I just want to add that according to Heather Cox Richardson the actual document that the radical right is relying on has been proven by scholars to have been written 10 years after the Constitution Meeting. (Per her letter written last night)
Good essay by Jay on independent state legislature (ISL:) case before the Supreme Court. Proponents of ISL want to change the rules of the game, so that only R legislatures control who wins. It's like a world series team picking the umpires, and with their team getting an extra out in every inning.
Actually,,considering that these Justices are there for “life”, it means that there should either be an impeachment, against those who have lied, such as Barret or Kavanaugh, or those who have leaked decisions like Alito. Or increasing the number of Justices on the bench.
The population has increased enough that there should be at least 2 or 3 more Justices added to balance out decisions!
Understanding that state power is different from federal power in the Constitution, nevertheless I am surprised that no one has mentioned Marbury v. Madison, which was decided back in 1803. Congress is given many legislative powers in the Constitution; nevertheless, it has been black letter law since 1803 that the Court can overrule Congress if and when they pass a law which is unconstitutional. Is there any evidence that the somehow the framers had something different in mind for the functioning of the states? And aren't there many cases where the Supreme Court has deferred to state courts based on the theory that state courts have a better understanding of their state constitutions?
Barbara, generally, of course you are correct; Marbury v Madison stands for the bedrock rule that SCOTUS " ... says what the law is" and the Supremacy clause controls.
ISL is Quick Sand that submerges state 'legislatures' and state courts into a gooy morass of 'process' versus 'substantive' sophistry despite case law that resolves all issues as Neal Katyal fully explained to the Court & country yesterday.
That is one reason I direct folks to what Judge Kagan stated from the Bench yesterday. ISL substitutes venal self interest for the necessary checking & balancing. "Check" as in hockey -- STOPPING the attacker abruptly.
If we don't expand SCOTUS to 13, we will continue to be on the precipice of disaster. These 3 plus Alito and Thomas, after recent revelations, should be impeached. This court is a disgrace and Roberts should be ashamed.
" ... greater ... legal activism than ever before". is required. Note, that numerous legal points & follow-up paths were identified by NEAL KATYAL at oral argument yesterday.
Never argue with a desperate or crazy mind. If you do so, you send the message that what they say is “arguable or debatable “. ie “so you say that the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East ? Interesting let us explore that concept “ Oh yeah that’ll work.
Also, “ never underestimate the power of a snook” Boris Badenov
I just want to add that according to Heather Cox Richardson the actual document that the radical right is relying on has been proven by scholars to have been written 10 years after the Constitution Meeting. (Per her letter written last night)
Good essay by Jay on independent state legislature (ISL:) case before the Supreme Court. Proponents of ISL want to change the rules of the game, so that only R legislatures control who wins. It's like a world series team picking the umpires, and with their team getting an extra out in every inning.
Actually,,considering that these Justices are there for “life”, it means that there should either be an impeachment, against those who have lied, such as Barret or Kavanaugh, or those who have leaked decisions like Alito. Or increasing the number of Justices on the bench.
The population has increased enough that there should be at least 2 or 3 more Justices added to balance out decisions!
If only! And term limits instead of lifelong appointments. I can dream...
Understanding that state power is different from federal power in the Constitution, nevertheless I am surprised that no one has mentioned Marbury v. Madison, which was decided back in 1803. Congress is given many legislative powers in the Constitution; nevertheless, it has been black letter law since 1803 that the Court can overrule Congress if and when they pass a law which is unconstitutional. Is there any evidence that the somehow the framers had something different in mind for the functioning of the states? And aren't there many cases where the Supreme Court has deferred to state courts based on the theory that state courts have a better understanding of their state constitutions?
Barbara, generally, of course you are correct; Marbury v Madison stands for the bedrock rule that SCOTUS " ... says what the law is" and the Supremacy clause controls.
ISL is Quick Sand that submerges state 'legislatures' and state courts into a gooy morass of 'process' versus 'substantive' sophistry despite case law that resolves all issues as Neal Katyal fully explained to the Court & country yesterday.
That is one reason I direct folks to what Judge Kagan stated from the Bench yesterday. ISL substitutes venal self interest for the necessary checking & balancing. "Check" as in hockey -- STOPPING the attacker abruptly.
Thank you! I will check out BAC; knowledge is power.
If we don't expand SCOTUS to 13, we will continue to be on the precipice of disaster. These 3 plus Alito and Thomas, after recent revelations, should be impeached. This court is a disgrace and Roberts should be ashamed.
" ... greater ... legal activism than ever before". is required. Note, that numerous legal points & follow-up paths were identified by NEAL KATYAL at oral argument yesterday.
I've been worried ever since they even agreed to hear this case. Hope you're right in your optimistic view of how they might rule.
The best way around this is to abolish the ridiculous electoral vote. Whoever wins the popular vote wins like in any other election.
I know never going to happen.
Never argue with a desperate or crazy mind. If you do so, you send the message that what they say is “arguable or debatable “. ie “so you say that the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East ? Interesting let us explore that concept “ Oh yeah that’ll work.
Also, “ never underestimate the power of a snook” Boris Badenov