BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

All indications point to the Court overturning the long standing deference afforded to state legislatures.

---

You are confused. The "long standing" rule is that state courts can review legislative decisions on map drawing

Quote:

---

My prediction is state legislatures will have little to no control longer and that this is the beginning of the next revolution.

---

Yeah, you are definitely Confused

---

So you really think the state legislature won't be subject to federal court review now? Get out of here. This is a purely local issue and feds need to butt out.

aggiejayrod said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Roberts: If NC had a more precise rule rather than this vague free reign, would that be okay?

lawyer: no substantive limit can ever be allowed. back up argument is that there is no standard in place, just vague power.


no chance some broad rule comes out of this.

---

Broad rule, so ACB is going to write the opinion?

---

Whoever gets the most support for their opinion writes the opinion.

Quote:

---

So you really think the state legislature won't be subject to federal court review now?

---

They already are.

codker92 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

All indications point to the Court overturning the long standing deference afforded to state legislatures.

---

You are confused. The "long standing" rule is that state courts can review legislative decisions on map drawing

Quote:

---

My prediction is state legislatures will have little to no control longer and that this is the beginning of the next revolution.

---

Yeah, you are definitely Confused

---

So you really think the state legislature won't be subject to federal court review now? Get out of here. This is a purely local issue and feds need to butt out.

---

Thats not what this case is about. The question here is the role of state law, and state courts, when the legislature is drawing congressional districts under the power delegated by the federal constitution. Can a state court invoke state law to reject and redraw a redistrcting plan which would be allowed under federal law? The case may have implications beyond that, but this is the immediate question.

twk said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

All indications point to the Court overturning the long standing deference afforded to state legislatures.

---

You are confused. The "long standing" rule is that state courts can review legislative decisions on map drawing

Quote:

---

My prediction is state legislatures will have little to no control longer and that this is the beginning of the next revolution.

---

Yeah, you are definitely Confused

---

So you really think the state legislature won't be subject to federal court review now? Get out of here. This is a purely local issue and feds need to butt out.

---

Thats not what this case is about. The question here is the role of state law, and state courts, when the legislature is drawing congressional districts under the power delegated by the federal constitution. Can a state court invoke state law to reject and redraw a redistrcting plan which would be allowed under federal law? The case may have implications beyond that, but this is the immediate question.

---

The Court is abolishing the independent state legislature theory and the leftist judges are the ones coming up with the new plan. The Supreme Court is overstepping, they are throwing bones to the leftists so they don't get packed.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

So you really think the state legislature won't be subject to federal court review now?

---

They already are.

---

This has always been a local issue save for blatant racial discrimination, which is subject to federal review. If the feds continue with this kind of meddling at the local level they are going to spread themselves too thin.

twk said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

today is the hearing day. question before the court is:

Quote:

---

Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

---

My pre-argument prediction is that based on the bolded, we get a narrow ruling that a state constitution can't just say "courts can ensure fair and free elections" as sufficient to overturn a state legislature's congressional map drawing. but court will leave open ability for state constitutions to have firm, unambiguous rules for the legislatures to follow that state courts can enforce.

---

I think perhaps they will go a little bit further and say that, although the acts of the legislature must comply with the US constitution and federal law, state courts may not intervene in the line drawing process on the basis of state law or state constitutions. That would not deprive state courts of jurisdiction, it would just mean that any challenge would, by definition, be a federal question and removable to federal court.

---

100% correct. The Supreme Court is going to strip state courts of any power to review local issues. This is going to be a disaster. Once again the chief Justice is abandoning his duty to uphold the constitution .

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court is going to strip state courts of any power to review local issues.

---

Didn't listen to oral argument or read transcript did you?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court is going to strip state courts of any power to review local issues.

---

Didn't listen to oral argument or read transcript did you?

---

I read the whole thing. You like coming to conclusions don't you? You'd make a good wife.

So which 5 (or more) justices are "going to strip state courts of any power to review local issues"?

I'm sorry you were confused on what the case is about. No need to want me to be your wife.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

I'm a bit surprised this case made the SCOTUS at all.

---

While we wait on codker for the list of the 5 Justices, looks like SCOTUS thinking that was a mistake

SCOTUS has ordered more briefing from the parties in Moore v. Harper, the independent state legislature case, on whether it can still decide the case. The NC Supreme Court said it would rehear it last month. https://t.co/wB39H7ZfDm pic.twitter.com/xsRGsvhwMP

— Matt Ford (@fordm) March 2, 2023

BMX Bandit said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

I'm a bit surprised this case made the SCOTUS at all.

---

While we wait on codker for the list of the 5 Justices, looks like SCOTUS thinking that was a mistake

SCOTUS has ordered more briefing from the parties in Moore v. Harper, the independent state legislature case, on whether it can still decide the case. The NC Supreme Court said it would rehear it last month. https://t.co/wB39H7ZfDm pic.twitter.com/xsRGsvhwMP

— Matt Ford (@fordm) March 2, 2023

---

Never made sense to me to hear this case. The ILT seemed like a serious stretch from the beginning.

no surprise:

Quote:

---

We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.

***

Although we conclude that the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, state courts do not have free rein. "State courts are the appropriate tribunals . . . for the decision of questions arising under their local law, whether statutory or otherwise." Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 626 (1875). At the same time, the Elections Clause expressly vests power to carry out its provisions in "the Legislature" of each State, a deliberate choice that this Court must respect. As in other areas where the exercise of federal authority or the vindication of federal rights implicates questions of state law, we have an obligation to ensure that state court interpretations of that law do not evade federal law.

***
State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review. In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution.

---