The Supreme Court Will Consider A ‘Dangerous’ Theory That Could Break American Democracy

Posted on December 6, 2022 by bitemaster

Moore v. Harper involves a bizarre legal gambit known as the independent state legislature theory. It argues that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides state legislatures the sole authority to set the “time, place, and manner” of federal elections.

Its adoption would place legislatures outside of the purview of state constitutions, effectively ending state court judicial review of election laws or congressional district maps.

. . .

The case comes before the court following more than a decade of attempts by North Carolina Republicans to draw hyper-partisan congressional maps following the decennial census in both 2010 and 2020.

. . .

The [independent state legislature ] theory arose in the controversial 2000 Bush v. Gore case when then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist endorsed it in a concurrence joined by then-Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Clarence Thomas. It reemerged in force in the fall of 2020 when Republicans in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin used it to argue for the Supreme Court to block election law changes adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court declined to do so, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas all showed an interest in either accepting the theory or hearing a case on it. North Carolina’s challenge presented that opportunity and these four justices took up the case, even though the North Carolina legislature specifically authorized the state supreme court to adjudicate gerrymandering disputes in exactly the manner they now wish to invalidate.

Ha! The Bitemaster heartily supports North Carolina in this case. If the Supreme Court agrees, states like New York would be able to produce congressional maps that more fairly represent the feelings of its citizens and award all the state’s 26 congressional seats to deserving Democrats. It would be a great victory, indeed.

Source: The Supreme Court Will Consider A ‘Dangerous’ Theory That Could Break American Democracy | HuffPost Latest News

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court

Posted on February 8, 2017 by bitemaster

The biggest issue when State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump gets to the Supreme Court is to balance your traditional deference to Executive authority with the need to affirm judicial authority. Deferring to the Executive is perfectly reasonable in a country of some 300 million people, But the President’s many recent attacks on the judiciary make it necessary for you to assert your authority at this time.

I propose that you strike down the ban and uphold your authority.

The specifics of the ban do nothing to make the country safer. The protocols previously in place did an excellent job of that.
In light of the President’s contempt for the judiciary, if you don’t strike down the ban, you will look like a bunch of Executive lapdogs and your Court will be reduced from a co-equal branch of government to a mere rubber stamp.
Once you strike down this Executive Order, you’ll have a free hand to do what you think best in the future.

Thank you.

Scalia murdered by Hollywood Star Whackers

Posted on February 15, 2016 by bitemaster

Having quietly disposed of Philip Seymour Hoffman and David Carradine, the Star Whackers have taken out Justice Antonin Scalia, presumably on orders from President Obama and Cheryl Boone Isaacs. Their next victim is expected to be Clarence Thomas, though a hit on J. J. Abrams would be cheered by all discerning Star Wars fans.

Source: Conspiracy kooks shift into overdrive after learning Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over head

Fourteenth Amendment versus DOMA – Supreme Judicial Activism

Posted on January 31, 2016 by HoundsOfHell

It’s time for another installment of Professor H.O. Hell’s Constitutional Lectures You Wish You Didn’t Read.

In this case, we’re covering the relatively recent strikedown of the Defense of Marriage Act by the Supreme Court. One of the cornerstones of the argument against DOMA was that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees rights to all. It’s even sort of true. Sort of. The thing is that it goes only one way. It protects citizens from States interfering in rights granted by the Federal government. It was part of the reforms rammed down the throats of the South after the Civil War (you need to rejoin the Union and we won’t let you unless you agree to these Amendments).

The point here is that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended as a way to stop Jim Crow. As we all know, that failed wonderfully because of judicial activism which ruled that it only applied to the federal government. It’s hard to understand how they kept a straight face while presenting that decision. People think judicial activism is entirely something perpetrated by liberals trying to make the world a better place and forget that many things have plenty of history with “conservative” persons (perhaps stagnant reactionaries would be a better term).

Setting all that aside, the Fourteenth Amendment was the point of this article. I’m not saying that the right to marry shouldn’t be spread evenly (why shouldn’t everyone have the right to suffer equally–ha ha ha), but that the foundation for that should not be sought within the Fourteenth Amendment which says nothing about the federal government giving equal protections. If, on the other hand, you want to know why Extraordinary Rendition is unconstitutional, you can always find it there.

And now that you know, you can’t unknow it.

Professor H.O. Hell

Biteme to GOP: Fuck you

Posted on June 26, 2015 by bitemaster

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed President Obama another major victory regarding his signature health care law.

Republicans made sure to disembowel the Affordable Care Act before they passed it, then they tried to defund it, weaken it and repeal it. They tried mocking it by calling it Obamacare. They forced poor Mitt Romney to back away from his signature Massachusetts legislation that was the precursor to Obamacare. They lied about it over and over. They used it to try and defeat President Obama’s reelection. They opposed it in every state legislature, denying coverage to millions who needed it. They fought it through the courts.

After a five-year full-court press, they lost in the Supreme Court.

They could have spent that time trying to fix the law’s defects but chose instead to screw Americans out of healthcare coverage.

Fuck them.

Source: Supreme Court rules in favor of Obamacare subsidies – NY Daily News

The Supreme Court Holds You Don’t Get To Hire A Lawyer If The Government Thinks Your Money Came From A Crime

Posted on February 27, 2014 by bitemaster

The government can seek to have someone accused of a federal crime forfeit any money they made from the alleged crime. The government just has to show that there’s probable cause to think the person committed a crime and that the money came from that crime.

But, according to Kaley v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court this week, the government can get that forfeiture order before there’s a trial finding you guilty. And you don’t get a hearing either because a grand jury indictment is sufficient to demonstrate “probable cause.”

And you don’t get to challenge the finding of the grand jury, you don’t have the right to present evidence to the grand jury, cross-examine witnesses who testify before the grand jury, or argue that what they’ve heard does not support the conclusion that you’ve been involved in a crime.

In other words, once you’re indicted by a federal grand jury, it sucks to be you.

via The Supreme Court Holds You Don’t Get To Hire A Lawyer If The Government Thinks Your Money Came From A Crime « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources.

(PS: If you want a little surprise, read who wrote the dissent.)

Can a corporation have a religion?

Posted on November 26, 2013 by bitemaster

“The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider religious objections made by corporations to a provision of the 2010 federal healthcare law requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control. . . .

“The key question before the court in the two cases it agreed to hear is whether corporations should be treated the same as individuals when making free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

via U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare contraception cases – NY Daily News.

Losing Supreme Court justices go on the warpath against Roberts

Posted on July 3, 2012 by bitemaster

It seems that Chief Justice Roberts changed his mind on the Affordable Care Act, and that justices in the minority retaliated by leaking to the media.

According to Felix Salmon at Reuters, “. . . it seems very much as though the more partisan Republicans within the Supreme Court have in this case behaved more like politicians than like jurists. . . .”

In spite the the Supreme Court’s tradition of secrecy, “. . . we’re now seeing these coordinated and perfectly-timed leaks from within the Court, detailing information known only to the justices themselves. The conservative justices are leaking, and although [CBS News reporter Jan] Crawford talks about ‘law clerks, chambers’ aides and secretaries’ who have been gossiping internally about Roberts’s change of mind, it’s pretty clear that her sources were impeccable and that if they weren’t the conservative justices themselves, they were sources who had the explicit consent of those justices to start talking to the press.”

Supreme Court justices telling tales out of school? Eeeew.

When the Supreme Court leaks | Felix Salmon.

BiteMe

Unbelievably Annoying Stuff

Tag Archives: supreme court