SCOTUS to Hear Case That Could Give State Legislatures, Not Judges, Power to Regulate Elections

The Epoch Times ^ | June 30, 2022 Updated: June 30, 2022 | Matthew Vadum

[traderrob6]

If they decide correctly it would be a monumental reduction in the power of the Judiciary.

Long overdue.

[cdcdawg]

“something critics decry as a threat to democracy.”

Sounds promising.

[hoosierham]

Activist so-called progressive judges have progressed for too long in ignoring the clear language of the Constitution.The Constitution was meant to restrain government not embolden it.

[dsrtsage]

Anything that reduces the opportunities for demonrats to cheat is a threat to democracy

[mass55th]

I don’t understand what the issue is. The Supreme Court already decided this in Bush v. Gore (2000), when they ended the court-ordered recount in Florida, and stated that courts do not have the authority to create election law, and that it is the responsibility of State Legislatures to to do so.

[CFW]

If Marc Elias is against it, then I’m for it. That’s a formula you can pretty much count on without even looking at the facts of the case.

[pgyanke]

SCOTUS to Hear Case That Could Give Return to State Legislatures, Not Judges, Power to Regulate Elections

[gitmo]

Thank you. That’s what the Constitution plainly states.

[Do_Tar]

That darn fringe Constitution.
It’s going to ruin democracy, I tell yah.

[Salvavida]

THIS is hugh and series. Seriesly.

[arthurus]

The whole Constitution is a fringe conservative conspiracy theory.

[lewislynn]

Frankly while they're at "power of one man to regulate" they should also question why a President (any president) has the power to regulate energy production.

Who (besides unelected deep state) bureaucrats are the idiots that come up with the idea of handing any one that much power?

[cuz1961]

I don’t understand what the issue is. The Supreme Court already decided this in Bush v. Gore (2000), when they ended the court-ordered recount in Florida, and stated that courts do not have the authority to create election law, and that it is the responsibility of State Legislatures to to do so.

/\

Here , let me help you understand.

KJB
is now ready to ‘ clarify’ who gets to do what , even though she isn’t honest enough to ‘ clarify’ what a ‘ woman ‘ is.

[DoughtyOne]

Judges have no say now.

The state legislatures are the only approved way to change
election law.

Leftist judges are a penny a ton.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Yes, it long overdue!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Bring on the manatee!!!

[where's_the_Outrage?]

The elections clause in Article 1 states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
The presidential electors clause in Article 2 states gives each state the power to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

However, the state legislatures are under the state's constitution. Which to me means as long as the state legislature follows their state constitution (e.g., encompassing county lines, stay with polygon shapes) then the courts have no oversight.

[South Dakota]

The judges certainly decided the last presidential election

[mass55th]

"KJB is now ready to ‘ clarify’ who gets to do what , even though she isn’t honest enough to ‘ clarify’ what a ‘ woman ‘ is."

I just discovered that she's married to a white guy. It's obvious he has no idea what the definition of a woman is either.