Posted on 06/19/2022 10:09:55 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems poised to take on a new elections case being pressed by Republicans that could increase the power of state lawmakers over races for Congress and the presidency, as well as redistricting, and cut state courts out of the equation.
The issue has arisen repeatedly in cases from North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where Democratic majorities on the states’ highest courts have invoked voting protections in their state constitutions to frustrate the plans of Republican-dominated legislatures.
In their appeal to the nation’s high court, North Carolina Republicans wrote that it is time for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the elections clause in the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state’s legislature the responsibility to determine “the times, places and manner” of holding congressional elections.
“Activist judges and allied plaintiffs have proved time and time again that they believe state courts have the ultimate say over congressional maps, no matter what the U.S. Constitution says,” North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger said when the appeal was filed in March.
The Supreme Court generally does not disturb state court rulings that are rooted in state law.
But four Supreme Court justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — have said the court should step in to decide whether state courts had improperly taken powers given by the U.S. Constitution to state lawmakers.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Who’s driving Miss Amy?
If they take it up they won’t rule on it till next year so it won’t help the midterms.
It’s possible that Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are doing actual Justice work but I consider all the others as guaranteed tools of the State who rule based on what they are told to rule.
How is the opinion of a single judge, or a single group of judges, in any way superior, in matters pf redistricting, to that of the legislature. Why is it so often assummed, by judges it seems, that the mere fact that a group becomes “plaintiffs” about something that it is always a court’s job to step in and decide “right and wrong”. What if everytime “palintiffs” came to the legislature and asked to have a law written to overrule some judge’s/court’s ruling???
I will beleive it
WHEN
I see it.
This strikes me as a “ the check is in the mail” pacification attempt.
“Democratic majorities on the states’ highest courts have invoked voting protections in their state constitutions to frustrate the plans of Republican-dominated legislatures.”
Stopped reading right there. Any article that states that BS will be nothing but more BS. NC and Penn Courts did just the opposite and approved actions by the Executives of those states that were contrary to their Constitutions. They did not invoke voting protections, they did just the opposite and allowed illegal actions and state Constitutional requirements to be ignored for politics.
This could be very, very good.
Now if only Roberts would get off his blackmailed butt and release the abortion decision. They’ve pulled out all stops to prevent it. Maybe we’ll get lucky and Roberts will come clean.
Not according to their supreme courts.
It seems this boils down to who gets to determine constitutionality at the state level.
Historically SCOTUS hasn't wanted to do it.
My point was that their SCs were wrong. It had nothing to do with Constitutionality. The law was clear, voting laws/rules etc are made by the Legislature, not the Executive. Those SC chose to ignor the very clear law and it had zero to do with the constitutionality of the law. They, expecially Penn SCs are corruptly political and their decisions were based on that. So your response that “not according to their SCs” does not address my point, i.e. the political corruptness of many of the SC, especially the Penn SC.
My point is SCOTUS has been reluctant to second guess state SCs.
And they're really unlikely to weigh in on "political corruptness".
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.