SCOTUS Begins 22-23 Case With Monumental Cases Ahead

[Webster]

The Guardian: US supreme court to decide cases with ‘monumental’ impact on democracy

On Monday, the nine justices of the US supreme court will take their seats at the start of a new judicial year, even as the shock waves of the panel’s previous seismic term continue to reverberate across America.

In their first full term that ended in June, the court’s new six-to-three hard-right supermajority astounded the nation by tearing up decades of settled law. They eviscerated the right to an abortion, loosened America’s already lax gun laws, erected roadblocks to combating the climate crisis, and awarded religious groups greater say in public life.

The fallout of the spate of extreme rightwing rulings has shaken public confidence in the political neutrality of the court. A Gallup poll this week found that fewer than half of US adults trust it – a drop of 20 points in just two years and the lowest rating since Gallup began recording the trend in 1972.

Justices have begun to respond to the pressure by sparring openly in public. The Wall Street Journal reported that in recent speeches the liberal justice Elena Kagan has accused her conservative peers of damaging the credibility of the court by embracing Republican causes.

Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision overturning the right to an abortion in Roe v Wade, counter-accused Kagan (whom he did not name) of crossing “an important line” by implying the court was becoming illegitimate.

To add insult to injury, Ginni Thomas, the extreme conservative activist married to Justice Clarence Thomas, was questioned on Thursday by the House committee investigating Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election result, which she avidly encouraged.

With so much discord in plain sight, you might have expected the new supermajority created under Trump to opt for a calmer year ahead. No chance. The choice of cases to be decided in the new term spells full steam ahead. “I see no signs of them slowing down,” said Tara Groves, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “The supreme court has chosen to take on cases this term that raise a lot of hot-button issues – just after they decided a bunch of cases that raised a lot of hot-button issues.”

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

To narrow it down, it ain’t looking good for the communist left.

 

[Webster]

To narrow it down, it ain’t looking good for the communist left.

If you're a straight white Christian male, things are looking good at SCOTUS.

On the other hand, if you're a woman or an ethnic minority or LGBTQ individual or someone who cares about the environment or the least amongst us, you are so screwed....

 

[Webster]

This is one of the cases they're looking at this term, Serafin: Moore v. Harper....

SCOTUS To Hear North Carolina Elections Case

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=130322 The Supreme Court today just agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, an “independent state legislature” theory case from North Carolina. This case has the potential to fundamentally rework the relationship between state legislatures and state courts in protecting...

offtopix.com

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but once the legislature writes election law, isn't it up to (a) the executive branch to enforce said laws to the best of their ability and (b) the judiciary to settle grievances/differences elsewhere? This case could kill a key precept of American constitutionalism....here's how.

The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Explained

This dubious legal theory could have dramatic consequences for elections.

www.brennancenter.org

What is the independent state legislature theory?
The independent state legislature theory is a reading of the Constitution, pushed in recent years by a small group of advocates, that would give state legislatures wide authority to gerrymander electoral maps and pass voter suppression laws. It has even been used as political cover to try to overturn elections.

The Constitution delegates power to administer federal elections to the states, subject to Congressional override. There is, however, a disagreement about how much power is delegated and to which state actors exactly.

There are two relevant clauses. One is the Elections Clause, which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”

The other is the Presidential Electors Clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

The dispute hinges on how to understand the word “legislature.” The long-running understanding is that it refers to each state’s general lawmaking processes, including all the normal procedures and limitations. So if a state constitution subjects legislation to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen referendum, election laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elections, like all laws, comply with their state constitutions.

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.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

If you're a straight white Christian male, things are looking good at SCOTUS.

On the other hand, if you're a woman or an ethnic minority or LGBTQ individual or someone who cares about the environment or the least amongst us, you are so screwed....

If you are a normal American of any race or color it’s looking good.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The Guardian: US supreme court to decide cases with ‘monumental’ impact on democracy

I don’t trust the guardians interpretation on anything that has to do with the constitution or states rights so I’m not overly concerned about this.

 

[Webster]

I don’t trust the guardians interpretation on anything that has to do with the constitution or states rights so I’m not overly concerned about this.

Now you know how I feel about Breitbart and the Gateway Pundit; only difference is that the Guardian's an actual news site whereas the other two are right-wing hack sites.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Now you know how I feel about Breitbart and the Gateway Pundit; only difference is that the Guardian's an actual news site whereas the other two are right-wing hack sites.

And we ain’t going to change.

It’s a actual news site about as much as lia Thomas is a actual woman. Which means both are lying and live in a fantasy world of reality.

 

[Webster]

lia Thomas is a actual woman

Newsflash: Lia Thomas is a woman.

Get over it.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Newsflash: Lia Thomas is a woman.

Get over it.

And I’m a t-Rex dinosaur

 

[Webster]

And I’m a t-Rex dinosaur

*deadpans* A rather brute yet sexy T-rex at that....