Posted on 04/21/2021 7:41:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Its our turn to give it a shot. Our future and way of life depend on it.
This was all foreseen when the states were essentially removed as constitutional actors in their own right and the defense of our rights was entrusted entirely to 9 federal government lawyers.
“I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” Robert E. Lee in a letter to Lord Acton
Fascinating and prescient quote. Thanks for sharing.
The concentration of vast power. What could go wrong?
How do the decisions to take or not take a case get made? By the Chief Justice? By a vote?
Justice is not blind. Justice is a RAT.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Article III of the Constitution:In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.Since a state such as Pennsylvania was a party in their suit over the illegal alteration of laws passed by their legislature, SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction. Their actions would be limited to the state, not the Executive branch of the federal government. SCOTUS should have ordered the state to recount the votes using the rules in place as passed by the legislature, and disregard any rules put in place by election officials.
In the case brought by the Attorneys General of several other states arguing that the few states that illegally altered their election laws tainted the outcomes for all the states, the same would apply: SCOTUS should rule that all of the states must count their votes using the rules put in place before the election by the respective state legislatures. They can't rule that the suing states are correct and the other candidate should be installed into office. A ruling such as that would bypass the Electoral College, which is also a representative body guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV which you cited in post #80.
Third, the time for SCOTUS to act was before the safe-harbor date for the Electoral College. SCOTUS declined to hear the challenges before the election, and again after the election. If we are to discuss original jurisdiction, along with that comes a discussion on whether SCOTUS can be compelled to hear a case.
What's the point of original jurisdiction if SCOTUS can reject it? Lower courts can't reject hearing a case brought to it by prosecutors, so why can SCOTUS? Obviously, such a compulsion from the Executive (Trump) would have been "yes," while Congress would have been split. Would the states have a say in it? Should a majority of state legislatures not parties to the case be allowed to pass resolutions requiring SCOTUS to take an original jurisdiction case? Should SCOTUS be unilaterally required to hear an original jurisdiction case? That would take an amendment to the Constitution to make happen, and there would have to be some threshold against nuisance cases (yes, even from states).
-PJ
I called her Amy Commie Barrett. I like yours better.
Well said. And can we stop this 2022 crap?
#43: Nice!!!! Soon the bottom one will be illegal to say.
The Roberts court is demonstrating an extreme form of “judicial restraint”. In this case it refuses to uphold the constitutional requirement of a “Republican form of government”.
**************
A seminal decision that may be a harbinger of our demise as a constitutional republic.
It is indeed amazing we have lasted this long since the 17th Amendment.
Yet, despite a thoroughly politicized scotus, and a dead rule of law, I am constantly told that an Article V convention of the states is too dangerous to consider.
And the 19th ...
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.