Supreme Court questions jurisdiction in sweeping election law clash | The Hill

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether it can still move ahead in a major election law case involving the authority of state legislatures. The justices are hearing an appeal from North Carolina Republican lawmakers of a decision by the state’s top court, which struck down North Carolina’s GOP-drawn voting maps. But that underlying decision was overruled last week, and the Supreme Court in a brief, unsigned order has asked for additional briefing on whether it still has jurisdiction.

The development is the latest sign the justices may be heading toward an off-ramp in the high-stakes case, which has weighty stakes for future elections. In Washington, D.C., the Republican lawmakers promoted a sweeping constitutional argument that would give near-total authority to state legislatures in drawing congressional maps and settling other federal election issues, known as the independent state legislature theory.

But Republicans in the midterm elections retook control of the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the new majority agreed to rehear the court’s earlier order striking down the legislature’s maps. The court overruled that decision along partisan lines on Friday. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court justices have asked the parties to file additional briefs by May 11 on whether they can still move ahead. The parties wrote to the justices to the justices indicating they would be pleased to do so if requested.

It marks the second time the court has asked for additional briefing in the case. The justices similarly questioned their jurisdiction after the state court agreed to rehear the case.

  • tagen
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 year ago

      So nothing is ever settled?

      Yeap.

      At the state level...

      • If the GOP controls the courts - they used those.

      • If the GOP controls the legislature - they use that.

      • If the GOP controls both - they use both.

      • And if the GOP doesn't have state power - they go to the supreme court via a backdoor.

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
    hexagon
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I'm totally shocked by this off-ramp possibility. I was 99% certain the GOP justices were going to 100% fubar federal elections in red states by legislating from the bench and allowing the red state hogs to go hog wild. I don't know what to think now.

    A bit more context...

    Democracy on the ballot—the "independent state legislature theory" will not empower state legislatures to override presidential election results

    Simply put, it would prevent state courts from reviewing laws passed by state legislatures to redistrict congressional seats, or to establish voting rules or other laws applicable to federal elections.

    • Lovely_sombrero [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess they feel that the Roe decision already did a lot of damage for the GOP and they shouldn't push it too far too fast.

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        hexagon
        ·
        1 year ago

        And they have their terrible PR problem of Thomas and Gorsuch (to a far lessor degree). Also - where there's smoke - there's fire. Who knows what other corruption/crime skeletons they've got in their closet. I'd bet money Alito is at least as dirty as Thomas.

        But the GOP justices still could come back to this fucking ridiculous right-wing theory after the 2024 elections.

        • regul [any]
          ·
          1 year ago

          But why does any of that matter? They're completely insulated from all consequences.

          • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
            hexagon
            ·
            1 year ago

            The GOP justices live in denial of who they really are. They don't see themselves as vitality important and useful tools for reactionaries. They see themselves as wise sages who interpret the law and they want to be treated with deep respect. Sure, they want to fuck up America to their liking but they they are interested in their reputations, their prestige, and their legacies.

            That's total nonsense to us but I think it's what they actually believe. Of course - each justice cares about that stuff to different degrees. I think Thomas will go fully mask off because 10,000,000s of Americans see him for piece of shit that he is. And he can't spin that away. I assume Alito will start to go fully mask off too.

            But Kavanaugh and Barrett have been awfully quiet. They'd prefer to dismantle America without all this brouhaha.

              • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
                hexagon
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don't understand your point. I already said it's total nonsense to us. I'm talking about their POV - not mine.

                • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  not the guy you're responding to, but i think in addition to their high-minded legacy b.s., i'm getting lochner era court vibes. basically, that shitty reactionary court went bonkers blocking as much of FDR's New Deal as they could, and regular people got so pissed there was a credible threat of "reforming" the supreme court to allow FDR to appoint new members as soon as someone hit 70 years of age.

                  suddenly, in all of their considered legal mindfulness, the court started making a few decisions that weren't right-wing / pro-capitalist and the reform threat evaporated.

                  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
                    hexagon
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    i’m getting lochner era court vibes

                    I need to stop being lazy and learn about that. It's been on my mind for literally years now. I just bookmarked the Wikipedia page. That probably means I might actually read it around mid 2026.

  • Multihedra [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I bet Jeffrey Tubin understands what the hell this means

    Also the last sentence of the 2nd to last paragraph has a repeated-phrase typo, damn does nobody even proof this shit

      • dat_math [they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        does nobody even proof this shit

        literally no, for years

        the decline of basic craftsmanship in "journalism" over the last 2 decades is astounding

      • Multihedra [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I realized I should be commending whoever was supposed to proof but didn’t lol

        • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
          hexagon
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Editing situations at many sites have gotten weird.

          Like at the NYT - articles are free of errors as you'd expect. But some of the opinion writing is atrocious. Sometimes there are clearly factual errors.

          My wild hunch is that some authors get carte blanche and although mistakes are fixed the content is basically untouched. The quality has gotten bad if not terrible over the past couple years.

          This article from last week for example...

          archive.today • Opinion | Donald Trump May Have Begun Losing - The New York Times

          By far it's the worse written thing I've ever read at that damn site. I thought I was having a stroke. It's majestic in its awfulness...

          The effect of the [January 6th] committee’s presentation, a kind of effort at building consensus about recent history, was less tangible: to reorient the country’s attention, through the hearings, to how bad Jan. 6 really was. Attention is hard to maintain and focus, especially when, with Mr. Trump, it’s as if we’re always trying to hold water in our hands.

          • nohaybanda [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wdym this is art. It perfectly communicates a Liberal's baffled inability to comprehend the failure of their own ideology.

            • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
              hexagon
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wonder if the author, Katherine Miller, doesn't actually exist and the NYT is testing out AI. If so - they are using the wrong app. It's shit.

          • Multihedra [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah that’s impressively terrible, and not what I’d expect from NYT

            • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
              hexagon
              ·
              1 year ago

              I chose another article by her at random. It's like the written equivalent of flicking fluorescent lighting that's giving you a headache. It's the same hard to parse text, and in addition there is the problem of run on sentences with too many comas, inserted oddly and maybe a semicolon; plus it's a worse than AI written text as she seems intent on never putting words in an order that flows smoothly.

              archive.today • Opinion | Joe Biden's Greatest Strength Is Also His Greatest Vulnerability - The New York Times

              If he runs for this second term, squarely in this space of all these contradictions, Mr. Biden is making the same ask as he did during the 2020 election — to trust him, to trust that he will be proven right about himself. Qualitatively, Mr. Biden represents familiarity and stability, which both derive from his age and sit in uneasy tension with it.

              There is something weird and hinky at play. Maybe she's the faildaugther of somebody very important or at least very important to the NYT. Or she's in a sexual relationship with somebody in power there. Or both?