Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Supreme hypocrisy?   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

5408 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Dec 2022 at 6:42 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-12-08 6:52:34 AM  
I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.
 
2022-12-08 6:54:24 AM  

darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.


You're going to make my mouth water, talking like that.
 
2022-12-08 6:54:56 AM  
If you can't beat them, change the rules so their votes don't matter. By the good old traditional values crowd.
 
2022-12-08 6:59:11 AM  
This case is really important and giving a state legislature unchecked power makes no sense, but this sign is embarrassing. You LOVE checks and balances? What?

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 7:00:16 AM  

darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupaapple.


ftfy
 
2022-12-08 7:02:12 AM  

darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.


Ummm...
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 7:02:44 AM  
Fark the US Supreme Court...
 
2022-12-08 7:03:55 AM  
The only thing the GQP is puzzled by with this case is how they'll be able to craft an opinion that gives them untrammeled power to control elections in their states but tightly constrains Democrats from controlling their elections in a similar manner.
 
2022-12-08 7:10:06 AM  

darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.


If I find one single onion slice on my pizza, I'm going to make a federal case out of it.
 
2022-12-08 7:10:18 AM  

Serious Black: The only thing the GQP is puzzled by with this case is how they'll be able to craft an opinion that gives them untrammeled power to control elections in their states but tightly constrains Democrats from controlling their elections in a similar manner.


They just need to figure out how to make IOKIYAR a formal law, rather than the unofficial highest law of the land, like it is now.
 
2022-12-08 7:11:31 AM  
You know what supersedes a state legislature deciding they aren't bound by any restrictions in election rules? The army.
 
2022-12-08 7:13:57 AM  
FTFA: Trying to read tea leaves at oral arguments is always a hard game. But these days, it's much harder [due to longer arguments]

Back in my lawyering days, I developed a theory, based on my experience, that a judge asks more questions to the party the judge will ultimately rule against. More questions = loss.

I'd be curious to see a proper analysis of SCOTUS arguments and corresponding results to see if it matches my theory. I bet it would.
 
2022-12-08 7:21:06 AM  
media.cnn.comView Full Size


pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 7:31:50 AM  

BlueVet: If you can't beat them, change the rules so their votes don't matter. By the good old traditional values crowd.


Of course! The traditional value they're upholding in that case is only traditional people should get to vote. You know, people who are white, male, property owners.
 
2022-12-08 7:34:17 AM  
I listened to the whole  thing. Thompson, the guy arguing for the NC legislature, was inept. It might not be his fault but the fault of a horrible position he had to argue for. The opposition's lawyers did a much better job but were asked some damn fool questions. As usual, Alito was the worst.

Two trends emerged in this case about whether or not State Supreme Courts can over-rule Legislatures on how elections are run (including districting). Alito's faction were very concerned about wild scenarios where Courts over-stepped to do wacky things, but not at all concerned about legislatures (in the narrow sense of elected reps and senators) could over-step. And everyone was concerned about when Federal courts could step in and over-rule State Supreme courts around decisions about how elections are run.

The court is not divided into two here, it's divided about 9 ways.
 
2022-12-08 7:35:41 AM  

moothemagiccow: This case is really important and giving a state legislature unchecked power makes no sense, but this sign is embarrassing. You LOVE checks and balances? What?

[pbs.twimg.com image 850x1133]


It's a pretty insightful sign.
 
2022-12-08 7:37:47 AM  

Alphax: Serious Black: The only thing the GQP is puzzled by with this case is how they'll be able to craft an opinion that gives them untrammeled power to control elections in their states but tightly constrains Democrats from controlling their elections in a similar manner.

They just need to figure out how to make IOKIYAR a formal law, rather than the unofficial highest law of the land, like it is now.


That's easy.  Just pass legislation outlawing the Democratic party and have the majority of the SCOTUS sign off on it.
Seriously, I would expect to see the Republicans do just that should they run the board in 2024.
 
2022-12-08 7:39:08 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Alphax: Serious Black: The only thing the GQP is puzzled by with this case is how they'll be able to craft an opinion that gives them untrammeled power to control elections in their states but tightly constrains Democrats from controlling their elections in a similar manner.

They just need to figure out how to make IOKIYAR a formal law, rather than the unofficial highest law of the land, like it is now.

That's easy.  Just pass legislation outlawing the Democratic party and have the majority of the SCOTUS sign off on it.
Seriously, I would expect to see the Republicans do just that should they run the board in 2024.


Watch them get the name wrong and use Democrat party.
 
2022-12-08 7:50:46 AM  

darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.


i.scdn.coView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 7:52:07 AM  

Alphax: AurizenDarkstar: Alphax: Serious Black: The only thing the GQP is puzzled by with this case is how they'll be able to craft an opinion that gives them untrammeled power to control elections in their states but tightly constrains Democrats from controlling their elections in a similar manner.

They just need to figure out how to make IOKIYAR a formal law, rather than the unofficial highest law of the land, like it is now.

That's easy.  Just pass legislation outlawing the Democratic party and have the majority of the SCOTUS sign off on it.
Seriously, I would expect to see the Republicans do just that should they run the board in 2024.

Watch them get the name wrong and use Democrat party.


Dude, Democrat is not the preferred nomenclature. DemonRAT party, please.
 
2022-12-08 7:55:17 AM  

Muta: darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.

Ummm...
[i.pinimg.com image 480x371]


I'm livin' in shame. Also I'm hungry.
 
2022-12-08 7:57:43 AM  
What is a maximal?
 
2022-12-08 8:04:34 AM  
The basic argument against this theory seems pretty straightforward to me...

Yes the state legislatures get to determine how the state conducts Federal elections.

But what the state legislature is and how they are allowed to operate is determined by the state constitution.

And if there is a question about what the state constitution means, that's a matter for the state courts.

So the state constitution (and by extension courts) definitely constrain how a state conducts Federal elections.
 
2022-12-08 8:12:52 AM  

HomoHabilis: What is a maximal?


geocities.wsView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 8:17:44 AM  

pueblonative: darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupaapple.

ftfy


"papple"?
 
2022-12-08 8:21:18 AM  
"Swing votes". "Conservative bloc". They are addicted to the horse race narrative.
 
2022-12-08 8:50:47 AM  

SomeAmerican: The basic argument against this theory seems pretty straightforward to me...

Yes the state legislatures get to determine how the state conducts Federal elections.

But what the state legislature is and how they are allowed to operate is determined by the state constitution.

And if there is a question about what the state constitution means, that's a matter for the state courts.

So the state constitution (and by extension courts) definitely constrain how a state conducts Federal elections.


This.
 
2022-12-08 9:08:07 AM  

darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.


And Diana Ross
 
2022-12-08 9:08:28 AM  

SomeAmerican: The basic argument against this theory seems pretty straightforward to me...

Yes the state legislatures get to determine how the state conducts Federal elections.

But what the state legislature is and how they are allowed to operate is determined by the state constitution.

And if there is a question about what the state constitution means, that's a matter for the state courts.

So the state constitution (and by extension courts) definitely constrain how a state conducts Federal elections.


It is straighforward.

But that won't stop Alito, Thomas, and  Gorusch from ignoring all that and writing an opinion that gives state legislatures the power to overturn election results, because they want to.

Barrett and Kavanaugh are wildcards here. Barrett was giving NC lawyers a hard time, so she may side with Roberts and the three liberal justices. I don't know about Kavanaugh.
 
2022-12-08 9:11:24 AM  

SomeAmerican: The basic argument against this theory seems pretty straightforward to me...

Yes the state legislatures get to determine how the state conducts Federal elections.

But what the state legislature is and how they are allowed to operate is determined by the state constitution.

And if there is a question about what the state constitution means, that's a matter for the state courts.

So the state constitution (and by extension courts) definitely constrain how a state conducts Federal elections.


Good summary.

To distill it even further, the question is simply whether the power of state legislatures is constrained by their own state constitutions.

Any answer other than "yes" means that elections are Calvinball.
 
2022-12-08 9:19:41 AM  

SomeAmerican: The basic argument against this theory seems pretty straightforward to me...

Yes the state legislatures get to determine how the state conducts Federal elections.

But what the state legislature is and how they are allowed to operate is determined by the state constitution.

And if there is a question about what the state constitution means, that's a matter for the state courts.

So the state constitution (and by extension courts) definitely constrain how a state conducts Federal elections.


You would think it were straightforward, but Alito is up to his eyeballs in crazy hypotheticals.  He's groping for something he can use to rule for NC.  I'm sure if he goes back over 13th century witch trials he can find something to justify his prejudice.
 
2022-12-08 9:24:01 AM  

BlueVet: If you can't beat them, change the rules so their votes don't matter. By the good old traditional values crowd.


That is a traditional value, of human civilization psychology, at any rate.  I changed my mind about "civilization" there because I think a good working definition of that word is the opposite of what conservatives keep trying to do.

It's called "Who's going to stop me?", "You and what army?", or, at its most basic, "Might Makes Right."
 
2022-12-08 9:50:02 AM  
Barrett seemed troubled by the distinction lawmakers were trying to make between non-legislative state entities being able to weigh in on procedural matters around how federal elections were run versus the substantive matters around elections being out of those entities reach. Kavanaugh, meanwhile, said he thought the legislature was overreaching in how it was relying on a concurrence from then Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case.

Rehnquist also said that Bush v. Gore would have no precedential value.  "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Furthermore, it was a concurrence.  Rehnquist was only able to get three votes for his position.
 
2022-12-08 11:05:00 AM  

Graffito: I'm sure if he goes back over 13th century witch trials he can find something to justify his prejudice.


Waiting for the inevitable USSC(R) court opinion that includes the phrase "floats like a duck".....
 
2022-12-08 12:04:06 PM  
I'm expecting a 5-4 decision against the GOP but with a lot of stuff carved out in the decision to let them pretty much do what they want anyway.
But I wouldn't be surprised to see the worst decision. I always suspect the worst with Chucklefark's court.
 
2022-12-08 12:36:25 PM  
The fact that SCOTUS even accepted this case is ludicrous, and the fact that there's a very realistic possibility that they will approve the underlying claim is utterly insane. They're practically sending evites to Americans to start assassinating them, because the wrong ruling in this case would mean that state legslatures can end democracy in their respective states and make it impossible for voters to do anything about it without resorting to violence. It literally creates the scenario that conservatives say we need the Second Amendment to prevent. You want a farking civil war? This is how to get one.
 
2022-12-08 1:02:47 PM  

darkhelmet66: I think we should outlaw any supreme other than pizza and chalupa.


media-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 1:45:12 PM  
OK, my impressions from the oral argument (yes, I listen to supreme court oral arguments for fun).

Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson: All definitely voting for the appellee and opposed to the "independent state legislature" theory.

Gorsuch: From his questioning, I'm all but certain that he's a vote in favor of the appellant (i.e. the NC general assembly).

So there are five votes in play here:

Roberts and Barrett: Can't quite tell from their questions, but I think they're both skeptical of the "independent state legislature" theory.  They may vote to affirm (and thus provide the votes necessary for a majority along with the liberal three) but I wouldn't be surprised if they filed a concurrence or concurrences.

Alito: He initially seemed skeptical of the appellant's argument, but he seemed to be looking for a reason to agree with it.  I see him concurring with a Gorsuch dissent.

Kavanagh: Didn't ask too many questions.  He might side with the appellee, but again it might be in a concurrence.

Thomas: Most of his questions (yes, he actually asked questions) concerned jurisdictional issues.  If he doesn't vote with the minority, he'll issue an opinion to say that the court shouldn't have taken the case in the first place on jurisdictional grounds.

So I think there are five votes to affirm and that the final vote might be 6-3 or maybe even 7-2 against the cockamamie "independent state legislature" theory.  But then that just might be wishful thinking on my part.

From my perspective, everyone spent far too much time wondering what the standard of review should be in cases where the state supreme court interprets a state's constitution.  From the appellant's perspective, however, the question isn't whether the SCOTUS can overrule a state supreme court, it's whether a state legislature can ignore a state supreme court when it comes to elections.  I think Jackson got closest to the point when she kept coming back to the point that the state constitution gives the legislature its authority to legislate, so if the legislature acts contrary to the constitution, it's acting without authority.
 
2022-12-08 7:17:44 PM  

wademh: moothemagiccow: This case is really important and giving a state legislature unchecked power makes no sense, but this sign is embarrassing. You LOVE checks and balances? What?

[pbs.twimg.com image 850x1133]

It's a pretty insightful sign.


you should have logged off years ago
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.