NC Republicans in Legislature are ... wow! Seriously?!

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

This week, in the waning hours of their hold on North Carolina's executive branch, Republicans unveiled and quickly pushed through a series of bills that would significantly curb Gov.-elect Roy Cooper's (D) power.

Republicans were voting on measures Thursday that would, among other things, require the governor's Cabinet appointments to be approved by the state Senate and effectively give Republicans control of the Board of Elections during election years. Other bills appeared designed to limit Democrats' judicial influence by making North Carolina one of just a handful of states that holds partisan elections for its state Supreme Court justices.

No words... poet thing here. Literally snipping the balls off of the Governor position... because they won't be in the Governor's mansion.

This is some of the most unbelievably unconstitutional (at least in theory) shit they've pulled off in North Carolina... a state where they have pulled off some unbelievable shit. I don't know whether SCOTUS could reverse any of this or the NC Supreme Court would flip off the Republicans. It is unthinkable, what they are doing.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Let the people decide!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it's not a huge worry. I'm sure that if a GOP Governor gets elected, they'd reverse these changes immediately, so it's not like they're making a permanent power grab or something.

 

[J842P]

link

This week, in the waning hours of their hold on North Carolina's executive branch, Republicans unveiled and quickly pushed through a series of bills that would significantly curb Gov.-elect Roy Cooper's (D) power.

Republicans were voting on measures Thursday that would, among other things, require the governor's Cabinet appointments to be approved by the state Senate and effectively give Republicans control of the Board of Elections during election years. Other bills appeared designed to limit Democrats' judicial influence by making North Carolina one of just a handful of states that holds partisan elections for its state Supreme Court justices.

No words... poet thing here. Literally snipping the balls off of the Governor position... because they won't be in the Governor's mansion.

This is some of the most unbelievably unconstitutional (at least in theory) shit they've pulled off in North Carolina... a state where they have pulled off some unbelievable shit. I don't know whether SCOTUS could reverse any of this or the NC Supreme Court would flip off the Republicans. It is unthinkable, what they are doing.

Why is it unconstitutional? I thought states were given broad leeway on these matters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

No words... poet thing here. Literally snipping the balls off of the Governor position... because they won't be in the Governor's mansion.

This is some of the most unbelievably unconstitutional (at least in theory) shit they've pulled off in North Carolina... a state where they have pulled off some unbelievable shit. I don't know whether SCOTUS could reverse any of this or the NC Supreme Court would flip off the Republicans. It is unthinkable, what they are doing.

Why is it unconstitutional? I thought states were given broad leeway on these matters.

Restricting the powers of an elected official based on the Party they are affiliated with? That is blatantly undemocratic and unconstitutional. When is the last time something like this happened?

Whether it can be found as such or a court would want to touch that with a 20 foot pole is unknown. Certainly state courts in NC will be hearing these cases.

 

[dismal]

Restricting the powers of an elected official based on the Party they are affiliated with? That is blatantly undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Huh? These representatives were democratically elected. If enough duly elected reps voting for it have this power then they have it.

If you want to argue something in the Constitution trumps democracy you need to actually have an argument that points to something in the Constitution.

And maybe start with telling us which Constitution you're talking about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, the Trump Supreme Court will no doubt uphold this crap.

 

[dismal]

Unfortunately, the Trump Supreme Court will no doubt uphold this crap.

Huh? Want to take a shot at why the USSC would have anything at all to do with this? Also are you generally aware the existing USSC will largely remain in tact?

Your post seems to indicate Trump gets to pick his own supreme court and have them rule on whatever they feel like that goes on at the state level.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why is it unconstitutional? I thought states were given broad leeway on these matters.

Restricting the powers of an elected official based on the Party they are affiliated with? That is blatantly undemocratic and unconstitutional. When is the last time something like this happened?

Whether it can be found as such or a court would want to touch that with a 20 foot pole is unknown. Certainly state courts in NC will be hearing these cases.

What's unconstitutional about it? I get the immoral bit, but would it be illegal? If the State Senate has the power and authority to do this, then what would be the grounds for the courts overturning their decisions on how to use this power and authority?

 

[dismal]

Restricting the powers of an elected official based on the Party they are affiliated with? That is blatantly undemocratic and unconstitutional. When is the last time something like this happened?

Whether it can be found as such or a court would want to touch that with a 20 foot pole is unknown. Certainly state courts in NC will be hearing these cases.

What's unconstitutional about it? I get the immoral bit, but would it be illegal? If the State Senate has the power and authority to do this, then what would be the grounds for the courts overturning their decisions on how to use this power and authority?

I think it violates Article 3, Section I of the Jimmy-no-likee clause.

 

[Sarpedon]

Separation of powers between the branches of government is a fundamental principle of republican (not Republican) government.

The federal government is empowered to ensure that the state governments are 'republican.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unfortunately, the Trump Supreme Court will no doubt uphold this crap.

The question is whether the NC Supreme Court is partisan enough to let this pass.

 

[Axulus]

Restricting the powers of an elected official based on the Party they are affiliated with? That is blatantly undemocratic and unconstitutional. When is the last time something like this happened?

Whether it can be found as such or a court would want to touch that with a 20 foot pole is unknown. Certainly state courts in NC will be hearing these cases.

What's unconstitutional about it? I get the immoral bit, but would it be illegal? If the State Senate has the power and authority to do this, then what would be the grounds for the courts overturning their decisions on how to use this power and authority?

I would think the NC constitution would define the powers between the branches of the NC government. One branch trying to take away power from another branch and give it to itself is pretty much the reason why constitutions are needed. It would be a pretty shit state constitution if it doesn't have provisions against that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Restricting the powers of an elected official based on the Party they are affiliated with? That is blatantly undemocratic and unconstitutional. When is the last time something like this happened?

Whether it can be found as such or a court would want to touch that with a 20 foot pole is unknown. Certainly state courts in NC will be hearing these cases.

What's unconstitutional about it? I get the immoral bit, but would it be illegal? If the State Senate has the power and authority to do this, then what would be the grounds for the courts overturning their decisions on how to use this power and authority?

This falls under a Brown v Board of Education or the recent SCOTUS Abortion ruling sort of pragmatism. Yes, on paper, maybe this is legal if you look the other way. However, if you look at it for what it is, it is a flagrant violation of separation of powers.

 

[Axulus]

Separation of powers between the branches of government is a fundamental principle of republican (not Republican) government.

The federal government is empowered to ensure that the state governments are 'republican.'

Given that the US constitution requires many cabinent appointments to be approved by the senate, I don't really see this new law as eliminating separation of powers, just altering the balance of them. I don't see this as a federal issue.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's unconstitutional about it? I get the immoral bit, but would it be illegal? If the State Senate has the power and authority to do this, then what would be the grounds for the courts overturning their decisions on how to use this power and authority?

I would think the NC constitution would define the powers between the branches of the NC government. One branch trying to take away power from another branch and give it to itself is pretty much the reason why constitutions are needed. It would be a pretty shit state constitution if it doesn't have provisions against that.

Well, the state constitution was written by Americans and those are the guys who elected Donald Trump as President, so I don't know how much confidence we can have that they had the brains to not write a shit constitution.

Also, it's possible that a number of powers which the Governor has were granted to that office by the Senate. I remember up here in Toronto when Rob Ford was Mayor, the city council ended up stripping him of pretty much every power he had because most of those powers had been granted to the office by the council over the years and they could therefore revoke them because they didn't want an idiot who was hopped up on crack wielding those powers. Similarly, if the Governor has an area of authority as a result of an act of legislature granting it to him, then the legislature can strip him of it at their pleasure and the check against their doing that for partisan reasons should be their getting voted out in the next election as a result of the people not liking that use of their powers as opposed to the courts saying that the Senate can't revoke previous decisions that the Senate made.

 

[dismal]

Separation of powers between the branches of government is a fundamental principle of republican (not Republican) government.

The federal government is empowered to ensure that the state governments are 'republican.'

I think this might have been more impressive with an eagle cry after each sentence.

However, it's not particularly convincing if one was hoping to learn which aspect of separation of powers has been violated.

Do you guys get this whole "something is unconstitutional" form of argument? It usually involves citing the specific part of the constitution (you're going to have to pick which constitution) has been violated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, the Trump Supreme Court will no doubt uphold this crap.

Huh? Want to take a shot at why the USSC would have anything at all to do with this? Also are you generally aware the existing USSC will largely remain in tact?

Your post seems to indicate Trump gets to pick his own supreme court and have them rule on whatever they feel like that goes on at the state level.

Trump gets to appoint one, the conservatives will have a majority.

And the reason I think the USSC has something to do with it is that I expect this will be challenged in court.

 

[Deepak]

Huh? Want to take a shot at why the USSC would have anything at all to do with this? Also are you generally aware the existing USSC will largely remain in tact?

Your post seems to indicate Trump gets to pick his own supreme court and have them rule on whatever they feel like that goes on at the state level.

Trump gets to appoint one, the conservatives will have a majority.

And the reason I think the USSC has something to do with it is that I expect this will be challenged in court.

There isn't really a constitutional issue as the powers given to the Governor and Lieutenant Governor are determined by the state legislature, and they've been adjusted in the past which sets a long-time legal precedent. The timing, and partisanship is clear but not illegal. I'd be surprised if this gets picked up by the 4th Circuit, and it's highly unlikely to make it to the Supremes.

 

[Axulus]

Just out of curiosity, was this less objectionable?

The thing is, ahead of past expected Senate vacancies, rather than looking for a loophole, Massachusetts state legislators have opted to simply change the appointment rules. Multiple times.

In 2004, the Democratic-controlled State House pushed through a bill that stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney of his power to fill Sen. John Kerry’s seat, presumably with a fellow Republican, as the Democratic senator ran for president. The measure—to keep the seat vacant until a special election was held in 145 to 160 days—was ultimately passed with a veto-overriding two-thirds majority, despite the fact the Kerry ultimately lost to incumbent President George W. Bush.

But then in 2009, with Democrat Deval Patrick as governor, state legislators passed a bill at the behest of Sen. Ted Kennedy to give Patrick the power to choose a replacement for the terminally ill Democrat.

Would Massachusetts legislators change the rules a third time for Warren? According to state House and Senate leaders, there are no such plans.

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...nge-senate-appointment-rules-elizabeth-warren