SCOTUS Rejects Independent State Legislature Theory In Hollow 6-3 Ruling

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Supreme court rejects challenge to state courts' authority in redistricting
The supreme court has rejected a conservative challenge to the ability of state courts to weigh in on congressional maps, batting away a petition that could have transformed redistricting across the United States.

We are reading the decision just handed down in the case of Moore v Harper, and will let you know more about what it means for American politics.

---

In the case of Moore v Harper, Republican lawmakers who dominate North Carolina’s general assembly asked the supreme court to endorse the independent state legislature theory.

If the justices had adopted it, state courts could have been stripped of their ability to weigh in on congressional maps drawn by lawmakers, potentially exacerbating partisan gerrymanders and transforming the battle for control of the US House of Representatives, as well as state legislatures.

But by a 6-3 vote, the supreme court declined to do so in their just-released decision, which advocates see as a win for safeguarding America’s democratic norms.

---

The Guardian’s Sam Levine has a closer look at the supreme court’s decision this morning that represents both a win for America’s democratic norms, and a rejection of a fringe legal theory embraced by some on the right: The US supreme court shot down a fringe legal theory that observers said posed a considerable threat to democracy, ruling that state courts have the authority to weigh in on disputes over federal election rules.

The 6-3 decision in Moore v Harper is a blow to North Carolina Republicans who had asked the court to embrace the so-called independent state legislature theory – the idea that the US constitution does not allow state courts to limit the power of state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. Such a decision in the case would have been a major win for Republicans, who control more state legislatures than Democrats do. Some of the conservative justices on the court had urged the bench to embrace the idea.

Supreme court rules against fringe legal theory in key voting rights case

North Carolina Republicans requested justices issue ruling following dispute over electoral maps

www.theguardian.com

 

[Black Angel]

Doesn't this ruling set up the possibility for a repeat of the 2000 Election, the one in which Roberts repay his favor to Bush? Meaning that it will allow for SCOTUS to interfere with a future election?

 

[Webster]

Doesn't this ruling set up the possibility for a repeat of the 2000 Election, the one in which Roberts repay his favor to Bush? Meaning that it will allow for SCOTUS to interfere with a future election?

Not really, Angel; that precedent's still there.

Reason I called the decision 'hollow' is the NC Supreme Court reversed its' prior ruling (the one SCOTUS decided yesterday). thus making claims of partisan gerrymandering a non-justiciable question in state/federal courts here in North Carolina.

As for Roberts' wanting to "repay his favor to Bush" as you phrased it?
If there was a 5-4 conservative majority he would have a greater say in how cases are decided; with a 6-3 majority he no longer has that swing spot on the Court (that's Kavanaugh's position at present) thus he doesn't have to do anything. He is a Court institutionalist who will throw anyone and anything under the bus if its' helps protect the integrity of the Court (and no, the recent faux ethics BS surrounding Thomas and Alito and Gorsuch doesn't count on that regard).

 

[Black Angel]

If I am being honest, I am kinda lost on what the endgame is with SCOTUS and their rulings lately.. from what I am used to seeing with them from say since Obama, to now seems different.

Like if there were 1 or 2 rulings that I liked, or agreed with, then there would be a few major ones that I didnt.

And that is the reason I wasn't surprised about the Dobbs ruling last year. I was disappointed, but the writing was on the wall.

This year, however, I am lost.

I have agreed with a few this year.. that case in Minnesota with the elderly woman who got screwed out of the money from her home being sold at a profit by the state. (New York and a shit ton of other states had laws exactly like MN in this case, so I am glad about the ruling.)

The taxpayer whistleblower case. They actually sided with the little guy again.

The ruling on racial gerrymandering.. that one surprised me because I was sure that they were going to lose..

The immigration law ruling.. I am surprised by that one too.

Etc.

So I think I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop.. like I do most things.. and with 2 days left to go in the month (I'm not sure when they take their Summer recess) but I am still pretty nervous..

 

[Webster]

The two things the Roberts Court, Angel, has been known to do (as least from a right-side of the aisle perspective) is (a) keep as close to the law, the Constitution and precedent as possible while acknowledging that as times change and society changes, the law & precedents must also change within the framework of the Constitution. and (b) make decisions that have broad impact but are as narrowly written as possible.

The Dobbs ruling was a classic example of this: it overturned a 49-year precedent in Roe and returned the issue of abortion back to the states where it belonged while not restricting what states could do under Dobbs. Alito's ruling was right in line with the two precepts above (Thomas's out to right field concurrence notwithstanding). Another was the Bracken case regarding Indian child welfare and adoption; Gorsuch, who wrote that decision (and who, surprisingly, has become Native Americans' biggest-ever advocate on the High Court), made clear that, when tribal sovereignty (through the ICWA) and state laws on child adoption clash, federal law overrides state law.

The Milligan case (the racial gerrymandering one) was a shock given the Court's history going back to Shelby County but not unprecedented; the Court, even in Shelby, never said the VRA was unconstitutional and they re-affirmed it (their beef, Angel, was with the law never having been updated to reflect the racial/political realities of today as opposed to 1965).