Posted on 06/23/2023 7:38:14 AM PDT by CFW
“Have they made a decision on the NC case involving who is allowed to make election laws? IE…per the constitution, the state legislature makes the rules, not the SOSs, courts, Governors, nor Paul Elias”
—
The “Moore” case. They have not issued a decision on that case yet.
“Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271 [Arg: 12.7.2022]
Issue(s): Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.”
The lawyers filing the cases know. They’re just trying to move the goal posts and side lines.
I see the possibility of Roberts siding with the liberals on the 303 Creative case. If Alito writers this it will be for the First Amendment.
I am hoping Alito writes the Majority opinion for the NC redistricting case. If it rules for the legislature it will have ramifications throughout the nation. If Roberts writes it he will split the baby and say the NC law allows the State Supreme Court to make some changes but it is the Legislature not the Court that makes election laws and redistricting decisions. Supermajority in NC will rewrite the law jam it down Cooper's throat. But for the rest of the country it will be status quo with continuing battles over redistricting.
Gorsuch is too much like Roberts just not as bad. Roberts has actually damaged this country with his bizzaro rulings on Obama Care and gay Marriage. He continually says courts should not write laws and then he does it. Gorsuch is not there yet. I could see Gorsuch writing the NC case as well and that worries me. From a national perspective it is the 303 Creative and the NC cases to watch. Like I said Universities will always favor minority applicants it is hard wired in their admission people. My daughter was told by a NC university that she made the wait list for admissions but they expected better grades from someone who is half Asian. Nothing the SCOTUS does can change that kind of thought process
That would be fine with me, because I think the common sense interpretation of the Constitution and the law by the vast majority of Americans would be truer to the Constitution than the layers upon layers of sophistries and perversions of the law imposed by the courts.
For example, pictures or motion pictures of pullulating pudenda are not what the Founders understood to be "free speech."
The notion of "due process" means that the procedures established in law were applied as specified, not that some judge gets to impose his or her notion of "fairness" as policy.
The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" refers to the list stated in the English Bill of Rights from 1689 and no other forms of punishment are "cruel and unusual." It just means no drawing and quartering and no burning at the stake, not that prisoners must have air conditioning and cable TV.
The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments do not protect any sexual practice. The legality of sexual practices and the definition of marriage are up to the legislatures as they have been since time immemorial.
The Commerce Clause means Congress only has control of trade across state lines. Any economic activity within a state is not under Congress' authority, nor can Congress ban mere possession of anything, only the transport and sale of products across state lines.
Regulatory actions that result in the loss of value or usufruct of property are "takings" under the 5th Amendment. If Congress wants to turn vast amounts of property into Federal parks and game reserves, it can buy the land.
Etc.
You will be under pure communism. And because of modern technology it will as totalitarian as anything could be.
I am betting that they punt on the Moore case as having been mooted.
It was great that the NC Supreme Court went GOP and held that the election map drawn by the previous court needed to be thrown out. Thus, the GOP drawn map was restored.
It is bad in that it makes the relief being sought in Moore moot. The Court cannot grant any relief that isn’t already obtained.
There’s an easy way for universities to get around AA and still get the results they want as far as admissions offers.
The University of CA figured it out years ago. Rather than giving preference by race (illegal in CA), give preference by a proxy for race (even if it’s a loose proxy—close enough).
UC chooses to give preference to what they call “First Gen” students, meaning neither parent has a college degree. 40% of UC students are now first gen, and first gen is more likely to be black or Latino and less likely to be Asian or white.
So if and when AA in college admissions is banned, colleges will simply give preference to First Gen, or to low income applicants, or both.
On first impression, the intent element for "encouraging" would seem easier to satisfy than that for "inducing".
If so, paying wages to a known illegal would seem sufficient. An interesting case to read.
We can hardly fathom the damage done by the mistaken 17A.
It pulled the keystone from the Framers’ Constitution, which would have never been ratified without state participation in Congress.
Here they are:
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, No. 21-707 [Arg: 10.31.2022]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 [Arg: 10.31.2022]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.
To use a phrase from Dobbs, “Bakke (1978) was egregiously wrong from the start.”
All senators are since the ratification of the 17th are glorified congresscritters-at-large.
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.