Death to Democracy - Step III (Moore v Harper)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, maybe "Death to Democracy" is a bit inaccurate. It'd be "Death to a Representative Democracy". There... that's better. You might be wondering, what is Moore v Harper?

Moore v Harper (gifted) is a case to be heard by SCOTUS. In its simplest form, the question is, can a technicality be used to overrule the rule of law. The Republicans in the North Carolina Legislature try to rephrase it as saying the US Constitution gives State Legislatures carte blanche when it comes to elections, therefore, no other state entity has a say in Elections, such as a state Supreme Court. This argument is made because the GOP controlled NC Legislature tried to put forth a grossfully unfair gerrymandering districting map. The State Supreme Court said "Fuck that" and didn't allow the map. That is pretty much it., is gerrymandering a protected act according to the US Constitution. It is a modern day Plessy v Fergusson.

Should we worry? Fuck yeah! Didn't you see the OP Title? "Death to Democracy"? Pretty damn clear where I'm heading with that. While SCOTUS didn't intervene in the state matter, three justices (you can guess) said not only should they have listened to the case, they thought that the case would likely be won by the NC Legislature.

“If the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Alito wrote. “I think it is likely that the applicants would succeed in showing that the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded those limits.”

Those limits? States have Constitutions, which indicate rights to the citizens of said states. The states also have courts, including Supreme Courts that rule as to whether certain things are or aren't allowed according to the State Constitution. Like if legislation failed to provide equal protections under the law, if their Constitution said this was a thing guaranteed to the people of that state.

North Carolina GOP folk want SCOTUS to provide them a cheat card that automatically negates "interference" from pesky judges. Why? Because the US Constitution provides state legislatures the power to manage elections for President, not state courts. And like all things, this is very complicated, as State legislatures don't stand on their own. State Legislatures are an entity within a State Constitution that sets its own limits.

Ultimately, the intent of the US Constitution is clear, one person, one vote. And fucking around with districts to impede the significance of a vote is frowned upon. But SCOTUS has been rock hard on ridiculous arguments hinging on technicalities. In 2019, the conservative justices indicated state courts could manage the issue of gerrymandering, but that was to keep the Federal Courts out of it. This court is a special one, and they have shown they'll flip as quickly as they'd please and in as unthoughtful a way necessary to justify it. There are already three justices saying that the NC GOP should win and be allowed carte blanche and state rules, regulations, constitutional requirements are no longer standing for election law. That means, they need just two more justices.

That SCOTUS is even hearing this case is worrisome. The GOP feel like they are owed unchecked powers for election law. That argument itself, even if defeated, is very disturbing when reaching SCOTUS and not being wiped away by a 8-1 or 9-0 decision.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe there is hope. possible 6-3 or 5-4 decision here against NC GOP. I swear, Alito and Thomas would let the GOP line liberals in the street and shoot them.

 

[Bomb#20]

What are you griping about? Article IV section 4 requires the feds to guarantee North Carolina a republican form of government.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Gorsuch's opinion might be pivotal on this one, in terms of likely voting "correctly" (not looney tunes).
This is a potentially very dangerous case.

 

[Gospel]

Spoiler: Segregation Rant

If only Plessy v Fergusson. was taken literally. Meaning equal treatment across the board. For example equal protections from violations of rights, and protected equal opportunities as well. Got white businesses? Then equal quantity & quality of black business should be allowed to emerge. Just maybe we wouldn't have the issue of Skeletor rising out the pumpkin patch like he's snoopy trying to bring back the good ole days. Imagine if the white people who destroyed black wall street were completely decimated by the federal government in response? What if the government gave the people of black wall street every tool (financial and otherwise) necessary to rebuild promptly followed up with military level protection moving forward? What if they garnished &/or flat out used civil forfeiture of assets from the criminals involved to help fund reconstruction? I bet not many racist's of that time would consider segregation if the rules weren't solely in their favor. Guarantee no one would be having wet dreams about segregation today if that was the case.

Gerrymandering (IMO) is one of the top shitty ideas America has produced. We should be voting for the candidates that present the greatest odds of addressing everyone's issues . I also find political parties counter productive. Americans ought to debate amongst ourselves while political leaders listen & work for everyone to the best of their ability. Not behave like goons for a particular group like they do these days. Both these things are symptoms of a sick pay to win system.