EPA and major questions ... up there with Citizens United as the worst decisions ever.
Yep - I think this is true of every democracy though. Things in the US are getting pretty bad with how the Constitution is being twisted though.
It still blows my mind that this year SCOTUS ruled a regulation invalid despite the fact that they did not dispute it was authorized by a duly passed statute that they considered constitutional. Their only reasoning was that because the regulation was big Congress needed to pass a new law saying they really meant it this time. There's obviously no basis in any law or the Constitution for this, SCOTUS just made it up.
This is the real problem - people have decided winning is more important than the system. Once they've decided that we get to a dangerous place.
Every system of democratic governance relies on the good faith of all parties involved - if you don't have that then the writing is on the wall. I think this is shown in recent years where Republicans no longer entirely act in good faith when it comes to elections and it's getting worse. For that reason I think you're right that a written constitution is not particularly important.
It is a bad joke, that at least 4 supreme court justices thought had sufficient merit to be accepted for formal arguments, rather than thrown out with laughter.The whole thing is a bad joke. Basically NC is arguing their state supreme court has no standing when its their state Constitution that creates the state legislature, giving it it's power in the first place. The SC is who interprets their Constitution.
In the oral arguments, anyway, it looked like the Four Seasons Total Landscaping of legal cases.
It looks like the ISL people will lose, but not by a lot. It should be 9-0, but it will probably be 5-4 or at best 6-3.So how is this going?
This account seems to suggest it's not looking great for the ISL proponents.
The Extremely Muddled G.O.P. Logic Behind Moore v. Harper
In the oral arguments, anyway, it looked like the Four Seasons Total Landscaping of legal cases.www.newyorker.com
Certainly
Doesn't sound promising for the Republican cause...
That all depends on if you think the oral arguments matter. I don't believe this court even cares about oral arguments anymore. How they are going to vote is decided by the time they have decided to accept the case since more than half of them vote based on party politics instead of constitutional law.Doesn't sound promising for the Republican cause...
That all depends on if you think the oral arguments matter. I don't believe this court even cares about oral arguments anymore. How they are going to vote is decided by the time they have decided to accept the case since more than half of them vote based on party politics instead of constitutional law.
That all depends on if you think the oral arguments matter. I don't believe this court even cares about oral arguments anymore. How they are going to vote is decided by the time they have decided to accept the case since more than half of them vote based on party politics instead of constitutional law.
Basically the reasoning is that state legislatures have this power explicitly enumerated in the constitution, which would not be true more generally.Yeah, I suppose so. I gather it's all down to the two right-wing nuts who might not be quite the right flavour of right-wing nut for this particular case? Beer Boy and the Hand Maiden, who were chosen for their abortion stances, not anything else.
I can't see that a sane system would have let this case get to this point though.
Also it just makes me wonder what other weird potential implications are lurking in the Constitution, waiting sufficiently creative interpretation efforts.
For one thing, if the reference to 'legislatures' with regard to the states is to be taken as excluding any state constitutional constraint or any role for State Supreme Courts, surely the same could be applied at the national level? Meaning the national legislature could surely do whatever it wanted, unconstrained by the national Constitution or the Supreme Court itself?
Why does the same logic not apply at that level?
Boof Boy was selected for so much more than abortion. He is a staunch proponent of corporate rights and presidential power, when the correct party holds the office, of course. He's adamantly opposed to civil rights. He's in Alito's league as a party hack. Kavanaugh is probably the most dangerous person to ever be confirmed for the court.Yeah, I suppose so. I gather it's all down to the two right-wing nuts who might not be quite the right flavour of right-wing nut for this particular case? Beer Boy and the Hand Maiden, who were chosen for their abortion stances, not anything else.
Kind of amazing that three justices thought that for the entirety of US history the states could have stolen any federal elections they wanted to, they just chose not to.Goes down 6-3 with the usual biggest ghouls in dissent.
Agreed.Yeah, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth here and its great that 6 of the 9 justices didn't have their heads firmly in their asses but I've never wanted to read a dissenting justices arguments quite like I want to in this case.
Dodged a bullet here folks, I dare hope that even if this court cannot respect established prior precedent, it can respect its own so other cases of this nature that come to the court meet similar fates.
Will our luck run out at some point?
Aa long as we've got 3 of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse sitting on the bench we're going to be dodging bullets again and again.Agreed.
We dodged a huge one. Again.
Will our luck run out at some point?
Kind of amazing that three justices thought that for the entirety of US history the states could have stolen any federal elections they wanted to, they just chose not to.
Although considering the three dissents, not so amazing I guess.