Today's SCOTUS victories v. 2020 Election Challenges

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It occurred to me this today that the attacks by the Left today on the Supreme Court sound remarkably like a lot of the attacks by some conservatives on the Supreme Court regarding how it handled the 2020 election cases. 

A bunch of conservatives (especially Trump supporters....) attacked the Supreme Court in the wake of the 2020 election, claiming that the Court had "sold out" or was just a part of the "Deep State".  Plenty of arguments that the Court was no longer legitimate, etc..  And to be honest, a lot of that same language has been used any time SCOTUS issues a decision that conservatives don't like.  The doom and gloom Deep Staters always come out in force every time that happens.

But then today, when the Supreme Court issues some really important decisions that cut in a conservative direction, it is the Leftists who are now whining, and conservatives who tout the legitimacy of the Court and say how its decisions should be respected.

So I guess SCOTUS is only legitimate when it does what we want, eh?

 

[MOD3]

Moved to Exclusive Content category

[Cyber Liberty]

I think it is reasonable to wonder why the SCOTUS refused to grant Standing in the 2020 challenges.  The cases were ripe.

[Kamaji]

I think it is reasonable to wonder why the SCOTUS refused to grant Standing in the 2020 challenges.  The cases were ripe.

Because the Court does not want to wade into election-related cases unless the evidence is crystal clear and undeniable.  Which was not the case.  Wading into a dubious case would jeopardize the Court's independence.

[bigheadfred]

Throw in the Roberts decision on Obamacare. Roberts, arguably, caved to outside pressure.

[Cyber Liberty]

Because the Court does not want to wade into election-related cases unless the evidence is crystal clear and undeniable.  Which was not the case.  Wading into a dubious case would jeopardize the Court's independence.

2000 Election was more clear than 2020?  Well, I suppose the Dem cheating was better at burying the facts in the case in 2020. 

[Kamaji]

2000 Election was more clear than 2020?  Well, I suppose the Dem cheating was better at burying the facts in the case in 2020. 

Yes.  The Court also got a lot of blowback from 2000 that, as an institution, it did not like.  Furthermore, the Court's actions in 2000 were to stop a recount in one state, not to attempt to invalidate an entire election.  Way too dangerous for the Court to wade into that without stunningly clear undeniable evidence.

Like it or lump it, the Court has to consider its own continued existence and the fact that it depends for enforcement of its judgments on organs it does not control.  And the more political a question the thinner the ice is for the Court.

Why do you think Marbury v. Madison came out the way it did?  The Court in that case essentially got to have its cake, and eat it, too.  It got to decide that Marbury was poorly dealt with, but then it also got to establish that it did not have the power to issue a judgment to that effect because the statute in question that supposedly authorized the case was infirm, thereby establishing the even greater institutional tool of judicial review.

[Bigun]

Because the Court does not want to wade into election-related cases unless the evidence is crystal clear and undeniable.  Which was not the case.  Wading into a dubious case would jeopardize the Court's independence.

They did not, and do not, have discretion to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction.

[Bigun]

This court, under Roberts, is systematically cementing in place the judicial tyranny that plagues this nation currently. Throwing us a bone or two occasionally is not winning.

[Kamaji]

They did not, and do not, have discretion to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction.

They concluded that there was no standing.  They heard it, and disposed of it.  You need stop engaging in ends-justifies-means analysis of court decisions you do not like.

[Kamaji]

This court, under Roberts, is systematically cementing in place the judicial tyranny that plagues this nation currently. Throwing us a bone or two occasionally is not winning.

Spoken like a good liberal.

[Bigun]

Spoken like a good liberal.

You and your fellow members of the brotherhood of the bar might be perfectly ok with judicial tyranny but I am not nor will I ever be. If that is a liberal position in your mind so be it counselor.

[Bigun]

They concluded that there was no standing.  They heard it, and disposed of it.  You need stop engaging in ends-justifies-means analysis of court decisions you do not like.

Read the dissents councilor.

[Kamaji]

You and your fellow members of the brotherhood of the bar might be perfectly ok with judicial tyranny but I am not nor will I ever be. If that is a liberal position in your mind so be it counselor.

It isn't judicial tyranny; that's your ends-justifies-the-means take on it.

[Kamaji]

Read the dissents councilor.

Guess what dissents are, at bottom:  bloviation by someone who has a chapped ass because they couldn't convince enough other justices to go along with them.

It's wonderful that the dissenters feel that strongly; but the fact that you emotionally prefer the dissents doesn't make them correct, no more than that liberals' keen love of Jackson's dissent in the affirmative action case makes her dissent correct.

[Bigun]

It isn't judicial tyranny; that's your ends-justifies-the-means take on it.

Like hell it's not! What does "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" mean in plain English?

[Bigun]

Guess what dissents are, at bottom:  bloviation by someone who has a chapped ass because they couldn't convince enough other justices to go along with them.

It's wonderful that the dissenters feel that strongly; but the fact that you emotionally prefer the dissents doesn't make them correct, no more than that liberals' keen love of Jackson's dissent in the affirmative action case makes her dissent correct.

LOL! If you say so! It doesn't matter anymore in any case. Lawyers Rule!

[Kamaji]

Like hell it's not! What does "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" mean in plain English?

It does not mean, as the Court pointed out, without the traditional review by courts.  The language neither negatives, nor requires, judicial review, and therefore the Court's decision was a reasonable one.

I realize that you do not like it, because it means that the end result you favored in that particular case will not come to fruition, but that is too bad; end-result is not the test of whether a decision was correct or not, and screaming "judicial tyranny" like a spoilt child just because you don't like the result makes you no better than "Justice" Jackson and the liberals who are screeching about the affirmative action case.

[Kamaji]

LOL! If you say so! It doesn't matter anymore in any case. Lawyers Rule!

Prove me wrong.

A dissent is merely an interesting curiousity until and unless it gets picked up by a majority opinion.  That does happen from time to time, but until it does, the dissent is meaningless.

[Bigun]

It does not mean, as the Court pointed out, without the traditional review by courts.

Of course not! If it actually meant what it plainly says the courts would be excluded from the process, and we just  cannot have that! /S

[Kamaji]

Of course not! If it actually meant what it plainly says the courts would be excluded from the process, and we just  cannot have that! /S

It does not plainly say what you wish it did.  Sorry about that.

[Bigun]

It does not plainly say what you wish it did.  Sorry about that.

"in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

[Kamaji]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

It does not say that the legislature may do as it pleases without review from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Sorry, but it does not.  That is certainly a possible reading of it, but it is not the only possible reading because the language does not expressly make it solely the prerogative of the legislature.

The fact that you so desperately want it to mean that in this case is coloring your view of the matter.  That is not how cases are to be decided by the Supreme Court, however.

[Bigun]

It does not say that the legislature may do as it pleases without review from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Sorry, but it does not.  That is certainly a possible reading of it, but it is not the only possible reading because the language does not expressly make it solely the prerogative of the legislature.

The fact that you so desperately want it to mean that in this case is coloring your view of the matter.  That is not how cases are to be decided by the Supreme Court, however.

It says what it says and does not say what it does not say! Seems like I've heard something like that somewhere previously.

I posted the exact language, which is perfectly clear to me, and cited the source. Sorry if you don't like that.

[Kamaji]

It says what it says and does not say what it does not say! Seems like I've heard something like that somewhere previously.

I posted the exact language, which is perfectly clear to me, and cited the source. Sorry if you don't like that.

It isn't perfectly clear that it negates judicial review of a decision by a particular legislature because it doesn't say that.  If there were words such as "sole discretion" then you would have a case.  As it is, you do not.  That is the nature of language.

It is astounding how desperate you are to import into the Constitution private meanings that aren't in the text either expressly or by logically necessary implication, just to suit your view of how things should be.

And the fact that there are others who agree with you does not change that fact.

Yes, as I said before, it is a plausible potential interpretation of that language, but it is not the only interpretation and the Court, for reasons stated in its opinion, found a more persuasive interpretation.

That is the way that statutory and constitutional interpretation goes.  I'm sorry that you don't like it, but the meaning you want to import into it simply is not mandated by the text of the Constitution itself.