Tim - Russian CyberOps continue. NO trampTROOPS🗽⌛
25 Oct,
22 tweets, 8 min read
@Ionsancho1 RBG/1 Bush v Gore
Justice Ginsburg's dissent asserting state's rights opposing the Chief Justice/conservative opinion claiming violation of equal protection flipped modern political philosophy on its head.
This was the give away of serious mischief.
RBG's writing gave clues:
Justice Ginsburg's dissent asserting state's rights opposing the Chief Justice/conservative opinion claiming violation of equal protection flipped modern political philosophy on its head.
This was the give away of serious mischief.
RBG's writing gave clues:
@Ionsancho1 RBG/2 BvG
instead of respecting the state high court’s province to say what the State’s Election Code means, The Chief Justice maintains that Florida’s Supreme Court has veered so far from the ordinary practice of judicial review that what it did cannot properly be called judging
instead of respecting the state high court’s province to say what the State’s Election Code means, The Chief Justice maintains that Florida’s Supreme Court has veered so far from the ordinary practice of judicial review that what it did cannot properly be called judging
@Ionsancho1 RBG/3 BvG
..disagreement with the Florida court’s interpretation of its own State’s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. ..and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law.
..disagreement with the Florida court’s interpretation of its own State’s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. ..and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law.
@Ionsancho1 RGB/4 BvG
Surely the Constitution does not call upon us to pay more respect to a federal administrative agency’s construction of federal law than to a state high court’s interpretation of its own state’s law.
Surely the Constitution does not call upon us to pay more respect to a federal administrative agency’s construction of federal law than to a state high court’s interpretation of its own state’s law.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/5 BvG
No doubt there are cases, [..]. Unavoidably, this Court must sometimes examine state law in order to protect federal rights. But we have dealt with such cases ever mindful of the full measure of respect we owe to interpretations of state law by a State’s highest court.
No doubt there are cases, [..]. Unavoidably, this Court must sometimes examine state law in order to protect federal rights. But we have dealt with such cases ever mindful of the full measure of respect we owe to interpretations of state law by a State’s highest court.
@Ionsancho1 RGB/6 BvG
In deferring to state courts on matters of state law, we appropriately recognize that this Court acts as an “ ‘outside[r]’ lacking the common exposure to local law which comes from sitting in the jurisdiction.” Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974).
In deferring to state courts on matters of state law, we appropriately recognize that this Court acts as an “ ‘outside[r]’ lacking the common exposure to local law which comes from sitting in the jurisdiction.” Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974).
@Ionsancho1 RBG/7 BvG
That recognition has sometimes prompted us to resolve doubts about the meaning of state law by certifying issues to a State’s highest court, even when federal rights are at stake.
That recognition has sometimes prompted us to resolve doubts about the meaning of state law by certifying issues to a State’s highest court, even when federal rights are at stake.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/8 BvG
..we have used the certification devise to afford state high courts an opportunity to inform us on matters of their own State’s law because such restraint “helps build a cooperative judicial federalism.” Lehman Brothers, 416 U.S., at 391.
..we have used the certification devise to afford state high courts an opportunity to inform us on matters of their own State’s law because such restraint “helps build a cooperative judicial federalism.” Lehman Brothers, 416 U.S., at 391.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/9 BvG
Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court.
The Florida Supreme Court concluded that counting every legal vote was the overriding concern of the Florida Legislature when it enacted the State’s Election Code.
Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court.
The Florida Supreme Court concluded that counting every legal vote was the overriding concern of the Florida Legislature when it enacted the State’s Election Code.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/10 BvG
The Chief Justice says that Article II, by providing that state legislatures shall direct the manner of appointing electors, authorizes federal superintendence over the relationship between state courts and state legislatures, and departure from the usual deference
The Chief Justice says that Article II, by providing that state legislatures shall direct the manner of appointing electors, authorizes federal superintendence over the relationship between state courts and state legislatures, and departure from the usual deference
@Ionsancho1 RBG/11 BvG
The Framers of our Constitution, however, understood that in a republican government, the judiciary would construe the legislature’s enactments. FP 78 (A. Hamilton). In light of the constitutional guarantee to States of a “Republican Form of Government,” Art. IV, §4
The Framers of our Constitution, however, understood that in a republican government, the judiciary would construe the legislature’s enactments. FP 78 (A. Hamilton). In light of the constitutional guarantee to States of a “Republican Form of Government,” Art. IV, §4
@Ionsancho1 RBG/12 BvG
Article II can hardly be read to invite this Court to disrupt a State’s republican regime. Yet The Chief Justice today would reach out to do just that.
Article II can hardly be read to invite this Court to disrupt a State’s republican regime. Yet The Chief Justice today would reach out to do just that.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/13 BvG
By holding that Article II requires our revision of a state court’s construction of state laws in order to protect one organ of the State from another, The Chief Justice contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit.
By holding that Article II requires our revision of a state court’s construction of state laws in order to protect one organ of the State from another, The Chief Justice contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/14 BvG
The extraordinary setting of this case has obscured the ordinary principle that dictates its proper resolution: Federal courts defer to state high courts’ interpretations of their state’s own law.
This principle reflects the core of federalism, on which all agree.
The extraordinary setting of this case has obscured the ordinary principle that dictates its proper resolution: Federal courts defer to state high courts’ interpretations of their state’s own law.
This principle reflects the core of federalism, on which all agree.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/15 BvG
“The Framers split the atom of sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.” Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 504, n. 17 (1999)
“The Framers split the atom of sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.” Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 504, n. 17 (1999)
@Ionsancho1 RBG/16 BvG
The Chief Justice’s solicitude for the Florida Legislature comes at the expense of the more fundamental solicitude we owe to the legislature’s sovereign. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1, cl. 2 (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,”)
The Chief Justice’s solicitude for the Florida Legislature comes at the expense of the more fundamental solicitude we owe to the legislature’s sovereign. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1, cl. 2 (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,”)
@Ionsancho1 RBG/17 BvG
Were the other members of this Court as mindful as they generally are of our system of dual sovereignty, they would affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
Were the other members of this Court as mindful as they generally are of our system of dual sovereignty, they would affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/18 BvG
we live in an imperfect world, one in which thousands of votes have not been counted. I cannot agree that the recount adopted by the Florida court, flawed as it may be, would yield a result any less fair or precise than the certification that preceded that recount.
we live in an imperfect world, one in which thousands of votes have not been counted. I cannot agree that the recount adopted by the Florida court, flawed as it may be, would yield a result any less fair or precise than the certification that preceded that recount.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/19 BvG
Time is short in part because of the Court’s entry of a stay on December 9, several hours after an able circuit judge in Leon County had begun to superintend the recount process.
Time is short in part because of the Court’s entry of a stay on December 9, several hours after an able circuit judge in Leon County had begun to superintend the recount process.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/20 BvG
More fundamentally, the Court’s reluctance to let the recount go forward ultimately turns on its own judgment about the practical realities of implementing a recount, not the judgment of those much closer to the process.
More fundamentally, the Court’s reluctance to let the recount go forward ultimately turns on its own judgment about the practical realities of implementing a recount, not the judgment of those much closer to the process.
@Ionsancho1 RBG/21 BvG
In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.
I dissent.
In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.
I dissent.
@Ionsancho1 @threadreaderapp pls unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
