Supreme Court shoots down the fascist 'independent legislature theory'

The "Independent legislature theory" a novel theory that many on the far right have been espousing takes it's rightful place in American history, the dumpster. Some are saying that this is the SC proving that it's not an extreme right wing. No, I still say it's a hard right court, but this theory is beyond-the-pale. Not for hard right partisans, but for at least three of the conservative justices who sided with the liberals on the court, this is a bridge too far. This idea that a state legislature can legislate without oversight, that it can violate it's own state constitutions, hell, there is nothing conservative about that idea. It violates the whole idea of checks and balances, which is why I called it 'fascist' in the header (using the term as an adjective, it's not capitalized).

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that 'judicial review' can overstep it's authority and go willy nilly, either, and that's fair enough. Good for the court, and Kudos to Barrett, Roberts, and Kavanaugh and the three libs to get this one right, however, no kudos to Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, all of whom I would expect not to side with the majority.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/27/1181...ate-legislature-theory-supreme-court-decision

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday repudiated the most extreme form of a controversial legal theory that, if adopted, would have radically reshaped the way elections are conducted, giving state legislatures virtually unchecked power to decide election rules.

By a 6-to-3 vote, the court rejected the so-called Independent State Legislature theory advanced by the Republican-dominated North Carolina state legislature. Writing for the court majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the U.S. Constitution does not, as the lawmakers had claimed, insulate their actions from review by the state courts. To the contrary, he said, state legislative power is constrained by the federal and state constitutions, as well as ordinary state laws.

At the same time, however, Roberts said that in overseeing election provisions, state courts "do not have free rein" to exceed "the ordinary bounds of judicial review."

 

Serious question: Did you read the dissents and so know what they actually decided they dissented with in fact? Or are you just bloviating?

 

Well, did you wade though the entire thing, yourself? It was 27 pages loaded with legal jargon, etc. -- I'm not a lawyer and as a layperson, whether or not Justice Thomas was right in his opinion the case is moot and should never have been brought to the court (if I understood him correctly), I'm happy the court shot it down. If that's bloviating, I plead guilty, and if that annoys you, good.

 

So that's a no then. You didn't read their explanation of what their dissent was about. You assume its about the substantive case question.
If I told you it was about the procedural posture of the case and the existing rules of the court, would you TRY to read it and simply ask a question about what you get confused over?

 

Even the dissenting opinion, which has not basis in the analysis of the majority opinion, was legally thin at best. The "Independent Legislative Theory" states that the legisltaure has the sole authority in determining who the representatives are, who the electors are, who the voters are, etc, with no court oversight. The majority opinion acknowledged that neither side adequately argued before the court whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina was within the scope of judicial prudence or not and simply made a general statement that Pablo made in the OP.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-islt-has-been-rejected-by-the-court.611554/

 

And why should I care? That sounds like stuff lawyers bicker over.

 

This is what happens when a thread is not well stated. I scanned the headlines for a similar post, and had it been written out, and instead of abbreviated, I would have caught it and not duped the thread.

 

Why should you care what their dissent was actually taking issue with when you're making a claim as to their fitness to practise law based on your assumption of what their decision is about?

Why should you educate yourself on a topic you wish to have a discussion over by simply reading what you're going to critique so you speak with an actually informed opinion rather than speaking from admitted ignorance?

Who knows?

 

Whoa, all I said was no kudos to Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas for being the minority vote, and this, you say, equals 'unfitness to practice law'?

If you are a lawyer, you should be intelligent enough to know that your characterization of what I actually wrote doesn't equal that.

Do you honestly advocate the ISLT, the idea that the state legislatures can legislate on how their federal elections are conducted in their state, even if they violate their own state's constitution, they can legislate willy nilly, engage in all sorts of partisan mischeif without the checks and balances of the state courts/state supreme court and the governor chiming in?

This idea that only congress should be the ones to intervene, when congress can't get their **** together on just about anything these days, is going to save us from state legislature shenanigans isn't very comforting to me, anyway.

It was shot down, that is all that matters, from a lay person's perspective.

I mean, what remedy for what problem would the ISLT lawsuit have solved, had SCOTUS not shot it down?

If you are saying the ISL is a 'narrow' thing and all of our liberal fears are moot, nothing to worry about, if the court upheld the lawsuit, well, sorry, I don't trust state legislatures or any legislature anywhere that doesn't have some kind of checks and balances, especially when it comes to Republican legislatures' partisan shenanigans, and especially on gerrymandering.

Are you saying Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts are uneducated and ignorant?

 

Again: If you'd read the dissent you wouldn't be asking this asinine question.
However: Since I don't refuse to answer straight questions like you do: No I do not advocate for the ISLT and neither do the ****ing dissents you made a thread about but refuse to ****ing read.

 

My mistake for not adding "fascist" to the title. I guess that would have made it more well stated.

 

Straight question? You didn't give me a reason to read it.

My thread was not about the dissents, though I did say no kudos to the dissenters, so your point is not much of a point.

ISLT was shot down. Why should I read the dissent? what is the point? Will it change my mind? Did it change yours?

No, it didn't. so what is the point?

 

You made an entire OP where you talked **** about the dissenters, and you didn't think your making a post was a reason to be informed as to what you were criticizing?

And you find this to be intellectually honest?

As stated: You should read the dissent so you can have an informed opinion instead of an ignorant one.
Further: I've already TOLD you what is in the dissent IE they were complaining about procedural posture things that prevented them from reaching the substantive issue. Ergo they didn't rule on the substantive issue and so their dissent is not to 'disagree' with the substantive issue.
You'd know that if you'd READ something before you start a thread on it, much less after I fairly politely point out I know you haven't given the opinion you express.

 

https://reason.com/2023/06/27/in-el...roberts-delivered-a-win-for-the-constitution/

The importance of judicial review is one of the "fundamental principles" of America's constitutional system, Roberts wrote. "The Elections Clause does not carve out an exception to that fundamental principle."

The cross-ideological nature of the 6-3 ruling is a major blow to the independent state legislature theory's advocates—and to its critics who expected the conservative majority on the Court to rubberstamp a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution.

It's also worth noting that Justice Clarence Thomas does not argue for the independent state legislature theory in his dissent. Instead, he argues that the Court should have punted the case as moot after the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled its prior decision earlier this year.

"The federal defense no longer makes any difference to this case—whether we agree with the defense, disagree with it, or say nothing at all, the final judgment in this litigation will be exactly the same," Thomas argues. "The majority does not seriously contest that fact. Even so, it asserts jurisdiction to decide this freefloating defense that affects no live claim for relief."

That's a fair criticism, but the willingness of the Court's majority to lay down a clear signal about the independent state legislature theory is important, too, even if it made no difference to the acute issues in the underlying redistricting case.

^ See? You could've GOOGLED that. You didn't even have to try to read the mean old legalese you claim not to be able to understand even though you'll bloviate about your opinion of same.

 

No, but 'Indepedent legislature theory' would ha

If Thomas, et al, didn't agree on the substantive issue, they are saying the arguments made are moot, and the case shouldn't have been granted certiorari, right?

Did I not give you that answer the first time I answered your question?

 

I asked if you'd read it and you said no. The issue is your lack of reading a court case you want to pretend to have an informed opinion about.

 

No, that is YOUR issue, the one no one but you appear to give a **** about.

This is a political opinions & beliefs forum, there is no obligation to conform to your requirements for a thread, not to mention that I did read thomas's conclusion, which was enough to realize his opinion didn't change my mind, nor did it yours, and so no one gives a hoot about it.