(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



The cusp of Moore v. Harper [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2022-12-05

Everyone in government needs robust checks and balances. Even and especially the Justices of the Supreme Court. Even and especially the legislators of states in the United States. Otherwise, we, the people, can be subjected to unchecked and unreasonable laws that harm lives and subvert freedom. The Supreme Court remains and insists on remaining unchecked. The Maga state legislatures want what the Supreme Court has, unchecked behavior.

What kind of behavior do the Maga state legislatures want? They want to capture federal elections so that people who vote against Maga's interests can hardly vote. That means Maga state legislatures want to prevent blacks from voting with voting maps so restricted by gerrymandering that blacks can scarcely vote.

The North Carolina state legislature gerrymandered the map in such a racist way that a North Carolina State Supreme Court judge struck down the racist map because the map violated the state constitution's laws against racist, partisan gerrymandering. Now North Carolina's legislature is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to be free from such checks and balances from a state court.

Timothy K. Moore brings the suit as North Carolina Speaker of the House. He represents the state legislature that wants unchecked freedom to gerrymander federal election maps to keep blacks from voting. He is the Moore in Moore v. Harper.

The Maga state legislatures are trying to justify their aggressive racism and denial of voting by questioning a phrase in Article One of the Constitution. The amicus brief by retired federal judge Michael Luttig and other respected jurists, including Neal Katyal, emphasizes that the Constitutional phrase does not give sovereign, unreviewable power to state legislatures regarding Federal elections. Respected conservative Luttig wrote in The Atlantic an article entitled: "There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory.” Luttig writes:

“In Moore v. Harper, the Court will finally resolve whether there is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation known as the ‘independent state legislature.” If the Court concludes that there is such a doctrine, if would confer on state legislatures plenary, exclusive, and judicially unreviewable power both to redraw congressional districts for federal elections and to appoint state electors who quadrennially cast votes for president and vice president on behalf of the voters of the states. It would mean gerrymandering of congressional districts by state legislatures would not be reviewable by the state courts—including the state's highest court—under their state constitutions. Such a doctrine would be antithetical to the Framer's intent, and to the text, fundamental design, and architecture of the Constitution.” Magas want to be free of laws and checks and balances. Donald Trump said as president; he couldn't break the law. So did proto-Maga Richard Nixon. The Magas in the Supreme Court doesn't want any checks and balances. The Maga state legislatures don't want any checks and balances. Thieves and con artists don't want any checks and balances, either. It's a common refrain for those who are up to no good.

If the Supreme Court gives a victory to Moore, it will not be trivial. It would upend the United States, making it a different country. A pro-Moore decision would not be based on solid law and precedent but on a whim that betrays a narcissism that cries, ‘You can't tell us to do; take this!” Suppose Maga Justices want to find for Moore, autocracy, and the end of the United States. In that case, they can and will find a way to accomplish this with their unreviewable hubris, originalism, and dismissal of precedent.

Moore v. Harper, Oral Arguments, December 7, Wednesday, 10 a.m. Listen here.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/5/2117213/-The-cusp-of-Moore-v-Harper

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/