printer
Well-Known Member
Posted something that was suppose to be in the War thread. Too much multitasking.
Supreme Court Anyone?
- Thread starter printer
- Start date
printer
Well-Known Member
"I have two things to report, should only take a few minutes." "Oh wait, I have more, this might take a while."
Clarence Thomas asks for extension on financial disclosure after ethics controversy
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked for an extension to file his annual financial disclosure, a move that comes in the wake of a ProPublica investigation into trips he accepted from a GOP megadonor.
The high court’s 2022 disclosures were made public Wednesday afternoon, but a justice is allowed to request up to a 90-day extension.
Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito both requested extensions, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts confirmed.
The annual forms include descriptions of each justice’s investment holdings as well as gifts and reimbursements.
Thomas’s form will mark the first financial disclosure made public since extensive reports about undisclosed luxury trips the conservative justice accepted from Harlan Crow during their years-long friendship. Crow has denied influencing the justice.
Thomas has said he was advised that the trips fell under a personal hospitality exception and did not need to be reported. The federal judiciary’s policymaking arm clarified the guidance in March.
“These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” Thomas said in April.
ProPublica’s report led to an uproar from Democrats and judicial watchdog groups, who have renewed a push for the high court to adopt a binding code of ethics. The justices in April all signed a new statement committing to following ethical principles.
The outlet’s investigation also revealed that Crow’s company in 2014 bought a series of Savannah, Ga., properties owned by the conservative justice, his mother and the family of Thomas’s late brother.
The sale, made for $133,363, included a single-story home and two vacant lots. The justice’s mother continued living in the home after the purchase, as contractors performed tens of thousands of dollars of improvement on the home.
CNN reported in April that Thomas planned to amend the disclosure.
thehill.com
Clarence Thomas asks for extension on financial disclosure after ethics controversy
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked for an extension to file his annual financial disclosure, a move that comes in the wake of a ProPublica investigation into trips he accepted from a GOP megadonor.
The high court’s 2022 disclosures were made public Wednesday afternoon, but a justice is allowed to request up to a 90-day extension.
Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito both requested extensions, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts confirmed.
The annual forms include descriptions of each justice’s investment holdings as well as gifts and reimbursements.
Thomas’s form will mark the first financial disclosure made public since extensive reports about undisclosed luxury trips the conservative justice accepted from Harlan Crow during their years-long friendship. Crow has denied influencing the justice.
Thomas has said he was advised that the trips fell under a personal hospitality exception and did not need to be reported. The federal judiciary’s policymaking arm clarified the guidance in March.
“These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” Thomas said in April.
ProPublica’s report led to an uproar from Democrats and judicial watchdog groups, who have renewed a push for the high court to adopt a binding code of ethics. The justices in April all signed a new statement committing to following ethical principles.
The outlet’s investigation also revealed that Crow’s company in 2014 bought a series of Savannah, Ga., properties owned by the conservative justice, his mother and the family of Thomas’s late brother.
The sale, made for $133,363, included a single-story home and two vacant lots. The justice’s mother continued living in the home after the purchase, as contractors performed tens of thousands of dollars of improvement on the home.
CNN reported in April that Thomas planned to amend the disclosure.
Clarence Thomas asks for extension on financial disclosure after ethics controversy
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked for an extension to file his annual financial disclosure, a move that comes in the wake of a ProPublica investigation into trips he accepted from a GOP m…
thehill.com
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
He's got some 'splainin' to do, and trying to get shit right now ain't gonna fix 25+ years of shitting on ethical behavior."I have two things to report, should only take a few minutes." "Oh wait, I have more, this might take a while."
Clarence Thomas asks for extension on financial disclosure after ethics controversy
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked for an extension to file his annual financial disclosure, a move that comes in the wake of a ProPublica investigation into trips he accepted from a GOP megadonor.
The high court’s 2022 disclosures were made public Wednesday afternoon, but a justice is allowed to request up to a 90-day extension.
Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito both requested extensions, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts confirmed.
The annual forms include descriptions of each justice’s investment holdings as well as gifts and reimbursements.
Thomas’s form will mark the first financial disclosure made public since extensive reports about undisclosed luxury trips the conservative justice accepted from Harlan Crow during their years-long friendship. Crow has denied influencing the justice.
Thomas has said he was advised that the trips fell under a personal hospitality exception and did not need to be reported. The federal judiciary’s policymaking arm clarified the guidance in March.
“These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” Thomas said in April.
ProPublica’s report led to an uproar from Democrats and judicial watchdog groups, who have renewed a push for the high court to adopt a binding code of ethics. The justices in April all signed a new statement committing to following ethical principles.
The outlet’s investigation also revealed that Crow’s company in 2014 bought a series of Savannah, Ga., properties owned by the conservative justice, his mother and the family of Thomas’s late brother.
The sale, made for $133,363, included a single-story home and two vacant lots. The justice’s mother continued living in the home after the purchase, as contractors performed tens of thousands of dollars of improvement on the home.
CNN reported in April that Thomas planned to amend the disclosure.
Clarence Thomas asks for extension on financial disclosure after ethics controversy
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked for an extension to file his annual financial disclosure, a move that comes in the wake of a ProPublica investigation into trips he accepted from a GOP m…
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/08/newsom-gun-control-amendment-00100954
"Alabama officials argued that drawing a second district to give Black voters a better chance at electing their preferred candidate would itself be racially discriminatory by favoring them at the expense of other voters. If the Voting Rights Act required the state to consider race in such a manner, according to Alabama, the statute would violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law."
...
..." Your racism is racist, our racism is just leveling the playing field, that we designed, built, and zoned for our own advantage."
Jeebus fucking wept...do you think these people will ever realize what horseshit comes out of their mouths?
"Alabama officials argued that drawing a second district to give Black voters a better chance at electing their preferred candidate would itself be racially discriminatory by favoring them at the expense of other voters. If the Voting Rights Act required the state to consider race in such a manner, according to Alabama, the statute would violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law."
...
..." Your racism is racist, our racism is just leveling the playing field, that we designed, built, and zoned for our own advantage."Jeebus fucking wept...do you think these people will ever realize what horseshit comes out of their mouths?
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court strikes down Alabama congressional map in victory for voting rights advocates
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, ruling that it likely violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters, delivering a surprising resolution to a case many thought would be won by the state.
In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed a lower ruling that ordered the GOP-led state to create a new map with an additional majority-Black district.
Alabama’s map included one majority-Black district out of the state’s seven total districts, despite 27 percent of state’s population being Black.
The ruling rejects an effort to further narrow the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberals in the majority, preserving precedents that govern how courts weigh racial discrimination challenges to voting maps.
It marks a surprising shift for the Supreme Court, which last year signaled skepticism about striking down the map by putting the lower court’s ruling on hold in a 5-4 emergency decision as the justices considered the case more fully.
“As we explain below, we find Alabama’s new approach to §2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice. We accordingly decline to recast our §2 case law as Alabama requested,” Roberts wrote for the majority.
Alabama had contended its map did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it used a race-neutral benchmark.
The state noted that two million computer-drawn designs, which did not consider race and weighed traditional redistricting factors, regularly resulted in the creation of one minority-majority district. The challengers had to show Alabama’s map had fewer minority-majority districts than the benchmark, the state contended.
But Roberts said following that argument would “run headlong” into the court’s Voting Rights Act precedents.
“That test is flawed in its fundamentals,” Roberts wrote. “Districting involves myriad considerations—compactness, contiguity, political subdivisions, natural geographic boundaries, county lines, pairing of incumbents, communities of interest, and population equality.”
Justice Clarence Thomas sided with Alabama, and he was joined by fellow conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito.
“A proper redistricting benchmark must be race neutral: It must not assume, a priori, that an acceptable plan should include any particular number or proportion of minority-controlled districts,” Thomas wrote.
The decision bucks a recent trend from the high court’s conservative majority of narrowing the Voting Rights Act.
Two years ago, the court narrowed the ability to bring challenges under Section 2 against time, place and manner restrictions on voting.
In 2013, the court struck down a separate provision of the law, which established a formula to control which state and local governments were subject to federal preclearance before changing their voting laws.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the first Black lawmaker to lead a party in the country’s history, said the decision is “an affirmation that the Voting Rights Act is the law of the land.”
“It is illegal to engage in race-based gerrymandering. It’s clear that the Alabama legislature engaged in race-based gerrymandering, and they’re not the only ones throughout the country who have done that,” Jeffries said during a press briefing Thursday in the Capitol. “And we can at least draw some comfort from the fact that the 1965 Voting Rights Act remains alive.”
thehill.com
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, ruling that it likely violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters, delivering a surprising resolution to a case many thought would be won by the state.
In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed a lower ruling that ordered the GOP-led state to create a new map with an additional majority-Black district.
Alabama’s map included one majority-Black district out of the state’s seven total districts, despite 27 percent of state’s population being Black.
The ruling rejects an effort to further narrow the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberals in the majority, preserving precedents that govern how courts weigh racial discrimination challenges to voting maps.
It marks a surprising shift for the Supreme Court, which last year signaled skepticism about striking down the map by putting the lower court’s ruling on hold in a 5-4 emergency decision as the justices considered the case more fully.
“As we explain below, we find Alabama’s new approach to §2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice. We accordingly decline to recast our §2 case law as Alabama requested,” Roberts wrote for the majority.
Alabama had contended its map did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it used a race-neutral benchmark.
The state noted that two million computer-drawn designs, which did not consider race and weighed traditional redistricting factors, regularly resulted in the creation of one minority-majority district. The challengers had to show Alabama’s map had fewer minority-majority districts than the benchmark, the state contended.
But Roberts said following that argument would “run headlong” into the court’s Voting Rights Act precedents.
“That test is flawed in its fundamentals,” Roberts wrote. “Districting involves myriad considerations—compactness, contiguity, political subdivisions, natural geographic boundaries, county lines, pairing of incumbents, communities of interest, and population equality.”
Justice Clarence Thomas sided with Alabama, and he was joined by fellow conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito.
“A proper redistricting benchmark must be race neutral: It must not assume, a priori, that an acceptable plan should include any particular number or proportion of minority-controlled districts,” Thomas wrote.
The decision bucks a recent trend from the high court’s conservative majority of narrowing the Voting Rights Act.
Two years ago, the court narrowed the ability to bring challenges under Section 2 against time, place and manner restrictions on voting.
In 2013, the court struck down a separate provision of the law, which established a formula to control which state and local governments were subject to federal preclearance before changing their voting laws.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the first Black lawmaker to lead a party in the country’s history, said the decision is “an affirmation that the Voting Rights Act is the law of the land.”
“It is illegal to engage in race-based gerrymandering. It’s clear that the Alabama legislature engaged in race-based gerrymandering, and they’re not the only ones throughout the country who have done that,” Jeffries said during a press briefing Thursday in the Capitol. “And we can at least draw some comfort from the fact that the 1965 Voting Rights Act remains alive.”
Supreme Court strikes down Alabama congressional map in victory for voting rights advocates
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, ruling that it likely violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters, a surprising…
thehill.com
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This is a big deal. Until now, the SCOTUS attack on the voting rights act mirrored Republican policies. Alabama's Republicans claim that it was just happenstance their "race neutral" benchmark allowed one district with a Black majority. This was such an obvious lie that two of the six conservative judges simply couldn't swallow it. Perhaps those who were disenfranchised by radical gerrymandering in other states can finally have justice too.Supreme Court strikes down Alabama congressional map in victory for voting rights advocates
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, ruling that it likely violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters, delivering a surprising resolution to a case many thought would be won by the state.
In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed a lower ruling that ordered the GOP-led state to create a new map with an additional majority-Black district.
Alabama’s map included one majority-Black district out of the state’s seven total districts, despite 27 percent of state’s population being Black.
The ruling rejects an effort to further narrow the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberals in the majority, preserving precedents that govern how courts weigh racial discrimination challenges to voting maps.
It marks a surprising shift for the Supreme Court, which last year signaled skepticism about striking down the map by putting the lower court’s ruling on hold in a 5-4 emergency decision as the justices considered the case more fully.
“As we explain below, we find Alabama’s new approach to §2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice. We accordingly decline to recast our §2 case law as Alabama requested,” Roberts wrote for the majority.
Alabama had contended its map did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it used a race-neutral benchmark.
The state noted that two million computer-drawn designs, which did not consider race and weighed traditional redistricting factors, regularly resulted in the creation of one minority-majority district. The challengers had to show Alabama’s map had fewer minority-majority districts than the benchmark, the state contended.
But Roberts said following that argument would “run headlong” into the court’s Voting Rights Act precedents.
“That test is flawed in its fundamentals,” Roberts wrote. “Districting involves myriad considerations—compactness, contiguity, political subdivisions, natural geographic boundaries, county lines, pairing of incumbents, communities of interest, and population equality.”
Justice Clarence Thomas sided with Alabama, and he was joined by fellow conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito.
“A proper redistricting benchmark must be race neutral: It must not assume, a priori, that an acceptable plan should include any particular number or proportion of minority-controlled districts,” Thomas wrote.
The decision bucks a recent trend from the high court’s conservative majority of narrowing the Voting Rights Act.
Two years ago, the court narrowed the ability to bring challenges under Section 2 against time, place and manner restrictions on voting.
In 2013, the court struck down a separate provision of the law, which established a formula to control which state and local governments were subject to federal preclearance before changing their voting laws.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the first Black lawmaker to lead a party in the country’s history, said the decision is “an affirmation that the Voting Rights Act is the law of the land.”
“It is illegal to engage in race-based gerrymandering. It’s clear that the Alabama legislature engaged in race-based gerrymandering, and they’re not the only ones throughout the country who have done that,” Jeffries said during a press briefing Thursday in the Capitol. “And we can at least draw some comfort from the fact that the 1965 Voting Rights Act remains alive.”
Supreme Court strikes down Alabama congressional map in victory for voting rights advocates
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, ruling that it likely violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters, a surprising…
Bullshit, Clarence -- "assume a priori blah blah blah". When a so-called race neutral redistricting benchmark produces a redistricting map that is wildly prejudicial to Black voters, then the validity of claims it is race neutral should be challenged. It's like claiming a pair of dice are fair when they keep coming up sixes. That map was so skewed and un-representative of the population in the state of Alabama that the assertion of race neutrality can be called what it is -- a lie. The voting rights act specfically requires that race be considered when drawing up districts. By voting to uphold that racially skewed map, Clarence Thomas hid behind a lie in order to ignore what the law said and in effect write new laws from the bench of the SCOTUS effectively taking that power away form Congress.
5 out of 9 judges were willing to call a lie what it is. and uphold the law the Congress wrote. The other four are standing by, ready to rewrite the laws of this land according to MAGA doctrine.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Exposing Justice Samuel Alito & Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court corruption | The Warning Podcast
30,704 views Premiered 18 hours ago The Warning Podcast
Steve Schmidt and ProPublica writer Justin Elliott discuss ProPublica's latest reporting on Justice Samuel Alito taking a luxury fishing vacation with GOP billionaires who later had cases before the Supreme Court. They also discuss Clarence Thomas' previous conflicts on interest, if this corruption goes on with all Supreme Court Justices and what the Court can do to regain the trust of the American people.
printer
Well-Known Member
One less article of impeachment off of Biden's plate.
Supreme Court rules Biden administration can choose who to deport
Texas and Louisiana do not have authority to challenge the Biden administration’s guidelines for when to deport migrants from the country, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a knock to the two states most active in challenging President Biden’s immigration policies.
In an 8-1 decision, the court determined the two states lacked the standing to sue over one of the Department of Homeland Security’s earliest directives.
“The States essentially want the Federal Judiciary to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
“But this Court has long held ‘that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.’”
DEVELOPING…
thehill.com
Supreme Court rules Biden administration can choose who to deport
Texas and Louisiana do not have authority to challenge the Biden administration’s guidelines for when to deport migrants from the country, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a knock to the two states most active in challenging President Biden’s immigration policies.
In an 8-1 decision, the court determined the two states lacked the standing to sue over one of the Department of Homeland Security’s earliest directives.
“The States essentially want the Federal Judiciary to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
“But this Court has long held ‘that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.’”
DEVELOPING…
Supreme Court says states can’t overrule Biden on whom to deport
Texas and Louisiana do not have authority to challenge the Biden administration’s guidelines for when to deport migrants from the country, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, handing a win to Preside…
thehill.com
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
Perhaps not taking blatant bribes from rich fuckers would be a good way to start regaining the trust of the people?
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
I think this is airtight, Roger. Maybe we should take this thought to the Chief. Seems he hasn't thought of it yet. At the same time, maybe suggest we also get rid of the judges who have already taken bribes.
I had ethics pounded into me for my job. It's not just what's against the rules (if there are any) - it's also the optics. Chief Justice Roberts might not have learned this yet, either.
edit: Birds of a feather do flock together.
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
Perhaps i am making obvious suggestions...but they do not seem to have grasped the simple principles that having a code of ethics demands. Maybe just baldly telling them in plain language might get the message through to them, since they do not seem capable of assembling the chain of thoughts that leads to ethical behavior on their own.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
which raises immediate questions about their fitness to adjudicate Federal law
HGCC
Well-Known Member
People should start showing up at their homes.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/25/mag-tsai-ziegler-movementjudges-00102758
Interesting theory, seems pretty plausible to me. The question of what to do about it remains unanswered, though.
Interesting theory, seems pretty plausible to me. The question of what to do about it remains unanswered, though.
printer
Well-Known Member
Missed this one.
www.vox.com
The Supreme Court may be running out of patience for Trump’s worst judges
The Court’s decision in United States v. Texas stops rogue judges from seizing control of law enforcement.
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court hands defeat to North Carolina GOP in election law clash
A 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid to give state legislatures sweeping authority in drawing congressional maps and regulating federal elections, declining to endorse the so-called “independent state legislature” theory.
The majority opinion, which united the court’s three liberals with Chief Justice John Roberts and two conservative justices, preserves the ability for state courts to hear partisan gerrymandering lawsuits in congressional redistricting and review other federal election rules set by state legislatures.
It hands a defeat to North Carolina Republican lawmakers, who advanced the theory as they appealed a lawsuit involving the state’s congressional map.
The lawmakers had argued the federal Constitution vests the authority for regulating federal elections exclusively in state legislatures, meaning the North Carolina Supreme Court and state constitution had no power to block the Legislature’s approved congressional map.
“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Roberts wrote for the majority.
Roberts’s opinion was joined by all three of the court’s liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — and conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
The Biden administration had warned adopting that theory would “wreak havoc in the administration of elections across the nation.”
The majority ruled that although state courts retain the ability to review legislatures’ actions, they still must do so in the “ordinary bounds” of judicial review and still have limits when their decisions conflict with federal law.
Republicans retook control of North Carolina’s top court in the midterm elections and overruled the underlying decision, known as “Harper I.” The high court was effectively hearing an appeal of a ruling that no longer existed.
“The record shows that Harper I finally decided the Elections Clause question, the judgment in that case continues to bind the parties before us, and the 2021 congressional maps would again take effect in North Carolina were we to reverse. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction,” Roberts wrote.
In his dissent, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should have tossed the case as a result and that the majority opinion is “plainly advisory.” His dissent was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justice Samuel Alito.
“This is a straightforward case of mootness,” Thomas wrote. “The federal defense no longer makes any difference to this case—whether we agree with the defense, disagree with it, or say nothing at all, the final judgment in this litigation will be exactly the same.”
In the portion of the opinion joined only by Gorsuch, Thomas went on to disagree with the majority’s argument on the merits.
“In most cases, it seems likely that ‘the bounds of ordinary judicial review’ will be a forgiving standard in practice, and this federalization of state constitutions will serve mainly to swell federal-court dockets with state constitutional questions to be quickly resolved with generic statements of deference to the state courts,” Thomas wrote.
On two occasions after oral arguments in the case, the justices had asked the parties to submit in writing their views about how to proceed, given the jurisdictional issues.
N.C. Republican lawmakers had urged the Supreme Court to still reach a ruling on the merits of the theory. They were joined by one opposing group, which urged the justices to weigh in soon rather than let it hang as an open question in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election.
The Biden administration and three other groups opposing the independent state legislature theory, on the other hand, told the court that the case was moot.
“The independent state legislature theory is a dangerous, fringe legal theory that has no place in our democracy,” Abha Khanna, a partner at progressive elections firm Elias Law Group, which represented one group of plaintiffs, said in a statement.
“In its most extreme form, the Independent State Legislature Theory could have weakened the foundation of our democracy, removing a crucial check on state legislatures and making it easier for rogue legislators to enact policies that suppress voters and subvert elections without adequate oversight from state court. We are incredibly relieved that the Supreme Court decisively rejected this dangerous theory.”
thehill.com
A 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid to give state legislatures sweeping authority in drawing congressional maps and regulating federal elections, declining to endorse the so-called “independent state legislature” theory.
The majority opinion, which united the court’s three liberals with Chief Justice John Roberts and two conservative justices, preserves the ability for state courts to hear partisan gerrymandering lawsuits in congressional redistricting and review other federal election rules set by state legislatures.
It hands a defeat to North Carolina Republican lawmakers, who advanced the theory as they appealed a lawsuit involving the state’s congressional map.
The lawmakers had argued the federal Constitution vests the authority for regulating federal elections exclusively in state legislatures, meaning the North Carolina Supreme Court and state constitution had no power to block the Legislature’s approved congressional map.
“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Roberts wrote for the majority.
Roberts’s opinion was joined by all three of the court’s liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — and conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
The Biden administration had warned adopting that theory would “wreak havoc in the administration of elections across the nation.”
The majority ruled that although state courts retain the ability to review legislatures’ actions, they still must do so in the “ordinary bounds” of judicial review and still have limits when their decisions conflict with federal law.
Republicans retook control of North Carolina’s top court in the midterm elections and overruled the underlying decision, known as “Harper I.” The high court was effectively hearing an appeal of a ruling that no longer existed.
“The record shows that Harper I finally decided the Elections Clause question, the judgment in that case continues to bind the parties before us, and the 2021 congressional maps would again take effect in North Carolina were we to reverse. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction,” Roberts wrote.
In his dissent, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should have tossed the case as a result and that the majority opinion is “plainly advisory.” His dissent was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justice Samuel Alito.
“This is a straightforward case of mootness,” Thomas wrote. “The federal defense no longer makes any difference to this case—whether we agree with the defense, disagree with it, or say nothing at all, the final judgment in this litigation will be exactly the same.”
In the portion of the opinion joined only by Gorsuch, Thomas went on to disagree with the majority’s argument on the merits.
“In most cases, it seems likely that ‘the bounds of ordinary judicial review’ will be a forgiving standard in practice, and this federalization of state constitutions will serve mainly to swell federal-court dockets with state constitutional questions to be quickly resolved with generic statements of deference to the state courts,” Thomas wrote.
On two occasions after oral arguments in the case, the justices had asked the parties to submit in writing their views about how to proceed, given the jurisdictional issues.
N.C. Republican lawmakers had urged the Supreme Court to still reach a ruling on the merits of the theory. They were joined by one opposing group, which urged the justices to weigh in soon rather than let it hang as an open question in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election.
The Biden administration and three other groups opposing the independent state legislature theory, on the other hand, told the court that the case was moot.
“The independent state legislature theory is a dangerous, fringe legal theory that has no place in our democracy,” Abha Khanna, a partner at progressive elections firm Elias Law Group, which represented one group of plaintiffs, said in a statement.
“In its most extreme form, the Independent State Legislature Theory could have weakened the foundation of our democracy, removing a crucial check on state legislatures and making it easier for rogue legislators to enact policies that suppress voters and subvert elections without adequate oversight from state court. We are incredibly relieved that the Supreme Court decisively rejected this dangerous theory.”
Supreme Court hands defeat to North Carolina GOP in election law clash
A 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid to give state legislatures sweeping authority in drawing congressional maps and regulating federal elections, declining to endorse th…
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Crow’s puppet and Gamy Bony Ferret dance to the tune of the Federascist Society
amp.cnn.com
Justice Thomas renews attacks on landmark First Amendment decision in fiery dissent | CNN Politics
Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday renewed his yearslong attack on a landmark First Amendment decision, with the conservative jurist again calling for the Supreme Court to revisit the “flawed” ruling in the 1964 case.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
we really need a flipping the bird emoji....Crow’s puppet and Gamy Bony Ferret dance to the tune of the Federascist Society
Justice Thomas renews attacks on landmark First Amendment decision in fiery dissent | CNN Politics
Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday renewed his yearslong attack on a landmark First Amendment decision, with the conservative jurist again calling for the Supreme Court to revisit the “flawed” ruling in the 1964 case.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member