https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
Top link is to background on a case that could have a major impact on future elections.
Second link is to SCOTUS oral arguments scheduled to start at 10:00AM EST today. (About 4 minutes from now).
WW
This teeters on a knife’s edge.
There are at least four justices on the record as supporting this idea.
If this idea is upheld, it has far-reaching ramifications.
Including the idea that state legislatures could throw out the popular vote for President and choose their own electors, and no one could stop them.
Horrible hypotheticals. That’s one thing that can be blocked at the congressional certification.
Alternate hypothetical: If judges are allowed to make the decisions they could throw out the popular vote and the certification of the legislature and select themselves as the electors.
Or other made up things.
A) No…Congress could not do this. In fact, the Electoral Coint Reform Act would make it even more impossible for them to do this…because that act is…rightly…specifying that the “certification” is a mere counting formality.
B) No the courts cannot do what you suggested either. But remove courts’ oversight authority or any state constitutional questions by ruling the legislatures have absolute power…and the state legislatures could, in fact, do this.
Nice attempt at rebuttal, but yours was not based on reality. My argument was.
It’s dangerous to take too much from oral argument, but I’ve been listening to the argument from the beginning, and it seems that Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett are deeply skeptical of the the position being taken by NC, which is that you take the decision by the state court as being presumptively correct as to interpretation of the state constitution, and then subject it to the question as to whether it is a “procedural” or “substantive” limitation on the authority of the legislature. The counsel for NC did an exceptionally poor job of explaining to the satisfaction of any of the justices how that would work in practice other than that every single case would end up on review before the Supreme Court. So I think that it’s 9-0 on the approach, and 5-4 rejecting the “independent state legislature” altogether.
Ignoring the Constitutional aspects entirely for the moment and focusing on the practical aspect should North Carolina win.
Yes, Florida, Texas, North Carolina and others could gerrymander.
But so could many Democrat States.
For example, California fell 40 to 12 in favor of Democrats. They currently use a redistricting commission. If North Carolina wins this case, the California Legislature could pass a map that easily returns 52 Democrats and 0 Republicans. Illinois could pass a map that eliminates all but 1 or 2 Republicans.
A redistricting free for all would tend to favor Democrats over all, not Republicans.
From a political aspect, this is a case, Republicans really don’t want to win. Some Republicans own greed for seats is blinding them to the reality that Democrats have a greed for seats of their own and the ability to take more than Republicans.
I would also note that in North Carolina, Republicans just won control of the State Supreme Court and could reimpose their old map WITHOUT winning this case.
I stated in the other thread that I believe that the Supreme Court will reject the Independent State Legislature Theory, but may reach a decision that is partially favorable to North Carolina while rejecting ISLT.
Sure. Yours is based on the reality of a state legislature throwing out the votes and selecting electors on their own…which has happened exactly the same number of times that a state court has thrown out votes and selected their own electors.
You fantasize this horrible legislature and good guy judges…that is all.
After oral arguments, I see only two Justices, Alito and Thomas, that are buying into ISLT.
Three Justices, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson who will likely outright support the Respondents.
That leaves the Chief Justice and Justices Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to try to split the middle.
And then there is that inconvenient precedent by none other than Justice Scalia that favors Respondents in this case.
But in the end, ISLT will be smacked down. At best, a divided court will give North Carolina a few crumbs and call it a day.
takes 5, which they dont have.
Allan
