On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case, Moore v. Harper, which could decide whether Democrats will ever be permitted to win another election.
The case involves the independent state legislature theory—the crackpot notion that the Elections Clause of the Constitution permits state legislatures to wield unchecked power in the way states run their federal elections.
The Elections Clause reads, in part, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”
The ISL theory is absurd and rests on an anachronistic interpretation of the term “legislature,” in the Elections Clause. The term legislature has historically referred to the entire state lawmaking apparatus, including state court rulings and governor’s vetoes.
But according to North Carolina Republicans, “legislature” means the legislative body, exclusively, such that the state courts have no power to constrain actions the legislature might take when it comes to regulating federal elections.
Although the ISL theory has been discredited by legal scholars on both sides of the aisle, there is still cause for alarm—
Four of the #FedSocSix have already expressed an openness to this theory: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh are all playing footsies with the idea.
If SCOTUS adopts this theory, it will spell disaster for democracy. State court judges could lose their power to stop partisan legislators from passing laws that undermine fair elections. Governors could lose their power to veto anti-democratic voting laws.
Ultimately, Republicans in North Carolina want to gerrymander and run unfair elections—and they are claiming that the U.S. Constitution prevents state courts from doing anything about it.
THE ISL theory posits that state courts are without power to review state legislative action when it comes to federal elections because the Elections Clause says the legislature *exclusively* has the power to set the time, place, and manner of federal elections.
It's absurd.
It's contrary to the Constitution. It's contrary to originalism, which Thomas and Alito love to dry hump when it suits them.
And it's contrary to common friggin sense.
But common sense and the rule of law don't matter anymore so here we are.
@AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting #303Creative in which an evangelical Christian wants an advisory opinion about whether making a hypothetical wedding website for a hypothetical gay couple in the future violates her 1st Amendment rights.
Waggonner, who is arguing for Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Lorie Smith/#303Creative tries to answer and fumbles around.
She's claiming Colorado is chilling her speech.
(No they're not.)
Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are making the point that the wedding website is the invitation of the customer, not the invitation of the wedding website designer. So why is the website the speech of the website designer?
It’s been almost six months since #SCOTUS overturned #RoeVWade and the Court’s conservatives have accelerated the Christian nationalists’ project to reimagine the boundaries of our civil society, reflects @Hegemommy.
For years, Republicans have shown they are willing to sacrifice democracy when it gets in their way, and the Supreme Court is an essential component of this project of maintaining minority control at all costs, explains @KA_OConnor.
@AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting the arguments in #BrackeenVHaaland, the case that demonstrates there's nothing white folks won't complain about when they don't get their way. They want native children and by George, they'll have them, ICWA be damned!
The case is more than about the white supremacist urge to steal Native children from their homes and assimilate them, thereby severing their ties to their tribes.
It's also about ending tribal sovereignty. "Native American" is a political designation that means something.
But the Brackeens and the state of Texas want "Native American" to be a racial classification so they can complain that the Indian Child Welfare Act unfairly prioritizes Native American people in the placement of Native foster children.