Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
LastLast
  1. #81
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,237
    Quote Originally Posted by minteK917 View Post
    You literally described what ID is lol.
    By that definition of "ID", literally every State in the USA has required "ID" in elections, at least back through living memory.

    Which should demonstrate why the current push for "Voter ID" is so fundamentally dishonest.


  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    By that definition of "ID", literally every State in the USA has required "ID" in elections, at least back through living memory.

    Which should demonstrate why the current push for "Voter ID" is so fundamentally dishonest.
    Which is the point. No shit Republicans are dishonest. Pro life, Voter id, etc. Thats why you dont fucking engage directly in the ridiculous shit. BRO VOTER ID IS BAD. The problem aint fucking voter ID. Thats kinda like if you have someone go against the bullshit pro life label. Dude killing fetus is like so nice. When in reality nobody is against voter id, nobody is against life, nobody is against immigration structures. But when you play into their delusion, you give their fake shit public credibility.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The article continues by explaining which oversight is in question. The dissent (March 7, 2022) suggests that the court wrote itself a role, almost like legislation. "These explanations have the hallmarks of legislation." and "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." Basically, a court went too far in arrogating power for itself, and is likely to be pulled back somewhat. Casting this as "watch out: they might pull it back all the way" is foolish.

    The key parts here is how the court arrives at the "violated the state's constitution" and what I mentioned previously. The court can't act on its own to write or rewrite it's role in elections; it must share that power with the legislature, and it appears the judges aren't conducive to sharing or yielding at all.

    Re-linking https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21A455
    It's not foolish though. Here's an article about the independent state legislature theory and why it would be bad for SCOTUS to rule in it's favor. I'll go ahead and quote some of the example on why the independent state legislature theory is a bad thing with a link to the full article at the end.

    Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections. The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them.

    Extreme versions of the theory would block legislatures from delegating their authority to officials like governors, secretaries of state, or election commissioners, who currently play important roles in administering elections.

    Then, after the 2020 election, President Trump and his allies used the independent state legislature theory as part of their effort to overturn the results. For a third time, the Supreme Court declined to adopt the theory. But three sitting justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch —endorsed it.

    Most recently, gerrymanderers in North Carolina, Kansas, and beyond, have invoked the independent state legislature theory to try to block state courts from reviewing their maps. So far, the Supreme Court has not embraced it.
    There's more quotes I could pull from the article highlighting why the independent state legislature theory is a bad thing, but I think this is a good starting point. Also the article also talks about how the framers of the constitution didn't trust state legislatures to run fair elections and would therefor be against something like the independent legislature theory.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...eory-explained

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    T The dissent (March 7, 2022) suggests that the court wrote itself a role, almost like legislation. "These explanations have the hallmarks of legislation."
    Simple scenario:
    Legislature- "here's this thing (and it is absolutely necessary for this thing to be completed for the functioning of government)"
    Courts- "this thing is unconstitutional. Do the thing differently before (x date)."
    Legislature- "NO. We like the way we did the thing."
    Courts- ???

    What is the court to do in that situation?
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by minteK917 View Post
    This is a stupid point. Americans like to quote other countries. I live in Canada, we need Ids to vote. The difference is that ID are given out for free, some of them on birth or on arrival. That you need an ID to vote is not a problem, you need an ID to reserve a table at a fucking restaurant.
    You don't need a specific voter ID, at least not in my province. Provincial and especially federal ones have a huge list of documents you can use to prove your identity. If you have a driver's license and the elector's card mailed to you for free, you can vote. Only have a blood donor card and a credit card? You can still vote so long as one has your current address.

    What the Republicans want isn't that, it's a specific voter ID instead, because the goal isn't to safeguard elections at all but to suppress poorer/less engaged voters.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  6. #86
    Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a bit confusing for non-USA people. I think most people agree that you should have some kind of ID that proves your identity. What Republicans have been doing in their states, are basically restricting to only very specific types of ID based on how hard it is to get them for people that would not vote for them (mostly people of color), and/or get rid of facilities accessible to them that allow them to get those IDs.

    This is on top of eliminating polling locations, forcing them to stand in long lines without being able to provide them with even things like water.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    You don't need a specific voter ID, at least not in my province. Provincial and especially federal ones have a huge list of documents you can use to prove your identity. If you have a driver's license and the elector's card mailed to you for free, you can vote. Only have a blood donor card and a credit card? You can still vote so long as one has your current address.

    What the Republicans want isn't that, it's a specific voter ID instead, because the goal isn't to safeguard elections at all but to suppress poorer/less engaged voters.
    Yes, so thats why you dont open with OMG VOTER ID IS BAD. Thats not what is bad. We all require to be identified to vote, anywhere. Thats the problem, like the other examples i said. If you need to explain what you mean by ID, you already on the back foot in the general population that dont read shit. Just like defund the police had absolute dog shit public support, because you have to clarify 20 points that it doesent mean what it colloquially says to people.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by david0925 View Post
    Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a bit confusing for non-USA people. I think most people agree that you should have some kind of ID that proves your identity. What Republicans have been doing in their states, are basically restricting to only very specific types of ID based on how hard it is to get them for people that would not vote for them (mostly people of color), and/or get rid of facilities accessible to them that allow them to get those IDs.

    This is on top of eliminating polling locations, forcing them to stand in long lines without being able to provide them with even things like water.
    Its confusing to americans too, its confusing wording on purpose by the republican party too. The same way they name themselves pro lives and not anti women autonomy or anti abortion. If your are pro life, your enemy is anti life by default. Then all they need to do is fish for people saying dumb shit like. Oh yeah abortion has no limit, even 8 months in. Its all done on purpose to fish that shit. So yes when people say dumb shit like voter id is bad or immigration control is bad. You are giving them rope to look sane. The problem is not voter ID, its how they want to reduce access of ids. The problem is not immigration control, its how they want to reduce access to the system of immigration. You dont go into the voter ID discussion where normal people are involved and go, bro voter ID is racist. You are literally doing the bidding of the wording they use. Anybody not massively into the ditches of politics will just go ????

    Voter ID is fucking fine. Voter Identification is any combination of recognizable documents for the government that has a couple infos and your picture. Name, Address, Date of birth. What you actually fight against is the reduction of voting IDs, not voting ID.
    Last edited by minteK917; 2022-07-04 at 01:54 AM.

  8. #88
    Bloodsail Admiral tehdang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonKing View Post
    It's not foolish though. Here's an article about the independent state legislature theory and why it would be bad for SCOTUS to rule in it's favor. I'll go ahead and quote some of the example on why the independent state legislature theory is a bad thing with a link to the full article at the end.

    There's more quotes I could pull from the article highlighting why the independent state legislature theory is a bad thing, but I think this is a good starting point. Also the article also talks about how the framers of the constitution didn't trust state legislatures to run fair elections and would therefor be against something like the independent legislature theory.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...eory-explained
    I'll yield you an ounce of a point. Some very nervous person might count any possibility of the court ruling in a maximalist position on independent legislature theory as necessitating outrage. I measure mine out in this case. It's clear from the dissent I linked that the dissenting justices believe that the courts in question have strayed too far into writing laws with their pen. They make no bones about constitutional provision, state and federal, giving the courts a role. The justices thus cannot be linked to what your article describes as "Proponents of the independent state legislature theory" in as much as "these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections." They've already stated contrary in opinions, and only 3 subscribed to the opinion in the first place (You have to admit 6 justices saying the court shouldn't even hear the case the first time it went around doesn't lend itself to maximalist danger).

    Your article really shows bias in not noting that "three sitting justices ... endorsed it." They're talking specifically on whether a State Court can decide "free and fair elections" means a court is allowed to determine that mailed ballots must be received by 8pm isn't free or fair, but counting mailed ballots 3 days after the election is free and fair. That's not "courts have no say in elections," that's "courts have shown caprice in deciding what the law says." It's not doing their cause any good by trying to tie Trump in and saying "endorsed it." It just shows bias. Imagine if I were to take their article, and say the writers endorsed the view that no legislature ever can make rules for the conduct of elections, but that matter should be left to the courts to decide. That the writers determined free and fair elections granted the courts legislative authority in election law. That would be the same take in maximizing the offense and trashing the nuance to try to sway the reader. The Court is set to rule on when courts go too far, and courts are stepping over that line.

    two dissents I reference:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...DISSENT_4-1ref
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a772_h3dj.pdf

    A problem I didn't mention with the Moore case was that it imagines state congresses wrote provisions into their laws for free and fair elections, and 246 years later, judges discovered that those provisions overrule partisan gerrymandering.

    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. I think it is likely that the applicants would succeed in showing that the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded those limits.
    Hardly "independent state legislature theory." I think if you were to call any case looking at any limits "independent state legislature theory," then your judge opponents of yours to fairly use "court as super legislature theory" (since it seems unimaginable that a Supreme Court should take up limits on state court power to decide how federal elections are conducted -- that would be dangerous!) I see the biggest decision likely to happen is five or six justices coming down in favor of limits on state courts that extend to partisan gerrymandering (when not separately written in state constitutions) and rewriting ordinary election law (early voting can reasonably be regulated by states as being done early).

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    Simple scenario:
    Legislature- "here's this thing (and it is absolutely necessary for this thing to be completed for the functioning of government)"
    Courts- "this thing is unconstitutional. Do the thing differently before (x date)."
    Legislature- "NO. We like the way we did the thing."
    Courts- ???

    What is the court to do in that situation?
    You're getting close. Let me reframe:

    Legislature: Here's our changes to election laws.
    Courts: It's unconstitutional. Free and fair means we get to tell you how you're gonna do it from here on out them or lower court *Writes the law*
    Legislature: Uhh it looks like these parts don't impact free and fair elections. Where's your authority to just rewrite as you see fit? Where's your requirement to show something's actually a true violation of free and fair elections?
    Courts: Haha. We have no limits on what we're allowed to rule isn't fair or free. We write the law, you take notes. Now begone, we both know the Supreme Court can't take up your injury, or they'll be accused of supporting maximalist Independent State Legislature Theory!"

    Remember that the Supreme Court deciding when lower courts usurp authority does not imagine that anytime they go too far amounts to declaration of independence from the courts.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2022-07-04 at 02:32 AM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  9. #89
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,678
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You're getting close. Let me reframe
    In a very dishonest way (go figure).

    The North Carolina judiciary, which the Moore case concerns, is neither "writing laws" nor are they claiming limitless authority in their rulings because they are acting within the scope as provided by NC law which explicitly empowers the state judiciary to review cases involving redistricting.

    If you're going to bitch about judicial review of election law the Moore case is a very poor platform from which to do so since there's not actually any legal conflict there... Unless you hold the pretty insane position that the legislature cannot delegate any of its functions under its own authority (as is the case in North Carolina) and/or no lower court than SCOTUS can interpret the law.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-07-04 at 03:07 AM.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'll yield you an ounce of a point. Some very nervous person might count any possibility of the court ruling in a maximalist position on independent legislature theory as necessitating outrage. I measure mine out in this case. It's clear from the dissent I linked that the dissenting justices believe that the courts in question have strayed too far into writing laws with their pen. They make no bones about constitutional provision, state and federal, giving the courts a role. The justices thus cannot be linked to what your article describes as "Proponents of the independent state legislature theory" in as much as "these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections." They've already stated contrary in opinions, and only 3 subscribed to the opinion in the first place (You have to admit 6 justices saying the court shouldn't even hear the case the first time it went around doesn't lend itself to maximalist danger).

    Your article really shows bias in not noting that "three sitting justices ... endorsed it." They're talking specifically on whether a State Court can decide "free and fair elections" means a court is allowed to determine that mailed ballots must be received by 8pm isn't free or fair, but counting mailed ballots 3 days after the election is free and fair. That's not "courts have no say in elections," that's "courts have shown caprice in deciding what the law says." It's not doing their cause any good by trying to tie Trump in and saying "endorsed it." It just shows bias. Imagine if I were to take their article, and say the writers endorsed the view that no legislature ever can make rules for the conduct of elections, but that matter should be left to the courts to decide. That the writers determined free and fair elections granted the courts legislative authority in election law. That would be the same take in maximizing the offense and trashing the nuance to try to sway the reader. The Court is set to rule on when courts go too far, and courts are stepping over that line.

    two dissents I reference:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...DISSENT_4-1ref
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a772_h3dj.pdf

    A problem I didn't mention with the Moore case was that it imagines state congresses wrote provisions into their laws for free and fair elections, and 246 years later, judges discovered that those provisions overrule partisan gerrymandering.


    Hardly "independent state legislature theory." I think if you were to call any case looking at any limits "independent state legislature theory," then your judge opponents of yours to fairly use "court as super legislature theory" (since it seems unimaginable that a Supreme Court should take up limits on state court power to decide how federal elections are conducted -- that would be dangerous!) I see the biggest decision likely to happen is five or six justices coming down in favor of limits on state courts that extend to partisan gerrymandering (when not separately written in state constitutions) and rewriting ordinary election law (early voting can reasonably be regulated by states as being done early).
    I'm only bringing up independent state legislature theory because the first article you linked in this thread mentioned it and said it was at the heart of the issue that North Carolina Republicans are bringing to the Supreme Court. Here's another article talking about this subject. I've quoted a section of it that I find very interesting about this whole thing. Of course I will also provide a full link to the article below.

    The Court’s decision to hear the Moore case is very odd

    Since four justices have already called for cases like Davis and Arizona State Legislature to be overruled or significantly altered, it’s not surprising that the Court decided to hear a case that could potentially do so — under the Supreme Court’s rules, four votes are needed to place a case on the Court’s docket of cases that receive full briefing and oral argument.

    But it is surprising that the Court thought Moore was an appropriate vehicle to hear an independent state legislature doctrine case. That’s because, even if you accept Gorsuch’s theory that the state legislature and not the state judiciary bears “primary responsibility for setting election rules,” the North Carolina legislature explicitly authorized its state’s courts to hear gerrymandering lawsuits.

    In other words, even if the independent state legislature doctrine is valid, North Carolina’s courts are still allowed to decide gerrymandering cases because the state legislature told them to do so.

    North Carolina law provides that lawsuits challenging “any act of the General Assembly that apportions or redistricts State legislative or congressional districts” may be filed “in the Superior Court of Wake County and shall be heard and determined by a three‑judge panel.” This court’s decision may then be appealed to the state supreme court.

    Indeed, North Carolina’s laws — again, laws that were written by the state legislature — provide detailed instructions on how state courts should behave when they determine that a legislative map is illegal. One statute requires state courts to “find with specificity all facts supporting” its conclusion that a map is illegal. Another provides that, after a state court strikes down a redistricting plan, it may not “impose its own substitute plan unless the court first gives the General Assembly a period of time to remedy any defects identified by the court.”

    In its eagerness to hear an independent state legislature doctrine case, in other words, the Supreme Court appears to have taken up a case where there is no legitimate legal conflict. Even if state legislatures have exclusive authority to shape a state’s election law, the North Carolina state legislature used this authority to explicitly empower state courts to strike down gerrymandered maps.

    And yet, it’s hard to imagine why the Court would agree to hear this case unless it is at least considering rolling back decisions like Davis and Arizona State Legislature.
    https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme...racy-january-6

  11. #91
    Bloodsail Admiral tehdang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonKing View Post
    I'm only bringing up independent state legislature theory because the first article you linked in this thread mentioned it and said it was at the heart of the issue that North Carolina Republicans are bringing to the Supreme Court. Here's another article talking about this subject. I've quoted a section of it that I find very interesting about this whole thing. Of course I will also provide a full link to the article below.
    I don't quibble with calling this conflict in the vein of "independent legislature theory" as objectionable in itself. The trouble is the use of that name to cast aspersions at any attempt to restrain court power. And I hope you grasped my reasons to do so: it is clear from reading the dissents (and now I've spent hours digesting them) that justices have identified areas where courts have gone too far in asserting their authority, and deserve to be restrained from doing the same in the future. I don't consider "but 5 justices might decide the court has 0 business dictating anything to the legislature" to be very appropriate to the discussion. The dissent doesn't speak of actual independence, doesn't assert it, and seeks to plead that the time is ripe to consider said abuses. I think they can be discussed without any cloud of the "destr[uction] of voting rights" descending on down. Hence, why I disagree with the Brennan center article trying to be cute. (I'll also note that their front page on today's load reads "Originalism Run Amok. The Constitutional Theory is now a threat to modern life" in testament to their bias. Not to discard every word without reading, but rather to inform on why they did such a poor job on the article)

    I have two comments on this. First, the article does well to admit that three justices considered Moore worth hearing when it first came up. The fourth justice only consented to join those not wishing to hear it because the timing was bad. That's four justices agreeing that the case includes a major point that should be ruled on and settled by the court. If the five that didn't want to consider it vote that the courts did rightly, then Moore is decided against the North Carolina legislature.

    Second, well first let me give background. Ian Millhiser on twitter is the most uninformed, court-unaware idiot I've ever seen have a job related to the court. Last month he confused Roe vs Wade for the name of a federal law instead of a lawsuit (Forced to delete). Tweeted inaccurate information about Kavanaugh (deleted). Wrong about Bush vs Gore recount results (deleted tweet). I only know this guy's name from how much others dunk on him on twitter for being such a backwards idiot. And the writeup on why "A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6" is just another in the series. Particularly, why he thinks it's odd. He claims it's odd because "the North Carolina legislature explicitly authorized its state’s courts to hear gerrymandering lawsuits." He cites the laws of NC allowing the filing of lawsuits against gerrymandering. He explicitly claims the oddity of the Supreme Court taking up this case is based on NC laws.

    And he's dead wrong. The lower courts stated they had the ability to do what they did based solely on provisions in the North Carolina constitution. They cited only those. They brought up the state constitution to defend their actions, not ordinary legislature-passed laws. That's why there is conflict and where the conflict lies. The North Carolina constitution does not put the courts squarely behind rulings on gerrymandering. When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the question became whether the North Carolina constitution authorizes the state court(s) to do it, or whether it does not. The question was not Ian's, and in fact he's ultimately saying the courts were too dumb to see they had plenty of authorization in state law and should've gone with that. (It's a federal election; they had better go to the state constitution anyways)

    Anyways, I hope that's enough to show that the writer is out of his gourd this time, as in the past. Secondly, the dissents and case history should be read by yourself also. They're primary source. Their footnotes together with lower court decisions are enough to show Ian's faults of comprehension by just following what happened. The lower court judges invalidating the legislators aren't as foolish in making their case.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The lower courts stated they had the ability to do what they did based solely on provisions in the North Carolina constitution. They cited only those. They brought up the state constitution to defend their actions, not ordinary legislature-passed laws. That's why there is conflict and where the conflict lies. The North Carolina constitution does not put the courts squarely behind rulings on gerrymandering. When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the question became whether the North Carolina constitution authorizes the state court(s) to do it, or whether it does not. The question was not Ian's, and in fact he's ultimately saying the courts were too dumb to see they had plenty of authorization in state law and should've gone with that. (It's a federal election; they had better go to the state constitution anyways)
    So...you're saying the state courts cited the wrong thing when it came to their own redistricting plan?

    Because NC law allows courts to put their own plan in as long as they give the legislature time to fix it first.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I don't quibble with calling this conflict in the vein of "independent legislature theory" as objectionable in itself. The trouble is the use of that name to cast aspersions at any attempt to restrain court power. And I hope you grasped my reasons to do so: it is clear from reading the dissents (and now I've spent hours digesting them) that justices have identified areas where courts have gone too far in asserting their authority, and deserve to be restrained from doing the same in the future. I don't consider "but 5 justices might decide the court has 0 business dictating anything to the legislature" to be very appropriate to the discussion. The dissent doesn't speak of actual independence, doesn't assert it, and seeks to plead that the time is ripe to consider said abuses. I think they can be discussed without any cloud of the "destr[uction] of voting rights" descending on down. Hence, why I disagree with the Brennan center article trying to be cute. (I'll also note that their front page on today's load reads "Originalism Run Amok. The Constitutional Theory is now a threat to modern life" in testament to their bias. Not to discard every word without reading, but rather to inform on why they did such a poor job on the article)

    I have two comments on this. First, the article does well to admit that three justices considered Moore worth hearing when it first came up. The fourth justice only consented to join those not wishing to hear it because the timing was bad. That's four justices agreeing that the case includes a major point that should be ruled on and settled by the court. If the five that didn't want to consider it vote that the courts did rightly, then Moore is decided against the North Carolina legislature.

    Second, well first let me give background. Ian Millhiser on twitter is the most uninformed, court-unaware idiot I've ever seen have a job related to the court. Last month he confused Roe vs Wade for the name of a federal law instead of a lawsuit (Forced to delete). Tweeted inaccurate information about Kavanaugh (deleted). Wrong about Bush vs Gore recount results (deleted tweet). I only know this guy's name from how much others dunk on him on twitter for being such a backwards idiot. And the writeup on why "A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6" is just another in the series. Particularly, why he thinks it's odd. He claims it's odd because "the North Carolina legislature explicitly authorized its state’s courts to hear gerrymandering lawsuits." He cites the laws of NC allowing the filing of lawsuits against gerrymandering. He explicitly claims the oddity of the Supreme Court taking up this case is based on NC laws.

    And he's dead wrong. The lower courts stated they had the ability to do what they did based solely on provisions in the North Carolina constitution. They cited only those. They brought up the state constitution to defend their actions, not ordinary legislature-passed laws. That's why there is conflict and where the conflict lies. The North Carolina constitution does not put the courts squarely behind rulings on gerrymandering. When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the question became whether the North Carolina constitution authorizes the state court(s) to do it, or whether it does not. The question was not Ian's, and in fact he's ultimately saying the courts were too dumb to see they had plenty of authorization in state law and should've gone with that. (It's a federal election; they had better go to the state constitution anyways)

    Anyways, I hope that's enough to show that the writer is out of his gourd this time, as in the past. Secondly, the dissents and case history should be read by yourself also. They're primary source. Their footnotes together with lower court decisions are enough to show Ian's faults of comprehension by just following what happened. The lower court judges invalidating the legislators aren't as foolish in making their case.
    We'll just have to see the way SCOTUS votes then whenever they decide to do so. I hope you're right and it doesn't end up being as bad as some are predicting.

  14. #94
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Jotaux View Post
    Voting in the us already seems crazy to me.

    Remember when they ruled you couldn’t give water to people waiting in line to vote? Seems reasonable if you are in line for 2 minutes but some lines 8 hours long! Wtf. Last time I voted in Canada I just walked in, gave them my name, they looked me up on the papers they had and I voted. Took 5 minutes max. 8 hours is ridiculous.

    Now they are going to be fine with a rigged voting map? You guys think the electoral college is dumb wait till the majority party had only 30% of the vote.
    8 hours is by design.

    They could open more voting locations, allow for more mail in voting and absentee voting.

    But they know if it's an inconvenience to vote, especially in, say, places where there are a lot of black people, they can suppress the vote without "suppressing the vote"
    Putin khuliyo

  15. #95
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,678
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    And he's dead wrong. The lower courts stated they had the ability to do what they did based solely on provisions in the North Carolina constitution. They cited only those. They brought up the state constitution to defend their actions, not ordinary legislature-passed laws. That's why there is conflict and where the conflict lies.
    "They cited the (subjectively) wrong thing even though the correct thing explicitly empowers them to make the decision they did anyway" isn't a conflict, it's hairsplitting.

    The constitutional provision regarding free and fair elections can absolutely be read to cover their actions, and the legislative provisions explicitly do so as well. The only reason they'd want to take this case is to curtail state judicial ability to nullify legislation based on state constitutions.

    Like I said, it's funny you're still acting as though the conservative SCOTUS judges are issuing good faith rulings and not acting on a specific agenda to enable conservative minority rule.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-07-04 at 05:08 PM.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  16. #96
    Bloodsail Admiral tehdang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    So...you're saying the state courts cited the wrong thing when it came to their own redistricting plan?

    Because NC law allows courts to put their own plan in as long as they give the legislature time to fix it first.
    The courts based their authority to do what they did in terms that aren't NC laws on redistricting. You would presume such accomplished lawyers, now judges, and their array of clerks didn't just forget their best arguments for authority. They chose wisely.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonKing View Post
    We'll just have to see the way SCOTUS votes then whenever they decide to do so. I hope you're right and it doesn't end up being as bad as some are predicting.
    Good conversation, all things considered.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  17. #97
    Why does it feel like America is on its last legs?

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by CastletonSnob View Post
    Why does it feel like America is on its last legs?
    If that its last leg, its been on its last leg for a couple centuries.

  19. #99
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,404
    Quote Originally Posted by CastletonSnob View Post
    Why does it feel like America is on its last legs?
    Because a bunch of doomers falling for the taunting of self-fellating conservatives who have managed to weasel a single branch of the government due to sheer luck are bitching and moaning rather than wanting to actually do anything.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The courts based their authority to do what they did in terms that aren't NC laws on redistricting. You would presume such accomplished lawyers, now judges, and their array of clerks didn't just forget their best arguments for authority. They chose wisely.
    It's like you're conflating two things here. They cite the state constitution as to their reasoning for declaring the legislature's districts unconstitutional, right? The state statutes allow them to create their own temporary districts after a certain time if the legislature hasn't fixed theirs. The law allows them to do what they did. If you want to quibble about "free and fair," you're arguing against an interpretation, not the scope of what the court did. And "some lawyers cited the wrong thing" wouldn't change the state statutes or constitution...you think the SCOTUS should potentially side with the state legislature not because of what the law/state constitution says but because of bad lawyering? Is that the implication?

    But by all means, continue splitting hairs and ignoring what is actually at stake.
    Last edited by Gestopft; 2022-07-05 at 12:07 AM.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •