Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Throwaway_7451 t1_iynqky0 wrote

Reply to comment by TheBrennanCenter in We're Tom Wolf,Eliza Sweren-Becker, and Ethan Herenstein. We work on democracy reform at the Brennan Center for Justice. Ask us anything about the Supreme Court’s upcoming case Moore v. Harper and the “independent state legislature” theory. by TheBrennanCenter

Then going by their actions so far, this supreme court is almost guaranteed to rule in favor of ISLT. What recourse do we have at that point?

14

TheBrennanCenter OP t1_iynt4hw wrote

This is far from a done-deal for the ISLT. As Eliza and Tom mentioned in other replies, all of the stuff that this Supreme Court purports to care about–history, originalism, text–all cut sharply against the ISLT. Here’s one data point: Tons of leading academic historians have come out against the ISLT; not a single historian has tried to defend the theory. Combine that with all of the other reasons to reject the theory–e.g., it’s undemocratic and dangerous–and the anti-ISLT side has a very strong hand.

​

--Ethan

21

Artisanal_Shitposter t1_iyog0qm wrote

Yeah, okay. But what do we do when this group just says 'lol we don't care' and rules in favor?

Just because they're expected to present an opinion doesn't mean it actually needs to be logical or reasonable. They're ultimately able to rule however they want. Yeah?

For those of us with no faith in these schmuks, what's the next step when they ruin democracy? Can their ruling be challenged at all, is there any check against it?

17

SaltineFiend t1_iyr63sj wrote

Joe Biden can tell them to go fuck themselves.

2

UltraVires33 t1_iz0w1hb wrote

I mean, not really. The only real way the POTUS could tell the Court that would be to expand the number of Justices on the Court and install his own nominees to outweigh those already there, but the president can't do this on his own; he'd need Congress to help out too. It would be a big step that seems unlikely to get done.

2

SaltineFiend t1_iz0wa38 wrote

You're quite wrong. The executive branch upholds the rulings of the judiciary out of convention alone, there is no binding enforcement for anything the court says ever.

1

UltraVires33 t1_iz13q69 wrote

Sure, that's true to a point; the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the SCOTUS has power to invalidate laws or enjoin the actions of Congress or the Executive. BUT from very early on the Court has held this power of judicial review and it's been pretty much consented to and not really challenged by the other branches for more than 200 years, to the point that it really has been baked in to the fabric of our government. The executive could openly flout a SCOTUS decision pretty easily on something like federal gun laws or IRS tax enforcement or something, but it's definitely going to create a Constitutional crisis in doing so. Here, it gets even trickier because the question is whether state governments or the federal government have ultimate final control over voting and elections, and if the federal government tries to ignore a SCOTUS ruling saying states get to decide then the states trying to exercise that control are going to fight back. So you're technically correct that there is no concrete legal requirement to follow SCOTUS decisions, but the traditional peaceful operation of our government has come to sort of expect it and the Executive trying to negate a SCOTUS decision would be messy at best, particularly in a situation like this that would pit the states against the federal government.

2

SaltineFiend t1_iz1iqvd wrote

Everything you said equally applies to the SC if they decide ISL has validity after 200+ years of federal law, case law, and the constitution stipulating otherwise.

Fact is, in Dobbs this SC said precedent doesn't matter, the ends of Christian fascism justify whatever means. Biden is well within his right to tell them to fuck off and in my opinion our military should drag them into the street and do what needs to be done to Nazis.

2