Jump to content

US Politics: What will the InJustice League do next?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I was speaking to the concern about 2024.  This (anticipated) decision will prevent state courts from striking down anti-democracy laws by GOP state legislatures, but obviously Dem governors can still prevent those bills from ever becoming laws in the first place.

Depends on the make up of the State Legislature though. They can overrule a veto, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I was speaking to the concern about 2024.  This (anticipated) decision will prevent state courts from striking down anti-democracy laws by GOP state legislatures, but obviously Dem governors can still prevent those bills from ever becoming laws in the first place.

True, and I agree with that, although I wish some, like Tony Evers, had exercised their powers more effectively.  But the Republican majority in the state legislatures appears structurally durable in a way that Dems consistently winning gubernatorial races doesn't, at least to my mind.  I used to think federal legislation to abolish gerrymandering was the only permanent solution.  But now I worry that a Republican congress and President will come in and find a way to strengthen gerrymandering or shift the goal posts even further in favor of a durable Republican majority.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean in terms of swing states this just further emphasizes how crucial winning the gubernatorial races in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in November is.  Democracy is on the ballot.

We are losing election officials as well, like this one from Reno, NV.

Quote

Washoe County's registrar of voters has resigned. Her resignation comes just a few months after she took a leave of absence due to threats against her office.

Deanna Spikula has worked for the registrar's office for the last 15 years and was named the top elections official in the county in 2017.

However, she became the target of election deniers who claimed without evidence that she allowed fraud to affect the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Washoe County registrar of voters resigns following leave due to threats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JGP said:

Depends on the make up of the State Legislature though. They can overrule a veto, no?

Sure, but based on their current composition that doesn't appear to be a threat in anywhere but Wisconsin (and maaaaybe Georgia) - Arizona is almost evenly split in both chambers.  Of course, if the Dems get walloped in November who knows...

12 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

But the Republican majority in the state legislatures appears structurally durable in a way that Dems consistently winning gubernatorial races doesn't, at least to my mind.

Certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean in terms of swing states this just further emphasizes how crucial winning the gubernatorial races in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in November is.  Democracy is on the ballot.

No. My point is it won't matter. If SCOTUS adopts the "Independent Legislature Doctrine" then the Governor does not matter in terms of anything to do with elections. The state legislature will just disagree with the way they counted votes and change who won or declare fraud and decide who gets the electors. It won't need to go to the Governor.

Also, these state legislatures are already so gerrymandered, it doesn't much matter.

Edited by Mexal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mexal said:

No. My point is it won't matter. If SCOTUS adopts the "Independent Legislature Doctrine" then the Governor does not matter in terms of anything to do with elections.

Not necessarily.  I'm very skeptical Kavanaugh (and possibly Barrett) want to do that - he's very focused on taking away the (lower) courts' ability.  Even Alito's dissent in March indicated he wasn't willing to go that far:

Quote

Alito’s dissenting opinion, meanwhile, would have reinstated the maps drawn by North Carolina’s Republican legislature. Interestingly, however, Alito’s opinion suggests that he does not endorse the strongest version of the independent state legislature doctrine — the version that would cut state governors and state courts completely out of the process of determining how federal elections should be run altogether.

“If the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Alito writes, suggesting that he would rather give himself maximal flexibility to overrule state court decisions that he disagrees with than hand down a bright-line rule that could lead to results that Alito does not like in a future case.

Alito’s opinion is joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.

 Famous last words, I know, but going by the justices' own indications I don't see it happening.

Edited by DMC
Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not necessarily.  I'm very skeptical Kavanaugh (and possibly Barrett) want to do that - he's very focused on taking away the (lower) courts' ability.  Even Alito's dissent in March indicated he wasn't willing to go that far:

 Famous last words, I know, but going by the justices' own indications I don't see it happening.

I'll take the hope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not necessarily.  I'm very skeptical Kavanaugh (and possibly Barrett) want to do that - he's very focused on taking away the (lower) courts' ability.  Even Alito's dissent in March indicated he wasn't willing to go that far:

 Famous last words, I know, but going by the justices' own indications I don't see it happening.

yes, this is true, but to my mind it is the state courts enforcing (imperfectly, and where they are not subject to republican capture) state constitution provisions that prohibit gerrymandering which Alito is targeting. 

In Rucho, Roberts pointed to those provisions as authority for state courts to curb gerrrymandering, and the absence of an equivalent provision in the federal constitution as the reason for the federal courts not doing so.  Now, of course, they want to prohibit state courts from doing so for federal elections.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

yes, this is true, but to my mind it is the state courts enforcing (imperfectly, and where they are not subject to republican capture) state constitution provisions that prohibit gerrymandering which Alito is targeting. 

Yes, again, the lower courts seem to clearly be the target. 

Further, as the quote in my last post mentioned, it makes sense that even the Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch bloc would not want to create a brightline rule so as to retain their own ability to arbitrate when they want to.  This conforms to the power grab this morning in the EPA case.  In general, I think a good guideline for anticipating how this court (and especially the Alito bloc) rules is how much power they themselves will retain (at least when that's relevant, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

The one silver lining is that districting under normal circumstances happens right after the census every 10 years. It isn't supposed to be done whenever people feel like it. 

Census? What makes you think the census will survive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

But doesn't it feel empty to say that when there will be an exception for the filibuster made? Manchin and/or Sinema won't do it. Even if they did, what stops Republicans from overturning the law or taking it to the Supreme Court and having them overturn it? I'm not sure what the answer is--a new amendment to the Constitution maybe? But either way, Dems need to do something instead of sending us messages saying they need our money and votes. They already have that. They need to show they're willing to act.

Are you saying he should do stuff himself, limited as what he can do may be, even if it may be reversed by SCOTUS, instead of delegating and vaguely supporting abolishing the filibuster for this? Now that's just crazy talk. Honestly, that's why people hate progressives and love pro-gun, anti-abortion moderates who are being investigated for corruption. You know, if Dems lose in November, it'll be your fault!

Seriously, I have no idea what they could do that couldn't be revoked eventually. It's just hard to watch this and see the Dems have contributed so much to getting into this situation.

I think unless you get Big Money out of politics, you won't get enough Dems willing to really ... DO STUFF. You know, stuff other admins, Dem and Rep, have done before. And SCOTUS has made sure Big Money won't go away. Catch 22.*

 

ETA: I saw that in a previous thread, some posters said that other NATO countries would step in if the USA decended into authoritarianism (which I think has started anyway). I don't know what they'd smoked, but I want some of it. You'll sooner see the Dems abolish the filibuster, PleaseMitch praise Biden, and Biden expand the Supreme Court, call the current Republican party fascist malarkey, talk to Progressives as if they were in his own party, AND overrule the... gasp! ...Parlamentarian before that happens.

* Maybe one day, when President Rittenhouse gets somewhat mild after his 3rd or 4th term?

Edited by Mindwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:
 

 

The laughing smilie I clicked is meant to be full-on crazy. Like the Joker or something.

 

In other news, Candace Owens said there were no abortions when "we" (sic) had slaves.(Didn't she get the memo btw? Shouldn't that be "when we kindly relocated folks"?) I guess it wouldn't be ok for me to call her Auntie Candace? Asking for a friend.

Edited by Mindwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Census? What makes you think the census will survive?

The census is one of the few things that is explicitly required by the constitution. While it can be fucked over - and was this last period - it will not be explicitly removed. 

Redistricting is also defined as a requirement in the constitution, so again - will survive in some fashion. But that 'some fashion' is doing a lot of load bearing, and as we see over and over whatever requirements there are tend to be used to facilitate even more authoritarian and one-party rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

In other news, Candace Owens said there were no abortions when "we" (sic) had slaves.(Didn't she get the memo btw? Shouldn't that be "when we kindly relocated folks"?)

Would she say no rapes either?  Just kindly attention from the overseers and owners.  :ack:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like so much of this started as a joke to piss liberals off, but has spun disastrously out of control and now they're deadly serious, no matter how outlandish something is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...