Roberts says courts cannot set election rules, only legislatures can

[msongs]

so does this mean the SCOTUS, being a court, cannot overrule states?

[YessirAtsaFact]

1. Sounds like the chief justice is telling Donnie to pound sand

Or something like that.

[dchill]

2. But what's he telling Brett Kavanaugh?

[Faux pas]

3. We

can send out gigantic universal vibes to make it so!

[C_U_L8R]

4. Just like that. There goes Trump's evil plan.

[Sogo]

5. Did he just contradict Kegger Kavanaugh's statement

about WI ballots?

[iemitsu]

10. I call him Boof.

[lame54]

15. Boofing Brett Keggernaugh

[iemitsu]

19. Yep.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. No, Kavanaugh said something similar about Courts not overruling legislatures Nt

[Mike 03]

6. This seems H U G E.

[regnaD kciN]

14. Only huge if he can get four others to agree with him...

And, right now, he only has the three liberals, with Justice Handmaid having not stated her position yet.

[Mike 03]

21. Oh, darn. I thought he was speaking on behalf of the SCOTUS.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. She hasn't received her communique from Trump yet?

[FreepFryer]

7. Source, link, cite please? (Nt)

[FreepFryer]

12. Should I assume someone just said this on tv characterizing Roberts re the recent Kavanaugh opinion?

[msongs]

20. link to decision on this DU post (previously head on MSNBC)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142615278

[regnaD kciN]

8. Kavanaugh (along with Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas) says...

...that, when the state elections involve federal office, that state courts cannot intervene, but federal courts can. Makes no sense to me, but that’s the “beauty” of being on SCOTUS – if you can get five votes for your position, it doesn’t have to make sense.

[malaise]

9. Roberts is telling the Con to fuck off

in advance

[PJMcK]

43. Well said

It's like when all of the Pentagon brass reminded the troops that they swore an oath to protect the Constitution and not to an individual. The brass were sending a very direct message to Trump that they weren't going to become his Stormtroopers and they weren't going to blindly obey illegal orders.

Roberts, just like everyone else in our world, reads the newspapers. He watches the television news. He reads the internet. Hell, he may even listen to the radio! The point is, he's aware of current events. He knows what Trump is trying to orchestrate. This decision makes clear that he's having none of it.

Good for Roberts. It's remarkable that there are still a few principled Republicans left. Now, don't get me wrong! I'm certainly not lionizing the Chief Justice. It just strikes me that his position protects the Constitution instead of Trump. As a bonus, it's become clear that Roberts does care about the integrity and standing of the Court and he wants to protect its role as an equal branch of the government.

[malaise]

44. Very well said

[Marius25]

11. Source?

[FreepFryer]

13. I think someone is watching tv and doesn't realize how little context / info this post offers us. nt

[FreepFryer]

16. Here, is this the decision being discussed on whatever tv show u r watching?

DU thread w info
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142615278

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf

[Edwcraig]

17. So Trump wants Judges to be more activists?

[Thekaspervote]

18. So how far can legislators take "setting election rules?" To me..that's a worry

[Midnightwalk]

22. It means they can decide whatever they want

But have to dress it up to say they aren’t changing state law.

The important thing right now is to get out the vote and win so clearly that it doesn’t go to the supreme court.

That and have a legal team assembled to fight like hell if necessary. I’m ready to join any protest or strikes.

Again, the first priority is winning definitively on Tuesday.

[AnnaLee]

24. I think this is not good.

Legislatures of red states with a blue popular vote could just ignore that popular outcome if they don't like it and the courts won't allow challenges.

[Nictuku]

27. It is both good and bad

... depending entirely on the integrity of the state's legislature.

A State's Legislators (as per most state constitutions) are the ones who can decide what slate of electors to certify. Even if it goes against the popular vote (those legislators will have to face an unhappy electorate).

So popular vote can be for Biden, but the state legislators can ignore that and hand it over to Trump.

We could be in for a very very bumpy ride.

[roamer65]

28. That would be a BAD idea.

[BernieBabies]

25. it means that can assign faithless electors

Long term (and potentially short term), this is very bad.

[Thekaspervote]

33. No, they cannot appoint faithless electors

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for president.

More specifically, the decision allows states to pass laws requiring presidential electors to cast their votes in a manner that faithfully reflects their commitment to vote for the person they promised to choose when they were nominated as an elector.

the Court’s decision reinforces the validity of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under National Popular Vote, states that combine for at least 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most individual votes across the nation. (Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, totaling 196 electoral votes, have already passed the measure.)

In the 18 states currently without faithless elector laws, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that they have been using for over 200 years. In these states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are chosen by the political party whose presidential candidate that wins the popular vote

More at the link

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

[BernieBabies]

36. This is straight from Gorsuch just the other day:

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.

And this is from The Constitution, section 1, clause 2:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

If you combine those two things, it means that an evil state legislature like the one in NC could decide to appoint whatever electors it chooses and the NC state constitution, governor, and courts would have no say. The NC legislature could decide to change its mind on whatever it has decided in the past regarding faithless electors, and the governor could not veto it according to the SCOTUS.

Will they do it? Maybe not this time, but Gorsuch is telegraphing that he thinks it's allowed and the Constitution - as he narrowly reads it - backs him.

They are Republicans. Expect them to do these evil things.

[Thekaspervote]

41. My above post is a SCOTUS ruling from 7/2020! We are talking about separate issues

you Are talking about about the number of electors and election rules. This topic was beat to death here a couple of months ago..

The states DO NOT pick electors, each party picks there own set of electors. And they must remain faithful to the candidate they swore to vote for. Yes, the pukes approached red legislators some 2 months ago about appointing faithless electors with no luck. Firstly, the election laws would have to be changed that they the red legislators set in place and that law would have to signed into law by the governor.

Here’s what constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe and the had to say about this issue


The Electoral Count Act

However, Pennsylvania’s governor is a Democrat who would veto any effort to circumvent existing state election law. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that Republican-dominated legislatures cannot legally bypass their own governors to change the rules governing federal elections, as two of the authors of this column and a colleague recently demonstrated. If Pennsylvania or any other state wants to change its voting laws, it must do so in the normal way, not by having the legislature go rogue. If Biden wins more votes in Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolf would certify the Biden electors to the Electoral College.

More at the link

https://verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-republicans-cannot-throw-the-presidential-election-into-the-house-so-that-trump-wins

[BernieBabies]

42. and I will help you argue your point further

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/09/state-legislatures-cannot-act-alone-in.html

In a normal country where logic and the rule of law prevail, I would totally agree with you and them. I get it.

However, we may no longer be living in that country now that there are 5 wackos on the SC. "signed into law by the governor" may not be true in this new country regarding this particular issue. That section of the Constitution makes no mention of the governor. Legal precedent does, yes.

What Gorsuch meant by "primary responsibility" could mean anything particularly when paired with the "not state governors" part.

It's unlikely, but stay vigilant.

[honest.abe]

26. Sounds like Roberts is going to save us.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. I wouldn't count on Roberts to save us

We can't keep getting roped into the mindset that there's a "savior" coming to save us. Our institutions are flagging right now under Trump/GOP.

[honest.abe]

39. Yeah I know.. just trying to see something positive in this SCOTUS.

[beachbumbob]

29. SC has no jurisdiction over state voting unless discrimination is

involved. Or a perceived issue in a recount like 2000 Florida. The court will not interfere with the outcome. Period

[PoliticAverse]

31. ...

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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/

[smb]

34. Assuming The Dems Get The WH And Senate, They Should Use That Power To Establish Some Standards

A few off the top of my head:

1. Assure availability of early in-person voting (perhaps something like "at least eight days total, including at least one per week during each of the four weeks preceding Election Day) for all voters.

2. Assure availability of mail-in voting with prompt notification and opportunity to correct technical errors (e.g. signature verification problem) for all voters.

3. Set minimum ratio of voting terminals to precinct population (based on estimations of how many are needed to assure waits of no more than 20-30 minutes under high-turnout conditions).

4. All voting systems shall have a verifiable paper trail. If electronics are used, a random sampling shall be cross-checked against manual counting of paper ballots, with a full manual paper recount in case of significant discrepancy.

5. Use objective measures of district compactness (e.g. minimum ratio of district land area to land area of a circle containing the district) to rein in gerrymandering.

6. Ballots received within one week after of Election Day shall be accepted if postmarked by Election Day.

7. Ballots received up to one week before Election Day shall be promptly tabulated and included in reported vote totals on Election Day.

[bigtree]

35. I think he's talking about state courts

...overturning state law.

I believe he's saying the SC can invalidate state court rulings which change state legislature-passed election laws.

[Whiskeytide]

37. Assuming he said that , and assuming he...

... would opine against the SC intervening in the election, he’s still outnumbered.

[FakeNoose]

38. Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts

He's basically saying: this country will not go to hell on MY watch.

I give him credit for not playing the game of those devious snakes at the Heritage Foundation. Justice Roberts may be a political conservative, but he's not a traitor. He takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.

[lastlib]

40. But only if they're the same rules they set in the 1890s...

...Sorry, Amy Conehead (*Coat-Hanger*) Barrett, means you got no vote.