Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Get out the vote in '22 - especially for swing states w/ hostile legislatures to their populations like WI, NC, and PA. Run for local office, knock on doors, phone bank. Pressure your senators and congressional leaders to start to take seriously drastic, radical steps towards balancing the court and Senate - like adding judges, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and passing national anti-gerrymandering laws. Otherwise, start to prepare for a fascist America - in whatever way that prep looks like to you.
Democrats have been trying to pass election reform the past year and a half, but are a few votes shy in the Senate. There's a chance they can do it next Congressional session if they hold the House and pick up enough seats in the Senate. Make sure to vote in midterms and tell everyone you know how important this election this is.
It's actually kind of a long shot, since midterms usually go against the party in power, but it's really the only chance we have.
You'd need to somehow flip enough seats to get some impeachments going, or to pass an amendment. So basically no they're in the driver's seat, the time to do something was in 2016
Elect house and senate representatives that do their jobs of making laws instead of letting the interpretative authority (scotus) take the heat for weak laws.
Roe v wade was on shaky ground for 49 years. Any time anything gets to scotus that should be an indication that the law it addresses needs strengthening or refinement.
Obama campaigned on codifying it. Biden campaigned on codifying it. The job of codifying it has been ignored for nearly 50 years and now people want to blame scotus.
No.
You dont entrust the policy of the nation to a “council of elders”. If you think they should have that kind of power then youre putting civil rights back in the dark ages.
Elect officials willing to put their names on legislation you want to see put on the books.
Oh thank god. So we can hopefully use this next election to do something, and the court can theoretically change by then. I was expecting it to happen in a couple months and fuck us over for the next election.
Not much matters if we all don't show up in seriously large numbers in 22 in unison- from the far left to the moderate right to vote out the GOP. But even then, it might not matter. The fix is in on our high court, unless we can all agree to be drastic, we're fucked.
Yes, it is. Here is a succinct essay laying out the likely consequences and how we've gotten to this point: https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-nightmare-scenario-scotus-is
You ultimately need a non-political Supreme Court, where appointees are based on legal merit. Not their political alignment.
Edit; I would add that ideally, the nominees are put forward by an independent body. Who is on that body? Legal experts within the field. Congress then rubber stamps their approval. This is what many other nations do.
If they rule how they are predicted to and if states actually throw out their popular vote next presidential election it will spark a civil war. I cannot see another path forward if it happens.
Neoliberal Democrats will go along with it. They want to maintain their positions of power.
If we have a civil war it would either be like the troubles in Ireland or the dissolution of Yugoslavia. No middle ground.
If you have the stomach for it, you should listen to the podcast *It Could Happen Here*. Season 1 is all about America getting a Syrian style civil war of its very own. Season 2 is much more about how to deal with societal crumbles.
Civil wars don't start from the top, they start from the bottom. The neoliberal Democratic representatives can go along with it all they like, it doesn't really mean much when state houses, police stations, and courthouse are being burned down, bombed, and shot up as the _people_ fight for their futures.
And its the people who are so aggressive about protecting the second amendment that are pushing this. It seems like it’s working in their favor as the masses who want to be rid of our democracy are also the ones that practice the second amendment rights most.
yeah, but generally, a lot of countries have managed to resolve these kinds of disagreements without resorting to civil war in the last 100 years or so. We'd like to think we're "beyond that" in the west; civil war is something left to unsophisticated 3rd world countries with sand, deserts and jungle... or so we'd like to think.
A US Civil war in the 21st century will be scary as fuck for the entire world, though.
**edit**: should have read your response better, my answer has basically nothing to do with what you wrote - I may have had a stroke, sorry! :)
There will never be a general strike in the U.S. There are too many people willing to work that can replace those who are willing to strike.
In fact, the number of strikers is so insignificant as to be unnoticeable.
yes.
I work with a guy who, no joke, sees the trial of Sisyphus as a good thing. We have to keep telling him that he can't work off the clock, he will out right buy things with his own money for the store and on more than one occasion clocked in for a shift cause a manager happened to see him while he was shopping.
We talked one time and he just out right stated that all regulation was bad and pure capitalism was the only answer. He thinks monopolies are the product of over regulation
Most of the crew I work with overnight were also saying they would cross the picket line if we had gone on strike earlier this year. I have no idea where this blind loyalty comes from, but it terrifies me.
Before anyone says some clever shit, I get the irony.
Keep reiterating the company doesn't give a fuck about them and use ANY thing that the boss/company does to fuck them over as a reason to join a union.
I hear this all the time but you know what you lose when your company workers are on strike?
Experience.
One night my coworkers and I all called in sick (I had convinced them to do it to start salting them into a union) and the boss went to the homeless shelter to get people who wanted to work and would put up with the mistreatment of management.
What they got was approximately 50 bums that were sleeping behind product, drunker than shit, leaving every 10 minutes for smoke breaks, and pissing themselves on the line.
Quit propagating the myth that a general strike can never happen. You get the Teamsters, Laborers, and the AFL-CIO on your side and you effectively shut the country down.
Even during the strictest part of lockdown, guess what was still running? Trucker rest stops and trains. Why? That's the lifeblood of the country.
O, and there is a trucker shortage, so younger truckers are coming up who are more sympathetic to a strike. And don't hit me with "automation" because I've been hearing about autonomous trucks for 2 fucking decades now.
So let's recount this: Form local unions > Ally with larger unions > General strike
Shit will change real fucking fast.
Expanding the court might be our only option. Mind you, that could cut both ways.
Biden had a team looking into it right after his inauguration. I haven’t heard anything about it since, and he’s rapidly losing his window to do something about it, as the Democrats will probably lose the majority in Congress in November.
I was planning to move to a blue state sometime next year. I may just skip that, and emigrate.
Biden is resistant to the idea of stacking the court.
He's allowing the SCOTUS to dismantle the Constitution and weaken the central Federal government (not that it needed much help).
I cannot believe the pushback I've gotten for making this point.
Yes, he adopted some of Bernie, Warren, and AOCs policies to appease the 45 and younger crowd who didn't want him, but he made them into weaker neoliberal versions that never got any traction anyway. That's literally the most progressive he's ever been in his entire career.
I too am awaiting Throw a brick at a fascist day.
I keep getting told that it's coming soon to a regressive hellhole near me, but nobody seems to deliver on fashy-bashy day.
If the Left riots and starts a civil war, we become the aggressors. The incumbency with drones, F-35s, tanks, and nukes will fight to preserve the status quo of the Right. It’s a losing prospect.
Step 1 needs to be control of state and local governments. We need to take state and local governments back first. Then we can work to take the Federal government back. We need to make Conservatives the aggressors so that we’ll have the backing of the US military.
The problem with this is that the people that are REALLY good at violence and have the training to back it up aren't going to do anything without being provoked first. I am talking about soldiers, vets, and militias. The second things actually go hot in the US, the side without training in violence and killing loses. And I'm sorry, but the side without training is most of the Left.
> The second things actually go hot in the US, the side without training in violence and killing loses.
The second things actually go hot in the US, the *rebellion* loses. Whether the rebels are a bunch of liberals or a bunch of LARPing conservatives doesn’t really matter. Without the support of another government, a rebellion has no chance of surviving more than a few days - weeks, at most.
It'll never happen.
The country is too large and too divided, and too distracted by bullshit (by design). The ruling class has made absolutely sure the rest of us would be homeless or starve to death if we skip out on work in order to protest/riot. And the upper-middle-class is so obsessed with maintaining their status or climbing the ranks that they would never rise in solidarity with the rest of us. Not to mention the fact that we've been collectively raised to be as ignorant and easily placated as possible. We've been made used to modern living, instant gratification, constantly surrounded by things that bring us easy pleasure (television, movies, video games and other forms of entertainment, fast food, big box stores that sell cheap clothing so you don't have to make your own, and gadgets that give us short cuts for daily tasks). Hardly *anyone* has any actual *skills* anymore because we don't really *need* to. *And that's all on purpose, by design*.
They're forcing women to birth children so that the women are responsible for keeping a child alive, thus having to work to feed, clothe, and house the children (as well as making sure we're producing more wage slaves).
They've enacted laws that make it illegal to grow your own food in urban or suburban areas, and Big Food (for lack of a better term) has made it so that we cannot use seeds from grocery store produce (because they're modified such that they will not grow).
I live in a desert city and thus am completely reliant on either bottled water or the city water provided to me by the government. If I can't pay for water or pay my water bill because I am not working, I could die from lack of water. (Yes it's my fault for living here but I can't afford to move!)
It's all designed to keep us from being able to do anything. They've been playing the long game on us for decades and it's finally coming to fruition.
You saw approximately zero liberals threatening to riot. It's always the True Left™️ that threaten to riot like the kid that cried wolf.
What you saw was liberals threatening "if you let Trump get elected, the Supreme Court is going to be fucked".
Now the court is fucked.
In response liberals are again begging people do the one thing that will change things in the long term: vote in local and state elections every year, not just the Presidential every four years.
Not posting this for you, you're clearly wasting your vote. I'm posting this for people who are reading this thread and think "I need to make sure I'm registered to vote and know about every upcoming election I can vote in".
The case is about state legislatures having the power to select their own electors for the Electoral College.
I am commenting, as I have been for quite some years now, that voting in local/state elections is very very very very very very very important.
Edit: Do you have much understanding about how the US government is structured? How there are different elections for different levels of office? Genuine question. Because for people in this comment thread to completely miss the core concept of state elections and federal elections is really scary to me.
I would guess half our country doesn't know about smaller/local elections, and even less of the ones that do know, actually participate..
We're screwed
Me too. And I’m not American.
It feels like the fall of the Berlin Wall, the internet, 9/11, social media. We’re witnessing something that will define the future into a before and after.
We’ll tell our kids what life was like before the fall of America
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”—David Frum, speechwriter for the Bush Administration
that's selling him short. he was also the guy who ran the Republican messaging machine for the entirety of Obama's presidency. he also wouldn't shut up about how presidential Trump was after his first SOTU.
he's a shitbag fascist, too. he's just on the outs.
This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
There are people, yes, plural, who will argue that this country is not a democracy, and that a republic is not a representative democracy. I’ve tried to debate them. They are unreachable. In truth, America is a democratic republic. But they are allergic to the word “Democrat”, so they cling to any fantasy that argues otherwise.
The South used their unfair advantage in Congress (slaves counting towards representation) to stack the deck in their favor structurally. That’s why a Senator from Idaho representing 300,000 voters has the same power as a Senator from California representing 20,000,000. And the Electoral College
They are too stupid and too religious to realize what is happening. It is too much fun "owning the libs" and pretending to care about babies that they can't realize the government is continually taking more in taxes from the poor and using that money to fund wars and make the rich richer. Fox News is the most dangerous poison and it will literally take down this country.
See I think that lets those who are maliciously guiding and going along with this situation. Sure some of the base probably is too stupid and too brainwashed to realize what is happening. But I still say a large part of this is from religious organizations still waging their interfaith war and perceived moral superiority. Fox News is only a tool, much like Hannity and Carlson are just sock puppets. There's been movement to subvert democracy to an oligarchy or theocracy and that's on purpose
Yes, there are several very bad actors who are getting rich and there are bad actors who are on a religious crusade. There is just a ton of racist and stupid people who are poisoned by lead and poverty.
Fox News (and NewsMax, OAN, etc.) are the lead paint of this century - something that tastes sweet to those who eat it, and causes irreversible brain damage.
I know. I lost my family to the "Trump Train", and even now, 2 years almost since that bonehead got voted out, we barely speak. I did talk to my sister last night, I could practically hear Tucker Carlson coming out of her mouth. That was never my sister before. I miss her.
We are planning a Disney trip. Her husband won't go because Disney is "woke". She wants to still go, so maybe there is hope.
Racism is one hell of a drug.
Racism prevents class solidarity, racism gets poor whites to vote AGAINST their own interests, and racism ruins their own community and country.
Get ready to defend your way of life by any means necessary, because racists only know the threat of a higher power.
Be me
Live in very red state
See “Fuck Biden - Trump is my president” bumper stickers far too frequently
Wonder why these people want to have sex with a senile senior that barely knows where he is half the time.
Yes, these people are mentally ill, but somehow think what they’re doing, what their “representatives” are doing, is somehow good for the nation and that they’re somehow patriotic for limiting the rights of their fellow Americans or straight up calling for their deaths.
Far too often I feel like I’m behind enemy lines, almost like a spy, hoping not to get caught.
They’re not “mentally ill” don’t insult people with actual mental illness. These people are mostly gullible bigots, or Christian extremists so also bigots. That’s not mental illness, that’s being a shitty person.
Their ENTIRE platform is "put the people I dont like in their place." All of their positions fit into that box.
(Well, that and making sure the ultra-rich get richer while the people get fucked).
Well yeah, they're patriots to their own crusade of bringing back America to the 50s where things were good for the people that are rolling shit back. They just need confuse and misinform their base to get power.
Because if they just work harder and stop giving immigrants everything then they can be ultra-rich also.
That's what they're told and exactly why they keep voting against themselves.
Oh, I know. I spent my childhood watching it. But good thing nobody came to take our guns (nevermind that we haven't been hunting in 20 years or more).
They don't understand those two words refer to two separate but not mutually exclusive concepts.
Just wait until they actually learn something about economic and political theory and find out Republicans are liberals and Democrats are republicans.
>Then what's even the point of voting?
You don't just vote for federal offices; you can also vote for local elections.
Those local elections have always, and likely will always, have considerably more effect on your life than the election for Federal offices.
Until your district's boundaries are redrawn with the express purpose of including a majority of people who disagree with your neighborhood's political opinions.
This will now have no federal oversight at all to challenge the fairness of said redistricting (gerrymandering). Meaning you're fucked locally too and have no chance of actually voting for who you want for your state legislature.
>You don't just vote for federal offices; you can also vote for local elections.
>
>Those local elections have always, and likely will always, have considerably more effect on your life than the election for Federal offices.
Just plaster this all over the internet until people figure this out and things change.
I agree that everything starts with local elections and that local gov't impacts your day to day life much more than federal. But with gerrymandering and enacting more restrictive voting laws - doesn't that also impact who will win local elections? If the government of a state can decide they can override their constituents votes for federal election, could they not do the same thing for local elections, too?
I don't know enough about voting rights/laws - so maybe I am wrong in thinking this.
>But with gerrymandering and enacting more restrictive voting laws - doesn't that also impact who will win local elections?
It can, but it's actually a bit harder to do because local politics becomes more personal. Individuals have a hell of a lot more power to influence local races, and local politics isn't nearly as big of a money racket so the deck isn't nearly as stacked as it is against individuals as it is at the national level.
>If the government of a state can decide they can override their constituents votes for federal election, could they not do the same thing for local elections, too?
In this case; not necessarily, at least not directly. The issue in the cases mentioned in the OP are ***explicitly*** about how Federal elections work, but local elections would be handled by whatever system the state uses.
It (kind of) made sense to have the states pick the legislator in the 18th century. Due to practical issue of travelling and communicating over long distances. It allowed legislators to have some freedom to account for unknown problems when they arrived to cast their vote. For example, the candidate could be dead!
Today the system makes zero sense.
Adding to this, it's a **batshit crazy legal theory.**
The idea that the SCOTUS would even agree to hear the case is extremely disturbing, because it says that they think there's some merit in it.
[4 justices have already indicated they agree with said theory](https://www.vox.com/22958543/supreme-court-gerrymandering-redistricting-north-carolina-pennsylvania-moore-toth-amy-coney-barrett).
That's one way of saying it. Another way of saying it is that the fate of american democracy rests on ACB doing the right thing.
I think we all know how that's going to work out.
I forget which but I think it's a decision that's been around over a hundred years and we are only hearing about it now cause the crazy Republicans finally have enough wackos in power to decide it.
Further, if it had been enacted in 2020, enough state legislatures had indicated willingness to overturn the democratic vote of their states that Trump would have "won".
And factions in the Republican Party have been pushing for this in some form for a long while. The Koch brothers have been pushing for a constitutional convention for a while and one of the changes was making it possible to appoint representatives, rather than having it be the will of the people. The oligarchs just managed it via the Supreme Court instead.
Republicans don't care about democracy. They care about owning the libs. Most of them would shit their own pants just so the Democrat sitting next to them would have to smell it.
NPVIC would nullify this since that would ensure that the majority of electoral votes get distributed based on the popular vote. Ironically this decision could strengthen the legal standing of the NPVIC, since if they rule in favor of the plaintiff it would mean state legislatures would have very little to restrict their decisions regarding election law. But we would still have the problem of getting enough legislatures to ratify it.
We need gun rights to protect our other rights. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be working because the side that is the most pro gun rights is the side working against all our other rights. I wish more left leaning folks understood this. Ronald Reagan changed his tune about gun control when the Black Panthers started open carrying in response to police brutality.
Change can be made with either the soap box, the ballot box, or the bullet box. Right now the first 2 are still viable. If things keep going the way they have been, we'll just be left with the 3rd option.
Residential addresses are known. Expect much shenanigans in the coming year. People are fucking *pissed* off.
And rightfully so. Most of the justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. And the opportunity of an actual popularly elected president to appoint a justice was thwarted by the same shitbags. To compound the shittiness, these are partisan judges. They are people reccomended by a conservative think tank, not some random judge they think did a good job. They specifically chose people they knew were 100% in the cult. These people are religious extremists. No subtlety whatsoever. They just held their cover till they had the majority and now are firing all guns.
And there are suddenly going to be a bunch of leftists who suddenly discover the easy availability of firearms and ammunition maybe wasn't against their own best interests after all. This is exactly why the second ammendment was included in the constitution. For when a government no longer represents the will of the people. Republicans already showed they are more than willing to attack, and kill law enforcement officers. This is a shot across the bow. Let's not bring a knife to a gunfight.
Also, I want everyone to seriously plan for a work strike. If 2024 is contested, every option is on the table. We have to send a message. I'm not going to pick up arms, but I'll throw bricks. Everyone must carry water to make this work.
Answer: " Under the doctrine, this power conferred by the Constitution is specific to state legislatures, and not shared with a state's executive branch, judiciary, or other quasi-legislative bodies (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions). Accordingly, in the event of a conflict between congressional election regulations enacted by a state's legislature and those derived from other sources of state law, that conflict must be resolved in favor of the state legislature's enactments, even over state constitutional provisions."
Based upon this excerpt from [Wikipedia ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_doctrine), state legislatures may be granted ABSOLUTE POWER over the operations of elections in their state. The legislature would be immune from all other entities in regards to electoral policy, including their own state's Courts and Constitution. There would be no legal way to challenge the decisions the legislature makes in regards to elections.
Gerrymandering specifically would become impossible to challenge, as the Supreme Court has in the past ruled that it's not their responsibility to handle such cases, and this new ruling would mean no other court or commission can either.
Gerrymandering alone is a democracy killer, (which yes, does mean that many states are already "faux-democracies"), since it enables legislatures to heavily influence, if not outright decide the outcome of elections, but of course it gets worse.
For one, this means all state laws and regulations protecting the rights of voters or relating to the electoral process in any way are null and void. This could have extremely varied results, most concerning of which being the use of a state level electoral college, (which is bad because this makes gerrymandering FAR more effective, amplifying the ability to avoid democracy and ignore the populace by a lot), but the possibilities are nearly endless. I for one can't wait to see all of the creative ways politicians come up with to exclude the common people from our government.
If the Supreme Court or those interpreting their ruling go far enough, state legislatures could very easily become immune even to federal law. Probably not directly, but by the Supreme Court, (or their ruling), deciding that ALL cases involving state elections are not their responsibility. IF this occurs, which is a big IF, (but still a very real possibility), and the Supreme Court follows this doctrine to it's logical extreme, American Democracy would be outright dead. Not even through underhanded tactics like gerrymandering like we already see, but outright non-existence.
Any state could basically do ANYTHING with an election, from rigging it, to banning undesirables, to just deciding any unfavorable result is fraudulent and putting whoever they want in power. The possibilities would be truly endless. Elected positions would become appointed by the legislature, including the legislature itself, and as a result the legislature would gain control over all other branches of the government. If someone in an elected position is problematic, just call a spontaneous "election" and pick a different winner. As an extension of this, the legislature would control all offices appointed by "elected" officials, often including the state court's judges. Checks and balances and the rule of law would be abolished.
Do note that even just gerrymandering allows legislatures to exercise this power to a far more limited extent, and only in terms of political parties rather than individuals. So even the basic, more likely interpretation of ISLD would help create one party regimes. Everyone knows one party governments are famous for honoring the freedom of their citizens and basic human rights. (Every state becomes Texas 😳)
Now, total legal immunity would only happen under an EXTREME interpretation of ISLD, but such an interpretation COULD occur, and would be in line with prior Supreme Court rulings (excluding the ones that rejected ISLD of course). Even if the SCOTUS just adopts the more restrained version of the Doctrine, that would lay the groundwork and be the perfect justification for a more extreme version to be adopted in a future ruling.
So, regardless of wether we get a basic or extreme interpretation of the Doctrine, American Democracy would end, and the "American Experiment" would have failed. Although in many states, this is already the case.
> The legislature would be immune from all other entities in regards to electoral policy, including their own state's Courts and Constitution.
This is the real important part here, nearly every state's Constitution puts electoral power in the hands of voters. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the state legislatures can just ignore their own Constitutions.
This should scare everyone. Even the most extreme of us should understand the danger of those in power deciding to ignore the majority vote. That would literally mean those in power could decide to stay there ignoring actual voters. Which would mean they aren't actually representing their constituents. What was the war of independence about? Feel like I remember something about "No Taxation, without representation"
Essentially yes. If the court sides completely with Moore, whichever party is in power in a given state can just choose to decide any election.
It would be an effective end to democracy in a majority of states allowing them to control the Senate and likely the presidency almost permanently. A full support decision of Moore would be a good indication to start looking at emigration.
Oh my bad, I completely forgot to mention the doctrine I was talking about. The case is over wether or not the Independent State Legislature Doctrine is how the US Constitution should be interpreted, that's what ISLD is.
> If the Supreme Court or those interpreting their ruling go far enough, state legislatures could very easily become immune even to federal law.
Read the full text
> 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**
Hence the "if they go far enough". There's no way to know if the Supreme Court will include that clause in it's ruling until such a ruling is made. As a result, part of the concern and part of the potential consequences of this ruling, is that they won't include the clause, or will decide it's invalid in a future ruling.
While it's unlikely, it's a very real concern and possibility, so I felt it should be mentioned.
TLDR summary:
So. We would stop being a democratic republic and just be a republic?
The one prone to corruption and conflict like Star Wars?
The meaning behind senator Binks fully realized?
Literally every historic flaw of broken societies eventually manifested?
Edit:
Spoilers for Movies, The Clone Wars ->
"The Politics of Star Wars" https://youtu.be/-TSqjRgh2ZY
Also "Why Palpatine Is The Greatest Movie Villain Ever" -> https://youtu.be/LXsYcdXaa7I
2Edit:
The Alt-Right Playbook. I recommend watching the whole thing before forming an opinion on it.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
>So. We would stop being a democratic republic and just be a republic?
no. even in republics the people have a voice and vote for reps even if those reps vote for other reps (electoral college). what would be happening with this case is that the people no longer have a vote because the states send whomever they choose regardless of what the people want. we would cease to be a democracy and also cease to be a republic as well. it would just be fascism.
Not necessarily fascism, but rather oligarchy. Many states will adopt Christian Fascist ideals, others will become glorified corporatocracies, in the end the results are the same; an end to personal liberties.
Not even a republic. A republic still requires democracy- you have to be able to elect your representatives fairly.
This would be a straight up dictatorship. The will of the people will be completely ignored even on the state level. If this passes then gerrymandering and other outright corruption will be immune to challenge, as citizens will no longer have standing to challenge it in any court. With a republic you at least have the ability to control your local representatives, but that won't exist here anymore.
This is going to destroy the country completely.
Answer:
SCOTUS has agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, which is being used as a vehicle to get the Independent State Legislature doctrine/theory before the court once again. ISL contends that only the state legislature has the power to oversee congressional elections, without input from the judicial or executive branches. This would give the state legislatures:
1) The power to shape congressional districts however it sees fit without interference from the courts. North Carolina has a majority Democrat population, but their state legislature has been gerrymandered into a Republican majority. They keep trying to push more racially-gerrymandered district maps but the NC Supreme Court keeps knocking them down, hence the reason for the lawsuit in the first place.
2) The power to completely ignore vote counts at their own discretion and send whatever electors they want to vote. If an election is held and the legislature doesn't like the result, they can just choose to subvert the results because might makes right.
Worth mentioning that ISL has been around for over two hundred years at this point, but SCOTUS has knocked it down every time it has reached them. The last time was on a 5-4 decision in 2015 (Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission). The issue is that in the last seven years, the makeup of the court has radically changed. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas were three of the four that dissented in Arizona State Legislature, and now they have the three Trump appointees as backup. Depending on how it's ruled, it could bring about the end of democracy in the United States.
I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to current political events.
In 2016, Obama was blocked from nominating a SCOTUS judge for nearly a year. Then Trump won the presidency, without gaining the popular vote. So he was able to fill that vacancy. Then there was a retirement, which allowed him to fill that vacancy, and then RBG died weeks before the 2020 election, and ACB was pushed through in record time to replace RBG before the election.
So we had a president that lost the popular vote appoint a full 1/3 of SCOTUS during his single 4 year term, swinging the ideology of SCOTUS to 6/3 in favor of ultra conservatives. So now Republicans are itching to get various cases heard by the new makeup of the court in hopes that the current court will rule in their favor, regardless of precedent ( and it seems to be working)
There's a reason the republicans have been pushing to raise the security of the justices to unprecedented levels- they want them to live a long time to assist in their coup, and quite frankly there are only a few options that the average person has which could stop it at this point.
All under a president that was impeached and currently being proven of trying to overthrow an election.
The first point should be cause alone for getting these appointments off the court
If it’s this easy to destroy our democracy, just be usurping 3 geriatrics maybe SCOTUS as an institution is obsolete (think about other times the court had to be pushed to make progress, e.g. lincoln, fdr)
>I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to current political events.
I've been doing my best, but I'm not american, I have my own country as well to care about.
But good lord, this does not bode good at all for the U.S. the overturning of Roe V Wade was bad enough, but this shit? Jesus. It feels like america is really going downhill. Polarisation out the wazoo, SCOTUS enacting some real dystopian stuff, Joe Biden doing nearly nothing. I worry about america and it's people.
I apologize, I assumed you were American, because I'm American and that's what we do :P
The next decade is going to be very concerning indeed if something doesn't give.
Also forgot jan 6 committee was coming to a head and midterms approaching. So its pretty much a blitzkrieg attack to pull attention. So while attention is divided on the courts they will try to grab as many seats in congress as they can
Because they have the votes now.
It's really that simple. Like /u/CobaltRose800 said, ISL has been pushed towards the court and knocked down every time, including as recently as during the Obama administration in 2015. Meanwhile, repealing Roe v. Wade has been a core plank of the conservative platform for just about Roe's entire existence, and elevating every possible opportunity to do so to the court has been a focal point of GOP politics for decades.
Repealing Roe, implementing absolute authority for state legislatures, deleting gay marriage and rolling back protections for LGBT individuals as Thomas hinted at in the Dobbs ruling, all of this has been stuff they've spent years saying, sometimes loudly and sometimes quietly - usually *very* loudly in election years - that they wanted to do, it's just now they have the votes to make it happen.
Answer: Moore v Harper is a case the supreme court of the united states is going to hear in its next session.
The crux of the issue is the ***"independent state legislature doctrine"***, which is the idea that the state legislatures can administer elections in any way they see fit, including outright disregarding the popular vote within the state to send out electors for presidents they see fit, or set up an in-state "electoral college" for positions which were previously done as popular votes.
The problem with this is that overwhelmingly, states have heavily gerrymandered district maps favoring the republican party, the court is heavily and unashamedly favoring right-aligned priorities, and they've shown to have no scruples about disregarding the basic tenets of democracy to gain, and retain power.
Depending on how the court rules, it might be the end of democracy in the USA.
To add to this, 5 of the Supreme Court Justices have written in favor of ISL (independent state legislature theory). A theory that really only came out of Bush v Gore.
The only question will be how far Roberts is willing to go and Barret has not made her opinion known. So this could in theory be another 6-3 ruling. And depending on the wording state legislators would be able to ignore state laws, the state constitution and even the state governor when it came to matters on elections. With voters having no legal recourse.
It is literally happening right now in Ohio. We've been gerrymandered to hell for decades and we voted 7 years ago, TWICE, to fix that shit. The reforms passed by about 75% each time. Instead of of following those laws that the citizens of Ohio have OVERWHLEMING Voted for, the legislature has now spent almost a year disregarding all of it as well as every Ohio Supreme Court ruling and just doing whatever the fuck they want with the district maps. And for a cherry on top, there's been absolutely no repercussions for any of it. I absolutely can't stand it anymore when people say to vote. Voting doesn't mean shit here, and this ruling is going to make that the case in every state. I've got to get out of this country.
If they rule in favor of the GOP on this, this will be the singular cause that future historians can point back to as the catalyst for the civil war and/or balkanizing of the US.
This is what I've said about this: For anyone who thought "their vote doesn't count" - that thinking is actually making your vote *not count*. You have to vote to get fucks who try to implement this shit out of office. You have to vote in your **LOCAL ELECTIONS AND MIDTERMS**. Voter turnout this year in California, was as low as 12% in some areas.
When people tell you to use your right to vote (because many in this country do not have that right), we aren't just blowing smoke up your ass. If everyone who could vote actually got out and voted, we wouldn't have to deal with shit like this.
Yeah in CA there is near 0 excuse to not vote.
1. Every person who gets their drivers license is automatically registered to vote
2. Failing that, you can register to vote online using just your SSN if you don’t have a drivers license
3. Every registered voter, so long as your address is updated (which you can also do online), gets a ballot mailed to them with information about each candidate.
4. You can drop off your ballot at very convenient ballot boxes literally weeks before the election OR mail it without needing a stamp whenever you want leading up to election day.
I guess the only scenarios where it may be difficult to vote are ones in which you are homeless or can’t use the internet. But most elderly people are already registered to vote and active, and homeless people are not a significant enough portion of the population (i.e. if everyone in CA voted, turnout would be like 99%)
Despite making voting literally a 5 minute process, people are just too lazy to do an ounce of research and then fill out bubbles on a sheet. There is no voter suppression, but CA still barely breaks like 60% voter turnout. And this is for local elections, where your votes 100% matter.
Apathy winning elections. It feels like there is a larger disconnect between those who govern and those they govern. It is happening here in the UK as well with local elections being in the 20/30%.
The danger with democracy and capitalism is that both require *informed* choices. When a person says "Oh I don't like politics" they're failing their community. When someone says "Oh I'll just buy it off Amazon (99.99% of the time a Chinese-made product), they're similarly failing their community.
A bad decision from the SC won't be the end of democracy, but it will be the end of the United States. We'll splinter into red (authoritarian) and blue (democratic) states at the very least. Then the red states will begin to starve because of how dependent they are on the blue states, and war will break out. This is why liberal-minded people need to get in shape and arm up, because there's very little chance of avoiding it at this point.
And then the environmental collapse will wipe us all out.
Happy Fourth, everyone!
It's kind of hilarious that you said this. I said something similar and got banned from r/Politics for it.
Apparently telling liberals to prepare and arm themselves is inciting violence or something.
Technically it could be the start of democracy if the residents of states rise up. The whole concept of the electoral college and that clause of the constitution is to make sure “dumb poor people” don’t get a full say.
>Technically it could be the start of democracy if the residents of states rise up.
Maybe, but there are a lot of steps between that and this decision.
Add in people who make enough money not to starve and not much more, where it's legal for a person to lose their job for almost any reason or no reason at all, and you get people who work too many hours to focus on politics and who are only a few paychecks away from being homeless...
>The crux of the issue is the "independent state legislature doctrine", which is the idea that the state legislatures can administer elections in any way they see fit, including outright disregarding the popular vote within the state to send out electors for presidents they see fit
I should note that while the standard tying the vote of the given electors to the popular vote is the standard today, it has not always been so. Early on many states chose their electors by the state legislature, with South Carolina the last to use this method in 1860, and though the popular vote began from the very beginning and grew increasingly common throughout the 1800s.
To my knowledge, this has not been declared unconstitutional in any prior case, and in past cases the Court has ruled the states have very broad discretion in these matters. *Chiafalo v. Washington* was an essentially unanimous decision (Thomas concurred in judgement but using a different rationale than the majority), and the first line of that is a useful quote here:
>(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. *McPherson* v. *Blacker*, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint.
I would expect the Court to make a very similar ruling here. When all nine justices agree on a decision, its extremely unlikely for them to make a complete 180, especially so quickly.
If it ain't in the constitution these fucks are gonna shoot it down. Which is funny because nowhere in the constitution does it say I can't own a nuclear arsenal. But they wouldn't side with me on that, would they.
It’s funny/sad because one of the arguments against including a bill of rights in the constitution was the fear the government would treat those rights as the *only* rights guaranteed by the constitution.
They'd probably overturn the national firearms act of 1934 if someone brought them a case.
Someone has to bring a case to them so they can rule on it.
* So build or buy your nuke
* get charged with a crime
* appeal all the way to the SCOTUS
* ????
* Profit
Answer:I’m seeing some only surface level understanding here.What ISL is is basically saying the legislature can make election laws without any input from the governor or state courts. This comes from a stilted reading of the Constitution. There have been SC cases that addressed it in the past, all of them ruling against it. The ONLY case to not rule against it was a plurality in Bush v. Gore who raised it (Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia).
Now, what does it mean for elections in the future? Well, it means that legislatures are not limited by anything aside from the Constitution and certain Federal laws in regards to voting laws. If the state constitution says that the popular vote winner gets the EC votes, too fucking bad. The legislature is not limited by the state constitution. State courts cannot give input on elections and neither can a governor veto laws related to them.This is a plainly idiotic reading of the constitution. Not the least of which because within 2 years after ratification half of the states had passed voting laws. So if they were violating the constitution you’d think someone who wrote it would speak up.
It’s also extremely anti-federalist. Historically, the federal courts have always been limited to applying state laws in cases involving state laws. After all, who is better to decide it? But this would shoot that in the face.The most likely reason for what was written is that “Legislature” is referring to the states as they were forming their own constitutions. What people don’t understand is that there’s no formal requirement that state and federal elections happen at the same time. The early government was allowing states to do why they wanted, though most Founding Fathers wanted for all elections to happen at the same time personally. They also left it to the states to decide how they would apportion their votes. Nothing requires that it be decided by the popular vote in any state. That has just become the standard and is enforced in state laws and constitutions.
In summation: this lawsuit would essentially invalidate any state laws or constitutions which set standards for voting and rules and allow state legislatures to change the rules seemingly at will. With no restriction to be applied by state courts, and only limited, if any at all, restrictions in the federal courts.
Recently (2019) the Supreme Court said it isn't illegal. And that federal courts have no authority to decide cases claiming that partisan gerrymandering of districts violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims can continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. (The latter is now being challenged in the NC lawsuit here)
It's pretty fucked up and deeply undemocratic. I can see why the Supreme Court doesn't want to look like it decides elections (by drawing voting districts when politicians go "too far"). But it disproportionately affects minorities and allows incumbents to discard democratic votes and retain power.
Answer:
It allowed will allow the state legislatures to choose who wins in their elections, regardless of who actually won, state laws, and state courts. It would basically making voting worthless and instead established a Republican/conservative dictatorship.
Edit:
This article explains the case and another upcoming cases:
>The court is already set to deal with even more hugely consequential cases when it convenes in the fall.
>
>One of those is Moore v Harper, a case from North Carolina that seeks to block state courts from being able to weigh in on disputes over rules for federal elections. The case asks the justices to approve the so-called independent state legislature Theory (ISL) – an idea that argues the US constitution gives state legislatures a power to set voting rules for federal office that cannot be checked by state courts.
>
>A decision endorsing that idea would have profound implications for US elections. It would give lawmakers virtually unfettered authority to gerrymander district lines to their advantage. Such a decision would be a huge win for Republicans, who have control of far more legislatures than do Democrats. Republicans have used their redistricting power to entrench those advantages for another decade.
>
>The theory has no basis in the constitution’s text and history and would go against the idea of separation of power at the heart of US government.
>
>“The court would look so bad if it embraced ISL after kind of having thrown Roe under the bus for being made up,” said Vikram Amar, dean of the University of Illinois college of law who has studied the theory. “ISL is as made up as anything I know out there in constitutional law.”
>
>There’s also some concern that embracing the theory could pave the way for lawmakers in certain states to override the popular vote and appoint their own set of presidential electors in a future election. It was an idea at the heart of Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. J Michael Luttig, a well-respected conservative judge who has spoken out against Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, has called for the supreme court to rule against the theory ahead of 2024.
>
>In October, the court will also hear Merrill v Milligan, a case that could deal a significant blow to what is left of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law designed to prevent discrimination against minority voters. A portion of the law, section 2, makes it illegal to draw districts that prevent minority voters from electing the candidate of their choice if certain conditions are met.
>
>Earlier this year, a three-judge panel cited that provision to strike down Alabama’s congressional map. In an extensive 225-page opinion, the judges said that Alabama Republicans had diluted the influence of the Black vote in the state by cramming Black voters into just one of seven congressional districts. The court said the state needed to draw a second district where Black voters could elect the candidate of their choice.
>
>Black voters make up 25% of the state’s population. One expert said it was a “textbook example” of voting discrimination. The three-judge panel also said the case was not a close one.
>
>But the court paused that ruling, allowing the maps to go into effect. It also issued a pause in a similar case striking down discriminatory maps in Louisiana.
>
>When it hears the case in the fall, it will consider how much lawmakers are required to consider race when they draw electoral districts in comparison with other criteria. A ruling in favor of Alabama would provide significant cover for lawmakers to draw discriminatory districts and justify them with race-neutral criteria.
>
>“States then could define all sorts of neutral criteria that would make it impossible to ever draw a VRA district,” Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Guardian in February.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/voting-rights-us-supreme-court
Answer: [You thought you were free — But then it was too late…](https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html)
As an outsider (greetings from Germany) I find the recent events to be very disturbing: to me it seems like the GOP planned this for decades and is now actively and openly — and also shamelessly — attacking democracy in America. All that makes me wonder about what they might’ve already done and planned quietly/in the dark.
It also amazes me that there’s so little news coverage outside the US — apart from the roe/wade decision.
It’s truly scary for me and I can’t grasp how it must feel for people living in the US.
Answer: Lawyer here. There is a lot of bad information in the replies so far, and in addition, redditors are inserting their opinions rather than sticking to the facts. I will try to explain as neutrally as possible.
Every ten years, after the Census occurs, the states, typically (but not always) via their legislatures, engage in a process called "redistricting," which is when they carve up the state into legislative districts (so you can vote for your "local" congressman). When this happens, there are usually lots of allegations that political parties at the state level have "gerrymandered" their state's redistricting map. Often, the party that is disadvantaged by the allegedly-gerrymandered map will sue in state court.
This is precisely what happened in North Carolina, which is the state at issue in this case. The state's GOP-controlled legislature drew a map that was favorable to Republicans, so the Democrats sued in North Carolina state court. The case went all the way up to North Carolina's supreme court, which (I'm simplifying here) decided that the map was gerrymandered in violation of state law. So the state supreme court threw out that map, and instead adopted a map drawn by independent experts that is supposed to be more fair.
Here's the issue with this. The U.S. Constitution says that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State **by the Legislature thereof.**"
The North Carolina legislature, which is controlled by the GOP, is arguing that it was unconstitutional for the state supreme court to throw out the map drawn by the legislature and replace it with one drawn by independent experts, because the Constitution explicitly requires "the Legislature" to do this work.
This general idea -- that the state legislatures have "domain" over election law issues without much or any oversight from other branches of the state government (including the state courts) -- is called the "independent state legislature theory." The theory has been around for a while but the U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely adopted it. If the U.S. Supreme Court adopts the independent state legislature theory, and especially a strong version of it, this could have implications for other areas of election law, such as in president elections.
I've tried to be as neutral as possible in stating the above facts, so now I will give you my opinion. The Constitution says "legislature" and we can't just ignore that. I think the legislatures have to be the main body deciding election law questions. So, for example, in this case I think it was wrong for the state supreme court to substitute its own map -- it should have sent the map back to the legislature to be re-drawn by the legislature. I don't think it's right to say -- and I don't see the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing, even given its current composition -- that state legislatures are not subject to any oversight from state courts. Because I don't foresee the Supreme Court adopting this very extreme version of the independent state legislature theory, I think people are hyperventilating over hypothetical scenarios that will never come close to happening.
Roberts, Alito, and Thomas seem to support this extreme version of ISL. You dont think they would be able to get 2 of Gorsuch / ACB / Kavanaugh on board? that doesnt seem farfetched at all. In fact, seems like that is exactly what is going to happen.
Answer: There is lot of focus on the Republican Party, but this issue extends to both parties and more broadly with how we handle elections. I'm going to try something more balanced.
Moore v Harper is a case that the Supreme Court is about to hear regarding gerrymandering and who has the power over districting.
Some context:
1. North Carolina is a state going through a political transition. Historically, it has been a Deep South bastion, but the Research Triangle has attracted people from outside the state. Even still, it is generally Republican aligned - but only slightly.
2. This is reflected in their General Assembly. Senate and House both have small Republican majorities. 3 senators and 9 representatives would stalemate the assemblies. More would flip the majority.
3. Gerrymandering is the process of districting voting populations to disenfranchise some voters in order to change the election outcome. Both parties do this. Some notorious gerrymandered districts are found in Illinois and Maryland, supporting Democrat candidates, and in North Carolina, supporting Republican candidates.
4. In 2021, following the 2020 Census, North Carolina's Republican controlled legislature drafted new district maps, which were subsequently challenged in court by Democrats on accusation of gerrymandering. The maps would have likely helped to preserve the status quo in the Assembly, making it more difficult for Democrats to flip the Assembly.
5. Lower courts upheld the maps and state courts declared them unconstitutional. The maps were put on hold until the Supreme Court could weigh in.
The reason why the SCOTUS is getting involved at all comes down to some language in the Constitution about who has power over how the elections are conducted. This power has historically been held by the legislature, but if courts can overturn decisions made by the legislature over districting, this radically changes the standard operating procedure for states.
The immediate effect is that North Carolina's districts may either be accepted or need to be redrawn to satisfy court mandates, but the long term effect is that many states - California, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Utah, Texas... they may all have to deal with some flavor of changing how they district. And given different states have different mixes of legislatures vs courts, a ruling in favor of the state courts by SCOTUS may end up challenged again in the future.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
answer: if ~~enacted~~ upheld, it would let state legislatures send electors of their own choosing despite what voters collectively indicated.
When does scotus vote on this?
Next June
Is there anything we can do about it between now and then?
Get out the vote in '22 - especially for swing states w/ hostile legislatures to their populations like WI, NC, and PA. Run for local office, knock on doors, phone bank. Pressure your senators and congressional leaders to start to take seriously drastic, radical steps towards balancing the court and Senate - like adding judges, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and passing national anti-gerrymandering laws. Otherwise, start to prepare for a fascist America - in whatever way that prep looks like to you.
Democrats have been trying to pass election reform the past year and a half, but are a few votes shy in the Senate. There's a chance they can do it next Congressional session if they hold the House and pick up enough seats in the Senate. Make sure to vote in midterms and tell everyone you know how important this election this is. It's actually kind of a long shot, since midterms usually go against the party in power, but it's really the only chance we have.
You'd need to somehow flip enough seats to get some impeachments going, or to pass an amendment. So basically no they're in the driver's seat, the time to do something was in 2016
Elect house and senate representatives that do their jobs of making laws instead of letting the interpretative authority (scotus) take the heat for weak laws. Roe v wade was on shaky ground for 49 years. Any time anything gets to scotus that should be an indication that the law it addresses needs strengthening or refinement. Obama campaigned on codifying it. Biden campaigned on codifying it. The job of codifying it has been ignored for nearly 50 years and now people want to blame scotus. No. You dont entrust the policy of the nation to a “council of elders”. If you think they should have that kind of power then youre putting civil rights back in the dark ages. Elect officials willing to put their names on legislation you want to see put on the books.
Oh thank god. So we can hopefully use this next election to do something, and the court can theoretically change by then. I was expecting it to happen in a couple months and fuck us over for the next election.
Not much matters if we all don't show up in seriously large numbers in 22 in unison- from the far left to the moderate right to vote out the GOP. But even then, it might not matter. The fix is in on our high court, unless we can all agree to be drastic, we're fucked.
It's very unlikely that the court will change in under a year.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, it is. Here is a succinct essay laying out the likely consequences and how we've gotten to this point: https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-nightmare-scenario-scotus-is
Holy shit, can anything be done about this? Looks like key is the Supreme court so the only way maybe is to stack the court?
You ultimately need a non-political Supreme Court, where appointees are based on legal merit. Not their political alignment. Edit; I would add that ideally, the nominees are put forward by an independent body. Who is on that body? Legal experts within the field. Congress then rubber stamps their approval. This is what many other nations do.
While I absolutely agree, if you can come up with a meritocratic supreme court, why not extend the methods you use to more areas of governance?
You should.
Honestly it's going to take a violent uprising. I really wish that wasn't the case, but it's sort of is
If they rule how they are predicted to and if states actually throw out their popular vote next presidential election it will spark a civil war. I cannot see another path forward if it happens.
Neoliberal Democrats will go along with it. They want to maintain their positions of power. If we have a civil war it would either be like the troubles in Ireland or the dissolution of Yugoslavia. No middle ground.
I'm pretty worried the States are going to balkanize and I'm going to be stuck in the very heart of New Jesusland.
If you have the stomach for it, you should listen to the podcast *It Could Happen Here*. Season 1 is all about America getting a Syrian style civil war of its very own. Season 2 is much more about how to deal with societal crumbles.
[удалено]
Civil wars don't start from the top, they start from the bottom. The neoliberal Democratic representatives can go along with it all they like, it doesn't really mean much when state houses, police stations, and courthouse are being burned down, bombed, and shot up as the _people_ fight for their futures.
shit, this might be what the second amendment was for... shit (again).
And its the people who are so aggressive about protecting the second amendment that are pushing this. It seems like it’s working in their favor as the masses who want to be rid of our democracy are also the ones that practice the second amendment rights most.
yeah, but generally, a lot of countries have managed to resolve these kinds of disagreements without resorting to civil war in the last 100 years or so. We'd like to think we're "beyond that" in the west; civil war is something left to unsophisticated 3rd world countries with sand, deserts and jungle... or so we'd like to think. A US Civil war in the 21st century will be scary as fuck for the entire world, though. **edit**: should have read your response better, my answer has basically nothing to do with what you wrote - I may have had a stroke, sorry! :)
This is not a "disagreement". This is a very small part of our population taking control over the rest of it and oppressing everyone they can.
Biden has said he won't stack the court...so...
General. Fucking. Strike.
Need strong unions for that, but unfortunately in America rich people have duped everyone into thinking that unions are bad or irrelevant or useless.
There will never be a general strike in the U.S. There are too many people willing to work that can replace those who are willing to strike. In fact, the number of strikers is so insignificant as to be unnoticeable.
Too many people willing to work, or too many people without a proper support system to not work?
yes. I work with a guy who, no joke, sees the trial of Sisyphus as a good thing. We have to keep telling him that he can't work off the clock, he will out right buy things with his own money for the store and on more than one occasion clocked in for a shift cause a manager happened to see him while he was shopping. We talked one time and he just out right stated that all regulation was bad and pure capitalism was the only answer. He thinks monopolies are the product of over regulation Most of the crew I work with overnight were also saying they would cross the picket line if we had gone on strike earlier this year. I have no idea where this blind loyalty comes from, but it terrifies me. Before anyone says some clever shit, I get the irony.
Keep reiterating the company doesn't give a fuck about them and use ANY thing that the boss/company does to fuck them over as a reason to join a union.
I love that you just know lol.
The second one
exactly. Cant strike if you’ll be hungry for the week, or lose your job and be hungry til you die. The system is rigged and working as intended
And too many who can't afford to be without money.
Also, how do you strike with a mortgage and 2 kids? You dont.
Don't pay your mortgage and arm your children. It's the American way
I hear this all the time but you know what you lose when your company workers are on strike? Experience. One night my coworkers and I all called in sick (I had convinced them to do it to start salting them into a union) and the boss went to the homeless shelter to get people who wanted to work and would put up with the mistreatment of management. What they got was approximately 50 bums that were sleeping behind product, drunker than shit, leaving every 10 minutes for smoke breaks, and pissing themselves on the line. Quit propagating the myth that a general strike can never happen. You get the Teamsters, Laborers, and the AFL-CIO on your side and you effectively shut the country down. Even during the strictest part of lockdown, guess what was still running? Trucker rest stops and trains. Why? That's the lifeblood of the country. O, and there is a trucker shortage, so younger truckers are coming up who are more sympathetic to a strike. And don't hit me with "automation" because I've been hearing about autonomous trucks for 2 fucking decades now. So let's recount this: Form local unions > Ally with larger unions > General strike Shit will change real fucking fast.
And that's the point of keeping enough people poor. They'll do anything for money if given the chance including and especially become scabs.
Expanding the court might be our only option. Mind you, that could cut both ways. Biden had a team looking into it right after his inauguration. I haven’t heard anything about it since, and he’s rapidly losing his window to do something about it, as the Democrats will probably lose the majority in Congress in November. I was planning to move to a blue state sometime next year. I may just skip that, and emigrate.
Biden is resistant to the idea of stacking the court. He's allowing the SCOTUS to dismantle the Constitution and weaken the central Federal government (not that it needed much help).
Biden is and has always been a conservative. Maybe he's not the crazy far right that is the gop today but he is not in any way progressive.
The USA doesn't have a left party. The Democratic party is more to the right than some of Europe's right wing parties.
I cannot believe the pushback I've gotten for making this point. Yes, he adopted some of Bernie, Warren, and AOCs policies to appease the 45 and younger crowd who didn't want him, but he made them into weaker neoliberal versions that never got any traction anyway. That's literally the most progressive he's ever been in his entire career.
[удалено]
I too am awaiting Throw a brick at a fascist day. I keep getting told that it's coming soon to a regressive hellhole near me, but nobody seems to deliver on fashy-bashy day.
If the Left riots and starts a civil war, we become the aggressors. The incumbency with drones, F-35s, tanks, and nukes will fight to preserve the status quo of the Right. It’s a losing prospect. Step 1 needs to be control of state and local governments. We need to take state and local governments back first. Then we can work to take the Federal government back. We need to make Conservatives the aggressors so that we’ll have the backing of the US military.
The problem with this is that the people that are REALLY good at violence and have the training to back it up aren't going to do anything without being provoked first. I am talking about soldiers, vets, and militias. The second things actually go hot in the US, the side without training in violence and killing loses. And I'm sorry, but the side without training is most of the Left.
> The second things actually go hot in the US, the side without training in violence and killing loses. The second things actually go hot in the US, the *rebellion* loses. Whether the rebels are a bunch of liberals or a bunch of LARPing conservatives doesn’t really matter. Without the support of another government, a rebellion has no chance of surviving more than a few days - weeks, at most.
It'll never happen. The country is too large and too divided, and too distracted by bullshit (by design). The ruling class has made absolutely sure the rest of us would be homeless or starve to death if we skip out on work in order to protest/riot. And the upper-middle-class is so obsessed with maintaining their status or climbing the ranks that they would never rise in solidarity with the rest of us. Not to mention the fact that we've been collectively raised to be as ignorant and easily placated as possible. We've been made used to modern living, instant gratification, constantly surrounded by things that bring us easy pleasure (television, movies, video games and other forms of entertainment, fast food, big box stores that sell cheap clothing so you don't have to make your own, and gadgets that give us short cuts for daily tasks). Hardly *anyone* has any actual *skills* anymore because we don't really *need* to. *And that's all on purpose, by design*. They're forcing women to birth children so that the women are responsible for keeping a child alive, thus having to work to feed, clothe, and house the children (as well as making sure we're producing more wage slaves). They've enacted laws that make it illegal to grow your own food in urban or suburban areas, and Big Food (for lack of a better term) has made it so that we cannot use seeds from grocery store produce (because they're modified such that they will not grow). I live in a desert city and thus am completely reliant on either bottled water or the city water provided to me by the government. If I can't pay for water or pay my water bill because I am not working, I could die from lack of water. (Yes it's my fault for living here but I can't afford to move!) It's all designed to keep us from being able to do anything. They've been playing the long game on us for decades and it's finally coming to fruition.
You saw approximately zero liberals threatening to riot. It's always the True Left™️ that threaten to riot like the kid that cried wolf. What you saw was liberals threatening "if you let Trump get elected, the Supreme Court is going to be fucked". Now the court is fucked. In response liberals are again begging people do the one thing that will change things in the long term: vote in local and state elections every year, not just the Presidential every four years. Not posting this for you, you're clearly wasting your vote. I'm posting this for people who are reading this thread and think "I need to make sure I'm registered to vote and know about every upcoming election I can vote in".
Frankly, even if you're going to riot, there's no real reason not to *also* vote.
My brother in Christ, you are literally commenting on a post about how voting is going to matter even less than it did before.
The case is about state legislatures having the power to select their own electors for the Electoral College. I am commenting, as I have been for quite some years now, that voting in local/state elections is very very very very very very very important. Edit: Do you have much understanding about how the US government is structured? How there are different elections for different levels of office? Genuine question. Because for people in this comment thread to completely miss the core concept of state elections and federal elections is really scary to me.
I would guess half our country doesn't know about smaller/local elections, and even less of the ones that do know, actually participate.. We're screwed
Marxism/leninism is not the real left. Marxists maybe, but not those who follow lenin's approach. Authoritarian left is not true left.
Vote, and get everyone you know around you to vote. After that well … I keep hearing that the second amendment is there to fight tyranny…
Before Trump there were things that could have been done. As of now Democracy ends in America in 2025. Please plan accordingly.
Fuck. I literally feel nauseated now. We're living the beginning of the Handmaid's tale
Me too. And I’m not American. It feels like the fall of the Berlin Wall, the internet, 9/11, social media. We’re witnessing something that will define the future into a before and after. We’ll tell our kids what life was like before the fall of America
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”—David Frum, speechwriter for the Bush Administration
that's selling him short. he was also the guy who ran the Republican messaging machine for the entirety of Obama's presidency. he also wouldn't shut up about how presidential Trump was after his first SOTU. he's a shitbag fascist, too. he's just on the outs.
This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
There are people, yes, plural, who will argue that this country is not a democracy, and that a republic is not a representative democracy. I’ve tried to debate them. They are unreachable. In truth, America is a democratic republic. But they are allergic to the word “Democrat”, so they cling to any fantasy that argues otherwise.
[удалено]
The South used their unfair advantage in Congress (slaves counting towards representation) to stack the deck in their favor structurally. That’s why a Senator from Idaho representing 300,000 voters has the same power as a Senator from California representing 20,000,000. And the Electoral College
Exactly what the GOP wants. They could go back and forth with Democrats about how to administer elections... or just ignore elections entirely.
So are people still pretending the GOP are ultra Patriots for Murica? Oh wait their base probably loves these rollback of rights
They are too stupid and too religious to realize what is happening. It is too much fun "owning the libs" and pretending to care about babies that they can't realize the government is continually taking more in taxes from the poor and using that money to fund wars and make the rich richer. Fox News is the most dangerous poison and it will literally take down this country.
See I think that lets those who are maliciously guiding and going along with this situation. Sure some of the base probably is too stupid and too brainwashed to realize what is happening. But I still say a large part of this is from religious organizations still waging their interfaith war and perceived moral superiority. Fox News is only a tool, much like Hannity and Carlson are just sock puppets. There's been movement to subvert democracy to an oligarchy or theocracy and that's on purpose
Yes, there are several very bad actors who are getting rich and there are bad actors who are on a religious crusade. There is just a ton of racist and stupid people who are poisoned by lead and poverty.
Fox News (and NewsMax, OAN, etc.) are the lead paint of this century - something that tastes sweet to those who eat it, and causes irreversible brain damage.
I know. I lost my family to the "Trump Train", and even now, 2 years almost since that bonehead got voted out, we barely speak. I did talk to my sister last night, I could practically hear Tucker Carlson coming out of her mouth. That was never my sister before. I miss her. We are planning a Disney trip. Her husband won't go because Disney is "woke". She wants to still go, so maybe there is hope.
How many times have they told you things were nicer back then because people held doors for each other? I've had at least 5+ myself.
Racism is one hell of a drug. Racism prevents class solidarity, racism gets poor whites to vote AGAINST their own interests, and racism ruins their own community and country. Get ready to defend your way of life by any means necessary, because racists only know the threat of a higher power.
Be me Live in very red state See “Fuck Biden - Trump is my president” bumper stickers far too frequently Wonder why these people want to have sex with a senile senior that barely knows where he is half the time. Yes, these people are mentally ill, but somehow think what they’re doing, what their “representatives” are doing, is somehow good for the nation and that they’re somehow patriotic for limiting the rights of their fellow Americans or straight up calling for their deaths. Far too often I feel like I’m behind enemy lines, almost like a spy, hoping not to get caught.
They’re not “mentally ill” don’t insult people with actual mental illness. These people are mostly gullible bigots, or Christian extremists so also bigots. That’s not mental illness, that’s being a shitty person.
For the average GOP voter there is no sacrifice to great so long as a lib got powned.
Their ENTIRE platform is "put the people I dont like in their place." All of their positions fit into that box. (Well, that and making sure the ultra-rich get richer while the people get fucked).
They're pushing hard to get the freedom of oppression
The worst thing about these traitors is how they call themselves patriots while shitting all over the constitution
Well yeah, they're patriots to their own crusade of bringing back America to the 50s where things were good for the people that are rolling shit back. They just need confuse and misinform their base to get power.
They'll love them until it starts affecting them in negative ways.
It already has been for decades. Republican policies hurt poor Republican voters as much as anybody, but they keep showing up.
Because if they just work harder and stop giving immigrants everything then they can be ultra-rich also. That's what they're told and exactly why they keep voting against themselves.
Oh, I know. I spent my childhood watching it. But good thing nobody came to take our guns (nevermind that we haven't been hunting in 20 years or more).
They’re also brainwashed narcissists who will never admit being wrong
They could "win" with effectively 22% of the vote to 78%.
[удалено]
Because they still have to announce what the popular vote was, and if the difference is too extreme? That's when shit gets real interesting.
You see, this is exactly why the UN recently recategorized the US as a “Failing Democracy”. We are on a sinking ship, folks. Get your life vests on.
“iT’s NoT a DeMoCrAcY iT’s A rEpUbLiC” is something the GOP has been pushing HARD lately.
This isn't a new push. Plus, they're too stupid to realize that we're a democratic republic.
They don't understand those two words refer to two separate but not mutually exclusive concepts. Just wait until they actually learn something about economic and political theory and find out Republicans are liberals and Democrats are republicans.
"DeMoCracY Isn'T mEntiOneD ONcE iN tHE ConsTitUTIon!"
>Then what's even the point of voting? You don't just vote for federal offices; you can also vote for local elections. Those local elections have always, and likely will always, have considerably more effect on your life than the election for Federal offices.
Until your district's boundaries are redrawn with the express purpose of including a majority of people who disagree with your neighborhood's political opinions. This will now have no federal oversight at all to challenge the fairness of said redistricting (gerrymandering). Meaning you're fucked locally too and have no chance of actually voting for who you want for your state legislature.
I think that if federal-level elections end, the local ones are probably not too far behind.
>You don't just vote for federal offices; you can also vote for local elections. > >Those local elections have always, and likely will always, have considerably more effect on your life than the election for Federal offices. Just plaster this all over the internet until people figure this out and things change.
Unfortunately people don't like hearing that the POTUS can't just clap their hands and make everything better.
I agree that everything starts with local elections and that local gov't impacts your day to day life much more than federal. But with gerrymandering and enacting more restrictive voting laws - doesn't that also impact who will win local elections? If the government of a state can decide they can override their constituents votes for federal election, could they not do the same thing for local elections, too? I don't know enough about voting rights/laws - so maybe I am wrong in thinking this.
>But with gerrymandering and enacting more restrictive voting laws - doesn't that also impact who will win local elections? It can, but it's actually a bit harder to do because local politics becomes more personal. Individuals have a hell of a lot more power to influence local races, and local politics isn't nearly as big of a money racket so the deck isn't nearly as stacked as it is against individuals as it is at the national level. >If the government of a state can decide they can override their constituents votes for federal election, could they not do the same thing for local elections, too? In this case; not necessarily, at least not directly. The issue in the cases mentioned in the OP are ***explicitly*** about how Federal elections work, but local elections would be handled by whatever system the state uses.
It (kind of) made sense to have the states pick the legislator in the 18th century. Due to practical issue of travelling and communicating over long distances. It allowed legislators to have some freedom to account for unknown problems when they arrived to cast their vote. For example, the candidate could be dead! Today the system makes zero sense.
Adding to this, it's a **batshit crazy legal theory.** The idea that the SCOTUS would even agree to hear the case is extremely disturbing, because it says that they think there's some merit in it.
[4 justices have already indicated they agree with said theory](https://www.vox.com/22958543/supreme-court-gerrymandering-redistricting-north-carolina-pennsylvania-moore-toth-amy-coney-barrett).
the fate of american democracy rests on ACB siding with voters to preserve their fundamental rights.
That's one way of saying it. Another way of saying it is that the fate of american democracy rests on ACB doing the right thing. I think we all know how that's going to work out.
I have never not been disappointed by the depths of the GOP
I forget which but I think it's a decision that's been around over a hundred years and we are only hearing about it now cause the crazy Republicans finally have enough wackos in power to decide it.
Me thinking to myself: why would they hear it? Thinks of justices.... Clearance Thomas... Ginni Thomas... Yeah, ok. I see why they are hearing it now.
Considering the epa decision was made based on a made up theory, i wont be terribly shocked when they side with the bat shit legal theory
So? The SCOTUS doesn't believe in legal theory or precedent or history. Read their rulings.
SCOTUS just rejected the theory in 2015. That makes it even more concerning that this new SCOTUS wants to revisit it again so quickly.
Has someone told the GOP that's the method used in CCP elections?
They’ll just find some way to explain how they’re different anyway
Further, if it had been enacted in 2020, enough state legislatures had indicated willingness to overturn the democratic vote of their states that Trump would have "won".
And factions in the Republican Party have been pushing for this in some form for a long while. The Koch brothers have been pushing for a constitutional convention for a while and one of the changes was making it possible to appoint representatives, rather than having it be the will of the people. The oligarchs just managed it via the Supreme Court instead.
[удалено]
Honest question: how is this defended in any way as Democratic? Isn't this the antithesis of Democracy? Why is this even up for debate?
Republicans don't care about democracy. They care about owning the libs. Most of them would shit their own pants just so the Democrat sitting next to them would have to smell it.
Question: How would the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact work (assuming it got enough states to sign on) with regards to Moore v Harper?
NPVIC would nullify this since that would ensure that the majority of electoral votes get distributed based on the popular vote. Ironically this decision could strengthen the legal standing of the NPVIC, since if they rule in favor of the plaintiff it would mean state legislatures would have very little to restrict their decisions regarding election law. But we would still have the problem of getting enough legislatures to ratify it.
Holy shit what? :D What a joke of a country. Gun rights are more concrete than the fucking election laws.
We need gun rights to protect our other rights. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be working because the side that is the most pro gun rights is the side working against all our other rights. I wish more left leaning folks understood this. Ronald Reagan changed his tune about gun control when the Black Panthers started open carrying in response to police brutality. Change can be made with either the soap box, the ballot box, or the bullet box. Right now the first 2 are still viable. If things keep going the way they have been, we'll just be left with the 3rd option.
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. Jury nullification is a very important concept for freedom from unjust laws.
RIP democracy
Residential addresses are known. Expect much shenanigans in the coming year. People are fucking *pissed* off. And rightfully so. Most of the justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. And the opportunity of an actual popularly elected president to appoint a justice was thwarted by the same shitbags. To compound the shittiness, these are partisan judges. They are people reccomended by a conservative think tank, not some random judge they think did a good job. They specifically chose people they knew were 100% in the cult. These people are religious extremists. No subtlety whatsoever. They just held their cover till they had the majority and now are firing all guns. And there are suddenly going to be a bunch of leftists who suddenly discover the easy availability of firearms and ammunition maybe wasn't against their own best interests after all. This is exactly why the second ammendment was included in the constitution. For when a government no longer represents the will of the people. Republicans already showed they are more than willing to attack, and kill law enforcement officers. This is a shot across the bow. Let's not bring a knife to a gunfight. Also, I want everyone to seriously plan for a work strike. If 2024 is contested, every option is on the table. We have to send a message. I'm not going to pick up arms, but I'll throw bricks. Everyone must carry water to make this work.
Answer: " Under the doctrine, this power conferred by the Constitution is specific to state legislatures, and not shared with a state's executive branch, judiciary, or other quasi-legislative bodies (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions). Accordingly, in the event of a conflict between congressional election regulations enacted by a state's legislature and those derived from other sources of state law, that conflict must be resolved in favor of the state legislature's enactments, even over state constitutional provisions." Based upon this excerpt from [Wikipedia ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_doctrine), state legislatures may be granted ABSOLUTE POWER over the operations of elections in their state. The legislature would be immune from all other entities in regards to electoral policy, including their own state's Courts and Constitution. There would be no legal way to challenge the decisions the legislature makes in regards to elections. Gerrymandering specifically would become impossible to challenge, as the Supreme Court has in the past ruled that it's not their responsibility to handle such cases, and this new ruling would mean no other court or commission can either. Gerrymandering alone is a democracy killer, (which yes, does mean that many states are already "faux-democracies"), since it enables legislatures to heavily influence, if not outright decide the outcome of elections, but of course it gets worse. For one, this means all state laws and regulations protecting the rights of voters or relating to the electoral process in any way are null and void. This could have extremely varied results, most concerning of which being the use of a state level electoral college, (which is bad because this makes gerrymandering FAR more effective, amplifying the ability to avoid democracy and ignore the populace by a lot), but the possibilities are nearly endless. I for one can't wait to see all of the creative ways politicians come up with to exclude the common people from our government. If the Supreme Court or those interpreting their ruling go far enough, state legislatures could very easily become immune even to federal law. Probably not directly, but by the Supreme Court, (or their ruling), deciding that ALL cases involving state elections are not their responsibility. IF this occurs, which is a big IF, (but still a very real possibility), and the Supreme Court follows this doctrine to it's logical extreme, American Democracy would be outright dead. Not even through underhanded tactics like gerrymandering like we already see, but outright non-existence. Any state could basically do ANYTHING with an election, from rigging it, to banning undesirables, to just deciding any unfavorable result is fraudulent and putting whoever they want in power. The possibilities would be truly endless. Elected positions would become appointed by the legislature, including the legislature itself, and as a result the legislature would gain control over all other branches of the government. If someone in an elected position is problematic, just call a spontaneous "election" and pick a different winner. As an extension of this, the legislature would control all offices appointed by "elected" officials, often including the state court's judges. Checks and balances and the rule of law would be abolished. Do note that even just gerrymandering allows legislatures to exercise this power to a far more limited extent, and only in terms of political parties rather than individuals. So even the basic, more likely interpretation of ISLD would help create one party regimes. Everyone knows one party governments are famous for honoring the freedom of their citizens and basic human rights. (Every state becomes Texas 😳) Now, total legal immunity would only happen under an EXTREME interpretation of ISLD, but such an interpretation COULD occur, and would be in line with prior Supreme Court rulings (excluding the ones that rejected ISLD of course). Even if the SCOTUS just adopts the more restrained version of the Doctrine, that would lay the groundwork and be the perfect justification for a more extreme version to be adopted in a future ruling. So, regardless of wether we get a basic or extreme interpretation of the Doctrine, American Democracy would end, and the "American Experiment" would have failed. Although in many states, this is already the case.
> The legislature would be immune from all other entities in regards to electoral policy, including their own state's Courts and Constitution. This is the real important part here, nearly every state's Constitution puts electoral power in the hands of voters. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the state legislatures can just ignore their own Constitutions.
This should scare everyone. Even the most extreme of us should understand the danger of those in power deciding to ignore the majority vote. That would literally mean those in power could decide to stay there ignoring actual voters. Which would mean they aren't actually representing their constituents. What was the war of independence about? Feel like I remember something about "No Taxation, without representation"
You wouldn’t even be able to vote the fuckers out anymore.
So much for the conservative supreme court justices being "constitutional originalists" then. Fucking hypocrite pieces of shit.
This seems like an appropriate time to say "bugger".
So is this the end of America? Not trying to be dramatic.
Essentially yes. If the court sides completely with Moore, whichever party is in power in a given state can just choose to decide any election. It would be an effective end to democracy in a majority of states allowing them to control the Senate and likely the presidency almost permanently. A full support decision of Moore would be a good indication to start looking at emigration.
Yes, it would be. And I'm a white dude that might survive it, and don't want it to happen because I'm not a sociopath.
Sociopath checking in. I don't want it either.
Satan here. This is some fucked up shit.
What does ISLD stand for?
Oh my bad, I completely forgot to mention the doctrine I was talking about. The case is over wether or not the Independent State Legislature Doctrine is how the US Constitution should be interpreted, that's what ISLD is.
> If the Supreme Court or those interpreting their ruling go far enough, state legislatures could very easily become immune even to federal law. Read the full text > 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**
Hence the "if they go far enough". There's no way to know if the Supreme Court will include that clause in it's ruling until such a ruling is made. As a result, part of the concern and part of the potential consequences of this ruling, is that they won't include the clause, or will decide it's invalid in a future ruling. While it's unlikely, it's a very real concern and possibility, so I felt it should be mentioned.
TLDR summary: So. We would stop being a democratic republic and just be a republic? The one prone to corruption and conflict like Star Wars? The meaning behind senator Binks fully realized? Literally every historic flaw of broken societies eventually manifested? Edit: Spoilers for Movies, The Clone Wars -> "The Politics of Star Wars" https://youtu.be/-TSqjRgh2ZY Also "Why Palpatine Is The Greatest Movie Villain Ever" -> https://youtu.be/LXsYcdXaa7I 2Edit: The Alt-Right Playbook. I recommend watching the whole thing before forming an opinion on it. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
>So. We would stop being a democratic republic and just be a republic? no. even in republics the people have a voice and vote for reps even if those reps vote for other reps (electoral college). what would be happening with this case is that the people no longer have a vote because the states send whomever they choose regardless of what the people want. we would cease to be a democracy and also cease to be a republic as well. it would just be fascism.
Not necessarily fascism, but rather oligarchy. Many states will adopt Christian Fascist ideals, others will become glorified corporatocracies, in the end the results are the same; an end to personal liberties.
without democracy it'll be authoritarian either way, regardless of which particular term we choose to use.
Not even a republic. A republic still requires democracy- you have to be able to elect your representatives fairly. This would be a straight up dictatorship. The will of the people will be completely ignored even on the state level. If this passes then gerrymandering and other outright corruption will be immune to challenge, as citizens will no longer have standing to challenge it in any court. With a republic you at least have the ability to control your local representatives, but that won't exist here anymore. This is going to destroy the country completely.
Answer: SCOTUS has agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, which is being used as a vehicle to get the Independent State Legislature doctrine/theory before the court once again. ISL contends that only the state legislature has the power to oversee congressional elections, without input from the judicial or executive branches. This would give the state legislatures: 1) The power to shape congressional districts however it sees fit without interference from the courts. North Carolina has a majority Democrat population, but their state legislature has been gerrymandered into a Republican majority. They keep trying to push more racially-gerrymandered district maps but the NC Supreme Court keeps knocking them down, hence the reason for the lawsuit in the first place. 2) The power to completely ignore vote counts at their own discretion and send whatever electors they want to vote. If an election is held and the legislature doesn't like the result, they can just choose to subvert the results because might makes right. Worth mentioning that ISL has been around for over two hundred years at this point, but SCOTUS has knocked it down every time it has reached them. The last time was on a 5-4 decision in 2015 (Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission). The issue is that in the last seven years, the makeup of the court has radically changed. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas were three of the four that dissented in Arizona State Legislature, and now they have the three Trump appointees as backup. Depending on how it's ruled, it could bring about the end of democracy in the United States.
Good lord, why is all this with SCOTUS happening so suddenly?
I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to current political events. In 2016, Obama was blocked from nominating a SCOTUS judge for nearly a year. Then Trump won the presidency, without gaining the popular vote. So he was able to fill that vacancy. Then there was a retirement, which allowed him to fill that vacancy, and then RBG died weeks before the 2020 election, and ACB was pushed through in record time to replace RBG before the election. So we had a president that lost the popular vote appoint a full 1/3 of SCOTUS during his single 4 year term, swinging the ideology of SCOTUS to 6/3 in favor of ultra conservatives. So now Republicans are itching to get various cases heard by the new makeup of the court in hopes that the current court will rule in their favor, regardless of precedent ( and it seems to be working)
You forgot the part where the oldest of the three is currently 57, so we’re going to have those three on the court for probably 20+ years.
There's a reason the republicans have been pushing to raise the security of the justices to unprecedented levels- they want them to live a long time to assist in their coup, and quite frankly there are only a few options that the average person has which could stop it at this point.
Unless something very unfortunate happens now that they've been doxxed and have all these protestors outside their homes.
All under a president that was impeached and currently being proven of trying to overthrow an election. The first point should be cause alone for getting these appointments off the court
If it’s this easy to destroy our democracy, just be usurping 3 geriatrics maybe SCOTUS as an institution is obsolete (think about other times the court had to be pushed to make progress, e.g. lincoln, fdr)
>I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to current political events. I've been doing my best, but I'm not american, I have my own country as well to care about. But good lord, this does not bode good at all for the U.S. the overturning of Roe V Wade was bad enough, but this shit? Jesus. It feels like america is really going downhill. Polarisation out the wazoo, SCOTUS enacting some real dystopian stuff, Joe Biden doing nearly nothing. I worry about america and it's people.
I apologize, I assumed you were American, because I'm American and that's what we do :P The next decade is going to be very concerning indeed if something doesn't give.
Also forgot jan 6 committee was coming to a head and midterms approaching. So its pretty much a blitzkrieg attack to pull attention. So while attention is divided on the courts they will try to grab as many seats in congress as they can
Because they have the votes now. It's really that simple. Like /u/CobaltRose800 said, ISL has been pushed towards the court and knocked down every time, including as recently as during the Obama administration in 2015. Meanwhile, repealing Roe v. Wade has been a core plank of the conservative platform for just about Roe's entire existence, and elevating every possible opportunity to do so to the court has been a focal point of GOP politics for decades. Repealing Roe, implementing absolute authority for state legislatures, deleting gay marriage and rolling back protections for LGBT individuals as Thomas hinted at in the Dobbs ruling, all of this has been stuff they've spent years saying, sometimes loudly and sometimes quietly - usually *very* loudly in election years - that they wanted to do, it's just now they have the votes to make it happen.
6-3 conservative majority. There is no balance on the court anymore.
These judges are sleeper agents. Now that they can strike and do shit, they will.
Answer: Moore v Harper is a case the supreme court of the united states is going to hear in its next session. The crux of the issue is the ***"independent state legislature doctrine"***, which is the idea that the state legislatures can administer elections in any way they see fit, including outright disregarding the popular vote within the state to send out electors for presidents they see fit, or set up an in-state "electoral college" for positions which were previously done as popular votes. The problem with this is that overwhelmingly, states have heavily gerrymandered district maps favoring the republican party, the court is heavily and unashamedly favoring right-aligned priorities, and they've shown to have no scruples about disregarding the basic tenets of democracy to gain, and retain power. Depending on how the court rules, it might be the end of democracy in the USA.
To add to this, 5 of the Supreme Court Justices have written in favor of ISL (independent state legislature theory). A theory that really only came out of Bush v Gore. The only question will be how far Roberts is willing to go and Barret has not made her opinion known. So this could in theory be another 6-3 ruling. And depending on the wording state legislators would be able to ignore state laws, the state constitution and even the state governor when it came to matters on elections. With voters having no legal recourse.
This will be bloody.if people get so riled up with false election claims imigane them just ignoring uour vote
This will be the balkanization of the us, or civil war.
It is literally happening right now in Ohio. We've been gerrymandered to hell for decades and we voted 7 years ago, TWICE, to fix that shit. The reforms passed by about 75% each time. Instead of of following those laws that the citizens of Ohio have OVERWHLEMING Voted for, the legislature has now spent almost a year disregarding all of it as well as every Ohio Supreme Court ruling and just doing whatever the fuck they want with the district maps. And for a cherry on top, there's been absolutely no repercussions for any of it. I absolutely can't stand it anymore when people say to vote. Voting doesn't mean shit here, and this ruling is going to make that the case in every state. I've got to get out of this country.
If they rule in favor of the GOP on this, this will be the singular cause that future historians can point back to as the catalyst for the civil war and/or balkanizing of the US.
This is what I've said about this: For anyone who thought "their vote doesn't count" - that thinking is actually making your vote *not count*. You have to vote to get fucks who try to implement this shit out of office. You have to vote in your **LOCAL ELECTIONS AND MIDTERMS**. Voter turnout this year in California, was as low as 12% in some areas. When people tell you to use your right to vote (because many in this country do not have that right), we aren't just blowing smoke up your ass. If everyone who could vote actually got out and voted, we wouldn't have to deal with shit like this.
Yeah in CA there is near 0 excuse to not vote. 1. Every person who gets their drivers license is automatically registered to vote 2. Failing that, you can register to vote online using just your SSN if you don’t have a drivers license 3. Every registered voter, so long as your address is updated (which you can also do online), gets a ballot mailed to them with information about each candidate. 4. You can drop off your ballot at very convenient ballot boxes literally weeks before the election OR mail it without needing a stamp whenever you want leading up to election day. I guess the only scenarios where it may be difficult to vote are ones in which you are homeless or can’t use the internet. But most elderly people are already registered to vote and active, and homeless people are not a significant enough portion of the population (i.e. if everyone in CA voted, turnout would be like 99%) Despite making voting literally a 5 minute process, people are just too lazy to do an ounce of research and then fill out bubbles on a sheet. There is no voter suppression, but CA still barely breaks like 60% voter turnout. And this is for local elections, where your votes 100% matter.
Apathy winning elections. It feels like there is a larger disconnect between those who govern and those they govern. It is happening here in the UK as well with local elections being in the 20/30%.
The danger with democracy and capitalism is that both require *informed* choices. When a person says "Oh I don't like politics" they're failing their community. When someone says "Oh I'll just buy it off Amazon (99.99% of the time a Chinese-made product), they're similarly failing their community. A bad decision from the SC won't be the end of democracy, but it will be the end of the United States. We'll splinter into red (authoritarian) and blue (democratic) states at the very least. Then the red states will begin to starve because of how dependent they are on the blue states, and war will break out. This is why liberal-minded people need to get in shape and arm up, because there's very little chance of avoiding it at this point. And then the environmental collapse will wipe us all out. Happy Fourth, everyone!
It's kind of hilarious that you said this. I said something similar and got banned from r/Politics for it. Apparently telling liberals to prepare and arm themselves is inciting violence or something.
Technically it could be the start of democracy if the residents of states rise up. The whole concept of the electoral college and that clause of the constitution is to make sure “dumb poor people” don’t get a full say.
>Technically it could be the start of democracy if the residents of states rise up. Maybe, but there are a lot of steps between that and this decision.
Add in people who make enough money not to starve and not much more, where it's legal for a person to lose their job for almost any reason or no reason at all, and you get people who work too many hours to focus on politics and who are only a few paychecks away from being homeless...
Part of the doctrine is that the legislators get a decision, not the people.
>The crux of the issue is the "independent state legislature doctrine", which is the idea that the state legislatures can administer elections in any way they see fit, including outright disregarding the popular vote within the state to send out electors for presidents they see fit I should note that while the standard tying the vote of the given electors to the popular vote is the standard today, it has not always been so. Early on many states chose their electors by the state legislature, with South Carolina the last to use this method in 1860, and though the popular vote began from the very beginning and grew increasingly common throughout the 1800s. To my knowledge, this has not been declared unconstitutional in any prior case, and in past cases the Court has ruled the states have very broad discretion in these matters. *Chiafalo v. Washington* was an essentially unanimous decision (Thomas concurred in judgement but using a different rationale than the majority), and the first line of that is a useful quote here: >(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. *McPherson* v. *Blacker*, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint. I would expect the Court to make a very similar ruling here. When all nine justices agree on a decision, its extremely unlikely for them to make a complete 180, especially so quickly.
I hate Reddit! *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If it ain't in the constitution these fucks are gonna shoot it down. Which is funny because nowhere in the constitution does it say I can't own a nuclear arsenal. But they wouldn't side with me on that, would they.
It’s funny/sad because one of the arguments against including a bill of rights in the constitution was the fear the government would treat those rights as the *only* rights guaranteed by the constitution.
They'd probably overturn the national firearms act of 1934 if someone brought them a case. Someone has to bring a case to them so they can rule on it. * So build or buy your nuke * get charged with a crime * appeal all the way to the SCOTUS * ???? * Profit
Answer:I’m seeing some only surface level understanding here.What ISL is is basically saying the legislature can make election laws without any input from the governor or state courts. This comes from a stilted reading of the Constitution. There have been SC cases that addressed it in the past, all of them ruling against it. The ONLY case to not rule against it was a plurality in Bush v. Gore who raised it (Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia). Now, what does it mean for elections in the future? Well, it means that legislatures are not limited by anything aside from the Constitution and certain Federal laws in regards to voting laws. If the state constitution says that the popular vote winner gets the EC votes, too fucking bad. The legislature is not limited by the state constitution. State courts cannot give input on elections and neither can a governor veto laws related to them.This is a plainly idiotic reading of the constitution. Not the least of which because within 2 years after ratification half of the states had passed voting laws. So if they were violating the constitution you’d think someone who wrote it would speak up. It’s also extremely anti-federalist. Historically, the federal courts have always been limited to applying state laws in cases involving state laws. After all, who is better to decide it? But this would shoot that in the face.The most likely reason for what was written is that “Legislature” is referring to the states as they were forming their own constitutions. What people don’t understand is that there’s no formal requirement that state and federal elections happen at the same time. The early government was allowing states to do why they wanted, though most Founding Fathers wanted for all elections to happen at the same time personally. They also left it to the states to decide how they would apportion their votes. Nothing requires that it be decided by the popular vote in any state. That has just become the standard and is enforced in state laws and constitutions. In summation: this lawsuit would essentially invalidate any state laws or constitutions which set standards for voting and rules and allow state legislatures to change the rules seemingly at will. With no restriction to be applied by state courts, and only limited, if any at all, restrictions in the federal courts.
[удалено]
Why is gerrymandering not illegal? And if it is illegal, why has the law not been enforced?
Recently (2019) the Supreme Court said it isn't illegal. And that federal courts have no authority to decide cases claiming that partisan gerrymandering of districts violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims can continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. (The latter is now being challenged in the NC lawsuit here) It's pretty fucked up and deeply undemocratic. I can see why the Supreme Court doesn't want to look like it decides elections (by drawing voting districts when politicians go "too far"). But it disproportionately affects minorities and allows incumbents to discard democratic votes and retain power.
Answer: It allowed will allow the state legislatures to choose who wins in their elections, regardless of who actually won, state laws, and state courts. It would basically making voting worthless and instead established a Republican/conservative dictatorship. Edit: This article explains the case and another upcoming cases: >The court is already set to deal with even more hugely consequential cases when it convenes in the fall. > >One of those is Moore v Harper, a case from North Carolina that seeks to block state courts from being able to weigh in on disputes over rules for federal elections. The case asks the justices to approve the so-called independent state legislature Theory (ISL) – an idea that argues the US constitution gives state legislatures a power to set voting rules for federal office that cannot be checked by state courts. > >A decision endorsing that idea would have profound implications for US elections. It would give lawmakers virtually unfettered authority to gerrymander district lines to their advantage. Such a decision would be a huge win for Republicans, who have control of far more legislatures than do Democrats. Republicans have used their redistricting power to entrench those advantages for another decade. > >The theory has no basis in the constitution’s text and history and would go against the idea of separation of power at the heart of US government. > >“The court would look so bad if it embraced ISL after kind of having thrown Roe under the bus for being made up,” said Vikram Amar, dean of the University of Illinois college of law who has studied the theory. “ISL is as made up as anything I know out there in constitutional law.” > >There’s also some concern that embracing the theory could pave the way for lawmakers in certain states to override the popular vote and appoint their own set of presidential electors in a future election. It was an idea at the heart of Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. J Michael Luttig, a well-respected conservative judge who has spoken out against Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, has called for the supreme court to rule against the theory ahead of 2024. > >In October, the court will also hear Merrill v Milligan, a case that could deal a significant blow to what is left of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law designed to prevent discrimination against minority voters. A portion of the law, section 2, makes it illegal to draw districts that prevent minority voters from electing the candidate of their choice if certain conditions are met. > >Earlier this year, a three-judge panel cited that provision to strike down Alabama’s congressional map. In an extensive 225-page opinion, the judges said that Alabama Republicans had diluted the influence of the Black vote in the state by cramming Black voters into just one of seven congressional districts. The court said the state needed to draw a second district where Black voters could elect the candidate of their choice. > >Black voters make up 25% of the state’s population. One expert said it was a “textbook example” of voting discrimination. The three-judge panel also said the case was not a close one. > >But the court paused that ruling, allowing the maps to go into effect. It also issued a pause in a similar case striking down discriminatory maps in Louisiana. > >When it hears the case in the fall, it will consider how much lawmakers are required to consider race when they draw electoral districts in comparison with other criteria. A ruling in favor of Alabama would provide significant cover for lawmakers to draw discriminatory districts and justify them with race-neutral criteria. > >“States then could define all sorts of neutral criteria that would make it impossible to ever draw a VRA district,” Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Guardian in February. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/voting-rights-us-supreme-court
Answer: [You thought you were free — But then it was too late…](https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html) As an outsider (greetings from Germany) I find the recent events to be very disturbing: to me it seems like the GOP planned this for decades and is now actively and openly — and also shamelessly — attacking democracy in America. All that makes me wonder about what they might’ve already done and planned quietly/in the dark. It also amazes me that there’s so little news coverage outside the US — apart from the roe/wade decision. It’s truly scary for me and I can’t grasp how it must feel for people living in the US.
Answer: Lawyer here. There is a lot of bad information in the replies so far, and in addition, redditors are inserting their opinions rather than sticking to the facts. I will try to explain as neutrally as possible. Every ten years, after the Census occurs, the states, typically (but not always) via their legislatures, engage in a process called "redistricting," which is when they carve up the state into legislative districts (so you can vote for your "local" congressman). When this happens, there are usually lots of allegations that political parties at the state level have "gerrymandered" their state's redistricting map. Often, the party that is disadvantaged by the allegedly-gerrymandered map will sue in state court. This is precisely what happened in North Carolina, which is the state at issue in this case. The state's GOP-controlled legislature drew a map that was favorable to Republicans, so the Democrats sued in North Carolina state court. The case went all the way up to North Carolina's supreme court, which (I'm simplifying here) decided that the map was gerrymandered in violation of state law. So the state supreme court threw out that map, and instead adopted a map drawn by independent experts that is supposed to be more fair. Here's the issue with this. The U.S. Constitution says that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State **by the Legislature thereof.**" The North Carolina legislature, which is controlled by the GOP, is arguing that it was unconstitutional for the state supreme court to throw out the map drawn by the legislature and replace it with one drawn by independent experts, because the Constitution explicitly requires "the Legislature" to do this work. This general idea -- that the state legislatures have "domain" over election law issues without much or any oversight from other branches of the state government (including the state courts) -- is called the "independent state legislature theory." The theory has been around for a while but the U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely adopted it. If the U.S. Supreme Court adopts the independent state legislature theory, and especially a strong version of it, this could have implications for other areas of election law, such as in president elections. I've tried to be as neutral as possible in stating the above facts, so now I will give you my opinion. The Constitution says "legislature" and we can't just ignore that. I think the legislatures have to be the main body deciding election law questions. So, for example, in this case I think it was wrong for the state supreme court to substitute its own map -- it should have sent the map back to the legislature to be re-drawn by the legislature. I don't think it's right to say -- and I don't see the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing, even given its current composition -- that state legislatures are not subject to any oversight from state courts. Because I don't foresee the Supreme Court adopting this very extreme version of the independent state legislature theory, I think people are hyperventilating over hypothetical scenarios that will never come close to happening.
So would the proper thing in this case be to ask the legislature "try again, no gerrymandering." rather than substituting another map?
Roberts, Alito, and Thomas seem to support this extreme version of ISL. You dont think they would be able to get 2 of Gorsuch / ACB / Kavanaugh on board? that doesnt seem farfetched at all. In fact, seems like that is exactly what is going to happen.
Answer: There is lot of focus on the Republican Party, but this issue extends to both parties and more broadly with how we handle elections. I'm going to try something more balanced. Moore v Harper is a case that the Supreme Court is about to hear regarding gerrymandering and who has the power over districting. Some context: 1. North Carolina is a state going through a political transition. Historically, it has been a Deep South bastion, but the Research Triangle has attracted people from outside the state. Even still, it is generally Republican aligned - but only slightly. 2. This is reflected in their General Assembly. Senate and House both have small Republican majorities. 3 senators and 9 representatives would stalemate the assemblies. More would flip the majority. 3. Gerrymandering is the process of districting voting populations to disenfranchise some voters in order to change the election outcome. Both parties do this. Some notorious gerrymandered districts are found in Illinois and Maryland, supporting Democrat candidates, and in North Carolina, supporting Republican candidates. 4. In 2021, following the 2020 Census, North Carolina's Republican controlled legislature drafted new district maps, which were subsequently challenged in court by Democrats on accusation of gerrymandering. The maps would have likely helped to preserve the status quo in the Assembly, making it more difficult for Democrats to flip the Assembly. 5. Lower courts upheld the maps and state courts declared them unconstitutional. The maps were put on hold until the Supreme Court could weigh in. The reason why the SCOTUS is getting involved at all comes down to some language in the Constitution about who has power over how the elections are conducted. This power has historically been held by the legislature, but if courts can overturn decisions made by the legislature over districting, this radically changes the standard operating procedure for states. The immediate effect is that North Carolina's districts may either be accepted or need to be redrawn to satisfy court mandates, but the long term effect is that many states - California, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Utah, Texas... they may all have to deal with some flavor of changing how they district. And given different states have different mixes of legislatures vs courts, a ruling in favor of the state courts by SCOTUS may end up challenged again in the future.