Today's SCOTUS victories v. 2020 Election Challenges

[Bigun]

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.

I think the men who wrote that were perfectly capable of saying exactly what they meant and did so. If they had wanted to include "after judicial review" they would have done so.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Kamaji]

I think the men who wrote that were perfectly capable of saying exactly what they meant and did so. If they had wanted to include "after judicial review" they would have done so.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You're welcome to stick to it - you're just incorrect.

Did the Founders write in judicial review on Congressional enactments in just so many words?  No, they did not, and yet, as Marbury v. Madison demonstrated, that is a logically necessary corollary to how the Founders structured the entire Constitution and the three co-equal branches of government.

Hence, it was not necessary to expressly state that Congressional enactments were subject to judicial review because the structure of the Constitution necessarily implied that result.

Ergo, just because the Founders did not expressly provide for judicial review of this particular phrase does not mean that judicial review is not available.

[Bigun]

You're welcome to stick to it - you're just incorrect.

Did the Founders write in judicial review on Congressional enactments in just so many words?  No, they did not, and yet, as Marbury v. Madison demonstrated, that is a logically necessary corollary to how the Founders structured the entire Constitution and the three co-equal branches of government.

Hence, it was not necessary to expressly state that Congressional enactments were subject to judicial review because the structure of the Constitution necessarily implied that result.

Ergo, just because the Founders did not expressly provide for judicial review of this particular phrase does not mean that judicial review is not available.

I will freely stipulate that they started making shit up a LONG time ago.

[Kamaji]

I will freely stipulate that they started making shit up a LONG time ago.

Again, you can call it what you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Bigun
 

I think the men who wrote that were perfectly capable of saying exactly what they meant and did so. If they had wanted to include "after judicial review" they would have done so.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

The appeal of the independent state legislature theory is strong on first look, but if you really take it literally, there are all sorts of problems.   The operative language of the Constitution says:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

So suppose the state of California establishes that the "Manner" of holding elections in California requires all voters to pay a poll tax of $50,000, with the proceeds all being split between BLM, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Democratic Party of California.  Or that nobody over the age of 50 can vote.  If you say there is no judicial review, there is literally no way to challenge or prevent whatever screwy biased, partisan, or offensive conditions a state attached to voting. 

Hell, while the Constitution says how many representatives each state gets, nowhere does it specify that those representatives have to be equally apportioned throughout the state, even by population.   A corrupt/partisan legislature -- by a bare one vote majority -- could say that all of the state reps are to be elected by the vote in specific counties, regardless of how the population is spread throughout the state.

If you take judicial review out of the equation, then literally anything a state legislature does relating to voting/elections cannot be challenged.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

I honestly believe discovery would have revealed much.

But ultimately, the SCOTUS is the court of primary jurisdiction in disputes between the States, which ultimately that was. Some states did not follow the Constitutional requirement for their Legislatures to set the election rules, and instead changed them willy-nilly with edicts from appointed or minor officials. Those rule changes made fraud not just possible, but probable (at the least), materially affecting the outcome of a national election.

Just how much evidence did the court review?
Here's a list:

[Bigun]

@Bigun
 
The appeal of the independent state legislature theory is strong on first look, but if you really take it literally, there are all sorts of problems.   The operative language of the Constitution says:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

So suppose the state of California establishes that the "Manner" of holding elections in California requires all voters to pay a poll tax of $50,000, with the proceeds all being split between BLM, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Democratic Party of California.  Or that nobody over the age of 50 can vote.  If you say there is no judicial review, there is literally no way to challenge or prevent whatever screwy biased, partisan, or offensive conditions a state attached to voting. 

Hell, while the Constitution says how many representatives each state gets, nowhere does it specify that those representatives have to be equally apportioned throughout the state, even by population.   A corrupt/partisan legislature -- by a bare one vote majority -- could say that all of the state reps are to be elected by the vote in specific counties, regardless of how the population is spread throughout the state.

If you take judicial review out of the equation, then literally anything a state legislature does relating to voting/elections cannot be challenged.

Yeah @Maj. Bill Martin I suppose you are right. We just couldn't make it without folks in black robes telling the rest of us what EVERYTHING means as though we cannot read and interpret plain English! /S

And BTW: Do you ever tire of arguing out of both sides of your mouth?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yeah @Maj. Bill Martin I suppose you are right. We just couldn't make it without folks in black robes telling the rest of us what EVERYTHING means as though we cannot read and interpret plain English! /S

I'm just saying that if you have a doctrine that is as absolutist as independent state legislature, then you have to consider how it could be abused, and whether or not it is reasonable to think it was intended that there be no remedy for that abuse.  That's how courts look at those kind of issues, and rightfully so.

And BTW: Do you ever tire of arguing out of both sides of your mouth?

You're going to have to explain that one, because I honestly don't know to what you are referring.

[Kamaji]

I'm just saying that if you have a doctrine that is as absolutist as independent state legislature, then you have to consider how it could be abused, and whether or not it is reasonable to think it was intended that there be no remedy for that abuse.  That's how courts look at those kind of issues, and rightfully so.

You're going to have to explain that one, because I honestly don't know to what you are referring.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I honestly believe discovery would have revealed much.

But ultimately, the SCOTUS is the court of primary jurisdiction in disputes between the States, which ultimately that was. Some states did not follow the Constitutional requirement for their Legislatures to set the election rules, and instead changed them willy-nilly with edicts from appointed or minor officials. Those rule changes made fraud not just possible, but probable (at the least), materially affecting the outcome of a national election.

Just how much evidence did the court review?
Here's a list:

Which specific cases were State v. State as plaintiff and defendant?

[Cyber Liberty]

Which specific cases were State v. State as plaintiff and defendant?

TX v PA?

[Kamaji]

I honestly believe discovery would have revealed much.

But ultimately, the SCOTUS is the court of primary jurisdiction in disputes between the States, which ultimately that was. Some states did not follow the Constitutional requirement for their Legislatures to set the election rules, and instead changed them willy-nilly with edicts from appointed or minor officials. Those rule changes made fraud not just possible, but probable (at the least), materially affecting the outcome of a national election.

Just how much evidence did the court review?
Here's a list:

Doubtful.  Three years of constant agonizing by people like Trump haven't produced much evidence.

The primary evidence adduced is that there is no really good way to audit a U.S. election; but that is not, without more, clear and definitive proof that massive, election-changing, fraud happened, it is merely evidence that fraud could have taken place without the ability to catch it forensically.

That is not the sort of minefield the Court is going to wade into.  Any ruling other than the ruling the Court made would have damaged the Court irreparably.

For better or for worse, the case would have come down to inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.  That would never have satisfied anyone on the losing side of any substantive decision.

What really sucks, however, is that, with the exception of a few intrepid souls like DeSantis in Florida, nobody is taking significant steps to make U.S. elections more fraud-proof by making them more auditable, or requiring more proof of eligibility to vote.

Particularly egregious is Mr. Trump's consummate failure to say anything about the alleged vote fraud other than "I wuz robbed".  He hadn't done a g*d-damned thing to put his considerable influence behind a national movement to make U.S. elections as secure or auditable as, say, elections in Mexico, even.

The failure is, at bottom, a political failure, not a judicial failure, and we have been abetting that failure by refusing to galvanize our anger into practical, functional responses.

[Bigun]

You're going to have to explain that one, because I honestly don't know to what you are referring.

One day you are here arguing that the language of the 14th amendment absolutely grants birthright citizenship to anyone who can drag themselves across the border for long enough to have a child on U. S. soil and would not even look at the legislative history that clearly denies that then, in the next breath, you tell us that the crystal clear language of the constitution itself does not say what it clearly says. @Maj. Bill Martin That is what I'm talking about.

 

[Kamaji]

One day you are here arguing that the language of the 14th amendment absolutely grants birthright citizenship to anyone who can drag themselves across the border for long enough to have a child on U. S. soil and would not even look at the legislative history that clearly denies that then, in the next breath, you tell us that the crystal clear language of the constitution itself does not say what it clearly says. @Maj. Bill Martin That is what I'm talking about.

 

[DB]

Doubtful.  Three years of constant agonizing by people like Trump haven't produced much evidence.

The primary evidence adduced is that there is no really good way to audit a U.S. election; but that is not, without more, clear and definitive proof that massive, election-changing, fraud happened, it is merely evidence that fraud could have taken place without the ability to catch it forensically.

That is not the sort of minefield the Court is going to wade into.  Any ruling other than the ruling the Court made would have damaged the Court irreparably.

For better or for worse, the case would have come down to inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.  That would never have satisfied anyone on the losing side of any substantive decision.

What really sucks, however, is that, with the exception of a few intrepid souls like DeSantis in Florida, nobody is taking significant steps to make U.S. elections more fraud-proof by making them more auditable, or requiring more proof of eligibility to vote.

Particularly egregious is Mr. Trump's consummate failure to say anything about the alleged vote fraud other than "I wuz robbed".  He hadn't done a g*d-damned thing to put his considerable influence behind a national movement to make U.S. elections as secure or auditable as, say, elections in Mexico, even.

The failure is, at bottom, a political failure, not a judicial failure, and we have been abetting that failure by refusing to galvanize our anger into practical, functional responses.

Just using a different standard of signature verification between blue cities and red areas was enough to swing Arizona and other swing states.

[Bigun]

Repeating an earlier question; What does "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" mean in plain English?

[Bigun]

Just using a different standard of signature verification between blue cities and red areas was enough to swing Arizona and other swing states.

There is tons of evidence @DB all of which courts have steadfastly refused to look at even in cases where they had original jurisdiction.

[Kamaji]

Just using a different standard of signature verification between blue cities and red areas was enough to swing Arizona and other swing states.

Prove it.  With undeniable evidence.

Otherwise, face facts:  there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the Supreme Court stepping into that minefield.  Y'all think liberals are working themselves up to pack the Court now, just because the Court said they can no longer discriminate on the basis of race, and that they couldn't waive student loans without Congress enacting a law?  Then try undoing an entire election on the basis of anything less than absolutely crystal clear results.

You don't have that level of evidence; you have circumstantial evidence, plus some statistical arguments, that would support a "more likely than not" finding that fraud changed the 2020 election.  What we do not have is 100% guaranteed evidence.

And instead of going out and spending the last three years doing our level best to enact laws that would provide that sort of evidence - that would, e.g., get rid of things like mail-in ballots or ballot-harvesting - what have we done?  We've listened to the Big Orange Crybaby moan and wail about how he wuz robbed.  We've made memes by the truckload.  We've indulged in all manner of conspiracy theories.

But we haven't gotten off our lazy a$$es and gotten out there and involved to actually start changing things.

And, when it comes to the few GOP politicians who have done something - like DeSantis - we trash them because they haven't displayed sufficiently supine fealty to Donald Trump.

We are our own worst enemies - worse even than the democrats - and Donald Trump is our siren of helplessness.

[Kamaji]

Repeating an earlier question; What does "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" mean in plain English?

Where does it say "without judicial review"?  Point to those words in the Constitution!  If you cannot, then STFU and stop being such a plain vanilla liberal, engaging in ends-oriented criticism because you just don't personally like the result.

[Bigun]

Where does it say "without judicial review"?  Point to those words in the Constitution!  If you cannot, then STFU and stop being such a plain vanilla liberal, engaging in ends-oriented criticism because you just don't personally like the result.

What part of "It says what it says and does not say what it does not say" do you not understand. @Kamaji  I will refrain from responding to your childish name calling.

[Kamaji]

What part of "It says what it says and does not say what it does not say" do you not understand. @Kamaji  I will refrain from responding to your childish name calling.

Sorry, but you are engaging in "living constitution" nonsense that, quite frankly, I would only expect from a liberal.

It does not say that no judicial review is allowed and therefore the question is whether, as a matter of statutory construction, judicial review is permissible or not.

The Court engaged in precisely that sort of analysis, and decided that judicial review of the decision by a legislature is permissible.

There is no requirement that the Constitution say "a court can review the decisions of the legislature" before a court can do precisely that.

The courts have the power to review enactments by Congress, despite the fact that Article I of the Constitution nowhere says that the enactments of Congress are reviewable by a court.

Thus, your argument is false on its face.  It's too bad you are too wedded to your subjective desires to see that fact.

[Bigun]

Sorry, but you are engaging in "living constitution" nonsense that, quite frankly, I would only expect from a liberal.

LOL! The exact opposite! It is you who are adding things clearly not there.

It does not say that no judicial review is allowed and therefore the question is whether, as a matter of statutory construction, judicial review is permissible or not.

The Court engaged in precisely that sort of analysis, and decided that judicial review of the decision by a legislature is permissible.

There is no requirement that the Constitution say "a court can review the decisions of the legislature" before a court can do precisely that.

The courts have the power to review enactments by Congress, despite the fact that Article I of the Constitution nowhere says that the enactments of Congress are reviewable by a court.

Thus, your argument is false on its face.  It's too bad you are too wedded to your subjective desires to see that fact.

Once again repeating myself; "the men who wrote that were perfectly capable of saying exactly what they meant and did so. If they had wanted to include "after judicial review" they would have done so."

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,504384.msg2859509.html#msg2859509

"I will freely stipulate that they (courts) started making shit up a LONG time ago."

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,504384.msg2859527.html#msg2859527

[Kamaji]

LOL! The exact opposite! It is you who are adding things clearly not there.

[
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,504384.msg2859509.html#msg2859509

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,504384.msg2859527.html#msg2859527

Bullshit.

The phrase you are hung up on neither requires, nor prohibits, judicial review of the decision of a state legislature.

READ THE GODDAMNED LANGUAGE FOR WHAT IT SAYS, WITHOUT IMPORTING YOUR OWN PERSONAL DESIRES INTO IT.

That means that statutory construction is required to determine whether or not the courts of a particular state can review a decision by a state legislature.

The Supreme Court decided that it did not forestall such review.  You lost, pure and simple, and if you had an ounce of integrity, you would acknowledge that fact.

Instead, you want to engage in the exact same sort of anti-court demagoguery that Jackson and Sotomayor just engaged in because they were so personally bent out of shape that the Court finally decided that racial discrimination is verboten, pure and simple, and that Congress didn't give the President the authority to erase student loans.

You don't like the result, so you decide the Court is illegitimate.  Just like Jackson and Sotomayor.  No integrity.

[Kamaji]

Waaah, the Supreme Court is illegitimate because it didn't go along with my personal political beliefs!

[Bigun]

Bullshit.

The phrase you are hung up on neither requires, nor prohibits, judicial review of the decision of a state legislature.

READ THE GODDAMNED LANGUAGE FOR WHAT IT SAYS, WITHOUT IMPORTING YOUR OWN PERSONAL DESIRES INTO IT.

That means that statutory construction is required to determine whether or not the courts of a particular state can review a decision by a state legislature.

The Supreme Court decided that it did not forestall such review.  You lost, pure and simple, and if you had an ounce of integrity, you would acknowledge that fact.

Instead, you want to engage in the exact same sort of anti-court demagoguery that Jackson and Sotomayor just engaged in because they were so personally bent out of shape that the Court finally decided that racial discrimination is verboten, pure and simple, and that Congress didn't give the President the authority to erase student loans.

You don't like the result, so you decide the Court is illegitimate.  Just like Jackson and Sotomayor.  No integrity.

It's clear that we are wasting each other's time at this point. I've made it clear on many occasions that the brotherhood of the bar has won and are our rulers whether we like it or not. (I don't like it but can see very clearly.)

I'll put my integrity against yours any day.

Bye now!