Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-Motor- t1_iqxb9i2 wrote

These election related rejections recently are just window dressing before they uphold the independent state legislature idea in Moore v Harper this year, which will rewrite everything going forward.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/moore-v-harper-explained

171

mydogsnameisbuddy t1_iqy6z2m wrote

“The potential consequences could stretch still further. The theory would throw elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. State lawmakers would be able to adopt vote suppression legislation without any checks or balances from state courts or even gubernatorial veto. In other words, the theory would upend key aspects of our elections.”

That sounds bad. I bet once it’s law, it’ll be even worse than I can imagine.

74

ThisIsMyPaAccount t1_iqxihcj wrote

This is a seperate issue. Chuds just kept throwing shit at the wall hoping they can gerrymanders the state harder and lost in the state Supreme court and got thrown out of the US Supreme court

27

-Motor- t1_iqxiop4 wrote

Your missing my point. This supreme court is actively trying to appear a-political by granting wine reviews while rejecting others, but they save up for the bombshell fringe cases

44

ThisIsMyPaAccount t1_iqxoatd wrote

> This supreme court is actively trying to appear a-political by granting wine reviews while rejecting others, but they save up for the bombshell fringe cases

Literally how the supreme court has run since marybury vs madison. In case you didnt know, the supreme court is part of the judicial branch of the government and thus political by definition. Im not as stupid as the people you are trying to trick with you post.

Also i never said anything otherwise about moore vs harper. I know what it means and i know what is going to happen because of it. go bark up another tree chud. I dont care that you are trying to equate the 2 totally separate issues with each other.

Not to mention YOU missed MY point. This was taken to state court because the state is losing a seat and republicans were crying because now the map is only like 3% gerrymandered to their favor instead of way more that they want. They lost in the state courts and thought they could pull a fast one because the courts were stacked with trump activist judges. Even then it got shot down.

The point you are making is totally unrelated outside of the fact that it has to do with election mapping. Moore v Harper says there is some made up idea that the state legislative branch can do whatever they want in an election and are trying to get the prior mentioned activist judges to give them carte blanche to change the results if they dont like them.

−29

-Motor- t1_iqxorbf wrote

I can understand why you hide behind a pa politics special/separate account.

You should correct the error in your last paragraph. "State executive branch"

22

im_at_work_now t1_iqxrku2 wrote

Pretty sure that posting is not the same as hiding, but you do you.

But first, you should realize that you clearly don't understand the case. It is very clearly about the legislature's ability to draw maps without any checks against them (barring courts from overruling legislature, AKA eliminating checks and balances).

−9

jkman61494 t1_iqygi52 wrote

I think you’re missing the point where SCOTUS will make it legal to end voting

Biden or whoever wins a presidential race and the PA legislature doesn’t like it? They’ll just LEGALLY be able to say a Republican wins the “election”.

That is when America ends and a guerrilla styled civil war begins. And the military industrial complex, much like a failed nation state we’d use to snicker at on the evening news will be the decider of who wins. Unless they of course take that power for themselves

8

Buffmin t1_ir5ncgi wrote

>Biden or whoever wins a presidential race and the PA legislature doesn’t like it? They’ll just LEGALLY be able to say a Republican wins the “election”.

Yup. The gqp is a minority party they cannot win fairly.

They're going this route as a desperate attempt to remain viable and in power.

2

ChipKellysShoeStore t1_iqy8rjd wrote

Moore v. Harper is gonna be upheld on narrow ground and say that state courts can’t ex parte make their own electoral maps..

18

-Motor- t1_iqy9b9p wrote

That would be the optimistic outcome, imho. Based on Dobbs, where they went beyond answering the question at hand and just gutted Roe, this court is quite willing to find the means to justify the ends. My first post about how they're shrugging off these election related requests, out of hand, sure gives me the feeling like they're trying to play both sides. Like they're trying to bank positive, broad public opinion with these moderate decisions, because they're saving up for a big blast.

25

Cambro88 t1_iqyuw8o wrote

Yep. SCOTUS denied this likely because the GOP bypassed state courts to go straight to SCOTUS and also threatened to make a mockery of the state elections by asking for “at large” elections as a Constitutional solution that was really a publicity stunt. It’s likely they’ll uphold independent state legislature theory in the NC case and render this PA case moot without the procedural deficiencies.

5