Posted on 02/08/2023 4:30:58 AM PST by MtnClimber
If you ever wonder what kind of rulings we might get if the progressive Democrats some day achieve full control of the U.S. Supreme Court, you can try looking to some of the state Supreme Courts that come under Democrat control. One of my favorites is the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
North Carolina is a purple state, and generally tending more to red than blue. But the justices of its state Supreme Court are elected. In 2016, in a nominally “non-partisan” election, the Democrats took control of the Court by a narrow 4-3 majority. Meanwhile both houses of the state legislature have been controlled by Republicans since 2011. The Governor has been a Democrat since 2016.
Before going further, I should mention that after 2016 the Republican legislature amended the election law for court seats to allow candidates to declare party identification. Then there were two elections for Supreme Court justice in November 2022, both involving seats previously held by Democrats. The Republicans won both of those races — likely reflecting voter reaction to the shenanigans of the Court during six years of Democrat control. As of now, the Court has flipped to a 5-2 Republican majority.
With that background, here is the headline from yesterday’s New York Times: “On North Carolina’s Supreme Court, G.O.P. Justices Move to Reconsider Democratic Rulings.” It seems that the newly-constituted North Carolina Supreme Court has wasted no time in granting reconsideration of two major decisions that came down from the prior Court just a few weeks ago. From the Times:
An extraordinary pair of orders by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled Supreme Court is highlighting how the partisan tug of war has pervaded the state’s courts and, by extension, the nation’s. On Friday, the court moved to rehear two major voting rights cases that it had previously decided, one striking down a gerrymandered map of State Senate districts and another nullifying new voter identification requirements.
In The New York Times spin, it’s a group of highly partisan Republicans abusing their judgeships for political gain. Really?
Let’s consider first the case on voter identification requirements. In 2018 North Carolina enacted a requirement for citizens to present valid identification in order to vote. This was not done by statute, but rather by amendment to the North Carolina Constitution. Amending the North Carolina Constitution requires that the proposed amendment be passed by 3/5 majorities of both houses of the legislature, and then go to a referendum of the voters. According to the Carolina Journal here, the voter ID amendment obtained the requisite legislative majorities, and then was passed by the voters in 2018 by a majority of 55.49% — perhaps not a landslide, but also not close. The referendum was state-wide, and therefore inherently not possible to gerrymander.
A case challenging the voter ID amendment came before the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court in August 2022. Now, how exactly are these Supreme Court justices going to get around a voter ID provision that by this time is right there in the state Constitution itself? Actually, it’s not hard if you are a results-oriented progressive. At the time that the voter ID amendment passed the legislature, litigation challenging the 2012 redistricting of the state had been working its way through the state courts for years, and a three-judge state court panel had ruled that the existing districting was a partisan gerrymander, although that issue had not reached the state Supreme Court. So here is an excerpt from the majority opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court (as quoted in the Carolina Journal):
The issue is whether legislators elected from unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts possess unreviewable authority to initiate the process of changing the North Carolina Constitution, including in ways that would allow those same legislators to entrench their own power, insulate themselves from political accountability, or discriminate against the same racial group who were excluded from the democratic process by the unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts. . . . We conclude that article I, sections 2 and 3 of the North Carolina Constitution impose limits on these legislators’ authority to initiate the process of amending the constitution under these circumstances.”
And thus the state Supreme Court purported to disregard a provision of the state Constitution that had only recently been passed by a solid majority of the voters. Consider just how extraordinary this ruling was. If the Court was right that it could ignore the constitutional provision on the ground that the legislature that put it before the voters had been improperly constituted, then theoretically the Court could ignore every other enactment of the legislature as well, and just take over running the state. And weren’t all the other provisions of the North Carolina Constitution also adopted in some manner that could be subjected to criticism in hindsight? I’ll bet almost all of the document was written by white male segregationists — and Democrats no less.
The Court’s decision was written by Justice Anita Earls. Here is a picture of Justice Earls, again from the Carolina Journal. Note the crazed look in her eyes. This is a person who clearly knows the required path to perfect justice and fairness!
Also subject to a request for rehearing by the newly-constituted Supreme Court is a December ruling from the prior Court throwing out the 2022 redistricting maps adopted by the legislature for state legislative races. The Times notes that if that decision gets reconsidered, it will also implicate a prior decision from February 2022 invalidating North Carolina’s congressional maps.
[T]he Republican legislative leaders’ [have requested rehearing of] the December gerrymandering ruling — an order by the Democratic justices to redraw a map of State Senate districts. In that request is a much bigger appeal: for the court to overrule, without any rehearing, a landmark ruling last February that newly drawn congressional and state legislative maps were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The ruling led to new maps that probably cost Republicans three or four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the November elections. . . .
I have no way of knowing if the redistricting maps put forth by the Republican legislature in early 2022 were in the normal run of partisan gerrymandering, versus some extreme version of the art. But I do note that the Times says that these 2022 decisions “established the precedent that partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina violated the State Constitution.” It’s funny that Democrats controlled the state government essentially without interruption from the Civil War until 2011, and somehow that issue never came up. I guess all of their redistricting must have been perfectly fair.
Anyway, I think that the North Carolina voters have been able to decide for themselves who are the ones “politicizing” the state Supreme Court.
With some of the “conservatives” on the US supreme court, I am not sure that it is not dominated by progressive democRATs.
IF things get bad enough to cause some lunatics to start CW2 they will become a much endangered species.
Another judicial junta seizing control of a state by simply declaring its Constitution Un-Constitutional
“As of now, the Court has flipped to a 5-2 Republican majority.”
Maybe there is hope yet for NC. We have to flip purple states to red. I think in most cases all we need is honest elections.
Democrats didn't gain a 4-3 edge on the state supreme court in 2018. They had a 6-1 edge. Only 2 ncame up for election and the Democrats lost both races cutting their majority on the state supreme court to 4-3. This last election, 2 more Democrat justices came up for election and both of them got their azzes bounced out of the state supreme court by the voters giving Republicans a 5-2 majority now.
This was driven by the Democrats going stark raving mad in the last term and clearly acting in dictatorial fashion to override the will of the state's elected representatives as well as the voters. Damn straight the new state supreme court is going to slam that into reverse. That's what we elected them to do.
The state's congressional delegation is 7-7 now. Look for the Republicans to take back 3-4 seats when the state gets redistricted for the next election. Gerrymandering goes back to the very beginning of the country. Its nothing new. It didn't magically become unconstitutional only in the last couple years.
We do have an awful Democrat governor and AG. Also one Senator Thom Tillis is a RINO. All 3 need to go.
Thanks for the added background.
Basically the same thing happened in Pennsylvania after the Rats took the PA Supreme Court in 2012 they overruled anything coming out of the legislature including ORDERING the state house to allow universal mail-in ballots up 7 days AFTER the election (even if it had NO postmark).
The eyes are an important indication, but look at her mouth.
The eyes and the mouth together ......a witch.
“Protecting Democracy”
/rat bs machine
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.