The Right Should Be Relieved SCOTUS Rejected Judicial Activism In Texas v. Pennsylvania

[mystery-ak]

 The Right Should Be Relieved SCOTUS Rejected Judicial Activism In Texas v. Pennsylvania

After Texas v. Pennsylvania, conservatives must rediscover their opposition to judicial overreach. A Warren Court of the right is not the solution we need.

By Adam Carrington
December 15, 2020

The Warren Court holds a special place of derision within the conservative imagination. The term refers to the 1953-1969 timeframe when Chief Justice Earl Warren held sway over the U.S. Supreme Court. The right has understood this court as inaugurating and modeling the modern iteration of “judicial activism.”

Conservative critics of the Warren Court period hold that, through a series of heavy-handed interventions, it undermined essential elements of American government, including the rule of law, popular sovereignty, and federalism. The right’s evolution toward working-class populism should only increase antipathy toward the Warren Court and its rule by elitist judicial fiat.

This makes the case of Texas v. Pennsylvania all the more strange. Texas’s motion against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia sought to enjoin certification of their presidential election results and essentially to require each one’s legislature to choose its slate of electors.

Notably, Texas did not act alone in its petitioning. The litigation became a kind of litmus test within the GOP, with supporting briefs from 17 state attorneys general, 126 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the president of the United States.

Yet even Earl Warren himself would have hesitated at so brazen a petition. If the Warren Court engaged in judicial activism, these petitioners asked the current Roberts Court to inaugurate judicial hyper-activism.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/15/the-right-should-be-relieved-scotus-rejected-judicial-activism-in-texas-v-pennsylvania/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

From article

When asked for similar relief in other 2020 lawsuits, courts have noted just how extraordinary this request is. To un-certify state results and throw the choice back on state legislatures has no parallel in a past presidential election. To request doing so by judicial act only heightens its astonishing quality.

Judicial action so unprecedented, if ever legitimate, must stem from proof equally so. We need smoking guns of magnitude and certitude that would follow an artillery barrage. No such proof has emerged. We cannot rule out all voter fraud. Yet the expansive claims regarding electronic voting systems or reporting errors have been dispelled. Many smaller assertions regarding Sharpies or dead persons voting have not played out as accused, either.

This is garbage.  The Constitution clearly states how states are to conduct its elections by laws by state legislatures, and this was not done.

And exactly how does the author conclude there is not proof fraud occurred?  The case was never heard.

And the voting systems claims have NOT been dispelled.  A cuckoo bird would know better after the Antrim audit

Am disappointed with Hillsdale College.  My days of giving into their requests for donations is over.

[catfish1957]

Sometimes, you just got to ask where the shit we are getting fed comes from.

[Bigun]

There definitely was judicial activism involved in Texas vs Pennsylvania!

The court refused to hear a case in which it had original jurisdiction and if that is not judicial activism I don't know what is!

[catfish1957]

There definitely was judicial activism involved in Texas vs Pennsylvania!

The court refused to hear a case in which it had original jurisdiction and if that is not judicial activism I don't know what is!

Agreed.   Judicial activism is not a conservative outlook,  but when it boils down the question should we idly sit on our thumbs as a organized pervasive, extensive fraud of electoral system takes place?  Just because he is drinking the Kumbayah Kookaid doesn't mean other rank and file conservatives do.

[libertybele]

This is garbage.  The Constitution clearly states how states are to conduct its elections by laws by state legislatures, and this was not done.

And exactly how does the author conclude there is not proof fraud occurred?  The case was never heard.

And the voting systems claims have NOT been dispelled.  A cuckoo bird would know better after the Antrim audit

Am disappointed with Hillsdale College.  My days of giving into their requests for donations is over.

Exactly.

[roamer_1]

Probably true. Unintended consequences.

[Smokin Joe]

There definitely was judicial activism involved in Texas vs Pennsylvania!

The court refused to hear a case in which it had original jurisdiction and if that is not judicial activism I don't know what is!

Right! Activism includes letting egregious violations of the Constitution and the Law go unaddressed (tacit approval).