One of Trump’s justices just suggested blocking state courts from protecting voting rights

1
On Monday, the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court rejected a push to expand Wisconsin’s ballot processing deadline so that votes received after Election Day will count, as long as they are postmarked by the proper day.

But according to Slate legal journalist Mark Joseph Stern, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled he would have been willing to go even further — and embrace a legal theory saying that not only should federal judges be blocked from expansion of voting rights ahead of elections, but state judges should be as well.

Such a theory, Stern noted, was suggested by right-wing former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore ruling that decided the 2000 presidential election — but not even all the other conservative justices agreed with it.

A federal court’s alteration of state election laws such as Wisconsin’s
differs in some respects from a state court’s (or state agency’s) alteration of state election laws. That said, under the U. S. Constitution, the state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections. Article II expressly provides that the rules for Presidential elections are established by the States “in such Manner as the Legisla- ture thereof may direct.” §1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). The text of Article II means that “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must pre- vail” and that a state court may not depart from the state election code enacted by the legislature. Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 120 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring); see Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvass- ing Bd., 531 U. S. 70, 76–78 (2000) (per curiam); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892). In a Presidential election, in other words, a state court’s “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S., at 113 (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring). As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in Bush v. Gore, the important federal judicial role in reviewing state-court decisions about state law in a federal Presiden- tial election “does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures. To attach definitive weight to the pronouncement of a state court, when the very question at issue is whether the court has actually departed from the statutory meaning, would be to abdicate our responsibility to enforce the explicit requirements of Article II.” Id., at 115.
The dissent here questions why the federal courts would have a role in that kind of case. Post, at 11, n. 6 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). The answer to that question, as the unanimous Court stated in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., and as Chief Justice Rehnquist persuasively ex- plained in Bush v. Gore, is that the text of the Constitution requires fed- eral courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/one-o ... -analysis/

Given ideas of what we can expect from the SCOTUS in the future.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: One of Trump’s justices just suggested blocking state courts from protecting voting rights

2
They confirmed her and STILL Democrats are afraid of expanding the court. As one pundit put it: The house is on fire but STILL Dems are afraid to break the glass and pull out the fire extinguisher.

But it's not unjustified. Each Justice is responsible for at least one or more circuits. The circuit courts are bloated--some have as many as 23 judges. So they need to be split, creating more circuits. And that IN ITSELF is justification.

But the bottom line is that Republicans do NOT FOLLOW THE AGREED-ON RULES! They haven't in the Senate for 10 years. If the Democrats prevail next Tuesday and flip the Senate, and Biden wins, they should just say "Fuck off, you cheating cry-babies!" and expand the courts and add AT LEAST 4 justices to the SCOTUS and FORCE back the majority, to be what the majority of the people want.

It's 10 years past time for Democrats to pull off the gloves and fight just as hard and dirty as the ReThugs.

Sorry, this is the game THEY have been playing. And they'll whine and squeal like Trump does "IT'S NOT FAIR!!!" because it's only OK when THEY cheat, not when Dems do.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: One of Trump’s justices just suggested blocking state courts from protecting voting rights

3
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:28 pm
On Monday, the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court rejected a push to expand Wisconsin’s ballot processing deadline so that votes received after Election Day will count, as long as they are postmarked by the proper day.

But according to Slate legal journalist Mark Joseph Stern, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled he would have been willing to go even further — and embrace a legal theory saying that not only should federal judges be blocked from expansion of voting rights ahead of elections, but state judges should be as well.

Such a theory, Stern noted, was suggested by right-wing former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore ruling that decided the 2000 presidential election — but not even all the other conservative justices agreed with it.

A federal court’s alteration of state election laws such as Wisconsin’s
differs in some respects from a state court’s (or state agency’s) alteration of state election laws. That said, under the U. S. Constitution, the state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections. Article II expressly provides that the rules for Presidential elections are established by the States “in such Manner as the Legisla- ture thereof may direct.” §1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). The text of Article II means that “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must pre- vail” and that a state court may not depart from the state election code enacted by the legislature. Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 120 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring); see Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvass- ing Bd., 531 U. S. 70, 76–78 (2000) (per curiam); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892). In a Presidential election, in other words, a state court’s “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S., at 113 (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring). As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in Bush v. Gore, the important federal judicial role in reviewing state-court decisions about state law in a federal Presiden- tial election “does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures. To attach definitive weight to the pronouncement of a state court, when the very question at issue is whether the court has actually departed from the statutory meaning, would be to abdicate our responsibility to enforce the explicit requirements of Article II.” Id., at 115.
The dissent here questions why the federal courts would have a role in that kind of case. Post, at 11, n. 6 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). The answer to that question, as the unanimous Court stated in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., and as Chief Justice Rehnquist persuasively ex- plained in Bush v. Gore, is that the text of the Constitution requires fed- eral courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/one-o ... -analysis/

Given ideas of what we can expect from the SCOTUS in the future.
The big, evil picture:

Census being pushed to end before the count is finalized. Fewer people will be counted. Fewer non-citizens counted. Changes in representation. Changes in federal and state budgets.

No extended deadlines for voting. No judges allowed to change voting deadlines (nuclear option).

Challenges to election. SCOTUS now imbalanced to deflect any issues around Trump election outcome.
Challenges to Roe. SCOTUS now imbalanced to favor a strike-down of Roe.
Challenges to ACA. SCOTUS now imbalanced to favor a strike-down of ACA.
Challenges to LGBTQ rights. SCOTUS now imbalanced to favor assault on marriage equality.

The vortex of awful just keeps growing.

Remember how quaint it was to only worry about your health?

Re: One of Trump’s justices just suggested blocking state courts from protecting voting rights

4
YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:43 pm They confirmed her and STILL Democrats are afraid of expanding the court. As one pundit put it: The house is on fire but STILL Dems are afraid to break the glass and pull out the fire extinguisher.

But it's not unjustified. Each Justice is responsible for at least one or more circuits. The circuit courts are bloated--some have as many as 23 judges. So they need to be split, creating more circuits. And that IN ITSELF is justification.

But the bottom line is that Republicans do NOT FOLLOW THE AGREED-ON RULES! They haven't in the Senate for 10 years. If the Democrats prevail next Tuesday and flip the Senate, and Biden wins, they should just say "Fuck off, you cheating cry-babies!" and expand the courts and add AT LEAST 4 justices to the SCOTUS and FORCE back the majority, to be what the majority of the people want.

It's 10 years past time for Democrats to pull off the gloves and fight just as hard and dirty as the ReThugs.

Sorry, this is the game THEY have been playing. And they'll whine and squeal like Trump does "IT'S NOT FAIR!!!" because it's only OK when THEY cheat, not when Dems do.
Yup! I've been saying it for years. It's time Dems stop playing the dignified game, roll up the sleeves, start bloodying some noses, or (at least) pull out all the stops and force those snakes back under the rocks where they came from.

Re: One of Trump’s justices just suggested blocking state courts from protecting voting rights

6
They believe that only the rich and powerful, the very REAL elite, not the "fake" elite--Scientists and the educated--they attack, should make all the decisions for society "He who has the gold, rules". They think because they are rich, they are simply that much smarter.

I find it darkly amusing that one of the most elitist and sure that he knows best billionaires, Michael Bloomberg, when he offered this WISE advice to the Orange Turd after the 2016 election, calling to congratulate him, that he surround himself with people smarter than himself, got this response from the ignorant, arrogant blob: "There is no one smarter than me!"

After that, Bloomberg simply mouthed a few well-wishes and hung up, stunned and clearly terrified!
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: One of Trump’s justices just suggested blocking state courts from protecting voting rights

7
Y'all realize that if Turd is in lead Nov. 3, he'll want counting stopped next day; if he's behind, he'll want count to continue. He's creating a situation that could hurt his own election and I fully hope he does exactly that. I want him so frigging far behind at midnight PST no uncounted ballots could overcome his losing nor save his orange ass.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw." "COVID can fix STUPID!"
The greatest, most aggrieved mistake EVER made in USA was electing DJT as POTUS.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest