Posted on 07/11/2022 5:18:03 AM PDT by libstripper
If MSN is this worked up over the case it MUST be good for America! Oh how they fret when their grip on power and elections gets threatened.
The problem is activist Judges. Judges are the arbitrars of the application of the Constitutionality to which the legislature operate. Yet, you end up with activist judges who rule clearly against both the State Constitution and the legislatures laws. Voter ID is one such issue.
“ Even to Antifa stealing their party symbol from the Nazis.”
Antifa stole their symbol (and a lot more) from the Red Fighting Front (look it up). Brownshirts existed to fight them in the street and to bring a regime Tom power that would eliminate them.
I agree. State legislators don’t start out with the intent to ‘ignore’ their own state constitutions. They legislate according to what they see as a needed statute considering their constituents’ desires.
It’s true that their laws have to withstand possible constitutionality tests for their states but the judiciary is far too infested with leftist activist judges who use their power to legislate on their own from the bench.
This is a problem at the state level and an even WORSE problem at the federal court level, IMO.
IMO, the wisest vote anyone in any state could make is to vote against any incumbent judge, period. The chess board has to be cleared.
And another project should be to increase the security of Supreme Court justices 10 fold if necessary to ensure they can eat dinner in public or whatever else they want to do. And enforce the laws already on the books.
Wolf doesn't seem to get it. He/we have no Constitutional right to vote for the president. The Constitution gives the state legislatures the power to determine how their state's presidential electors will be chosen.
Currently, all states have elections where that state's voters can vote on their preference from President, but they can change that if they like.
That’s certainly a big problem but I’m not sure SCOTUS thinks the solution is to ignore the constitution(s).
It took amendments to make Senators popularly elected and to give women the vote, so no amount of "substantive due process" legerdemain can legitimately undo the state legislature's control of Federal elections absent direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
That conservative super majority did not save Oklahoma from chaos or several other important cases. Sometimes I think some of the recent justices have Stockholm Syndrome.
I think SCOTUS is sick of legislators being overruled based on the INTERPRETATION of the state constitution.
One clear example is Voter ID. In several cases, the state constitution was silent on the issue, and the legislators enacted Voter ID law. The activist judge struck down Voter ID even though the state constitution was silent on the matter. That's not right. That's what SCOTUS is seemingly addressing.
No surprises there.
The concept of judicial review is what the fight really should be about. John Marshall’s power grab in Marbury vs Madison needs to be undone.
You’re right, I’m afraid.
No paradox. And it isn't the state constitutions that give the state legislatures "all" their authority.
What if the state constitution says all laws, including election laws, must be passed by the legislature and signed by the governor?
Is SCOTUS going to jump in and overrule the state’s constitution?
What if the constitution says presidential electors are to be chosen by popular vote and the legislature decides to choose them based on the vote of the state house?
See the 10 amendment of the US Constitution, 10th amendment and 10 amendment yet again, to answer your questions.
The 10th says the states. I think that means in accordance with the constitutions that created those states.
Do you think differently?
The 10th says only powers not delegated by the federal constitution are reserved to the states and to the people.
The constitution does reserve those specific powers in question to the state legislatures.
So on this issue the Progressives want to "subvert democracy" and get all "constitutional" on the rest of us (Conservatives)?
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.(Emphasis added.)
Please note that this statute, in the emphasized language, refers to any demonstration in or near any "such building," with the term "such building" referring back to the statutory language "building or residence occupied or used by such judge." Thus all the judge needs to be doing is using a building for picketing and demonstrating outside of that building to be prohibited if the purpose of the picketing or demonstrating is to influence the judge's decision in any given case. That looks like it would clearly apply to Justice Kavanaugh having dinner inside of the restaurant, the restaurant clearly being a "building."
Labeling or assuming), Roberts as a "conservative" is a pet peeve of mine, so I focused on that aspect of the comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.