever since the NYT raised the alarm bells about this being the next big awful decision during the Roe v. Wade overturn, its been in the back of my mind. Glad to see we're not taking another step away from direct democracy.
There hasn't been direct democracy for decades. Every major party candidate for federal office has absolute allegiance to the ruling plutocrats. You literally cannot vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs and the oligarchs.
Nah, Thomas will sometimes write his own separate dissents when he votes against something seemingly normal just to prove he actually has no idea what he's talking about and that ChatGPT2 would make a better justice.
I honestly don't know. Nothing Alito or Thomas has said recently has made any sort of logical or philosophical sense. I think Roberts is trying to preserve some semblance of legacy of unbias with the current court reputation which is why I think he's sided the past few cases where he has.
Thomas does this shit, he writes nonsense dissents, and then when he's allowed to write the majority opinion, he will reference his own nonsense dissent in another case as if it had the weight of actual law.
He does the same with nonsense concurrences.
Always referencing himself, to fuck over everyone else. He's the ultimate example of "I got mine, fuck you"
Alito then has Fox News brain. Completely rotted by whatever culture war bullshit is popular at the time he writes an opinion. Even if it contradicts a position he held previously.
Gorsuch is an odd one. He's good on personal liberties (sometimes) but also believes that the prohibition of mixing religion and state doesn't exist for the states.
So yeah, the three judges who dissented here are three very different forms of crazy.
They're corrupt pieces of shit. In a better world there would be actual crimes they committed and they would've been hauled off to jail. Actually in a better world they would've never been justices in the first place.
I'm not sure if Roberts is trying to preserve or can preserve anything. At some point legacy means nothing. Just ask Bill Barr.
That said, I agree with you. Thomas and Alito are not arguing from any defensible position. They hate precedent -- which is the entire basis of common law jurisprudence -- yet continually reach back to witch trials and love letters between slave owners to defend their positions. They are, in my opinion, literally insane.
Add comment