So, the Supreme Court doesn't just want to be the highest court in the land, it

[Baitball Blogger]

wants to be the ONLY court in the land. That's my take on this recent court case it's going to take up next year, with the intention of taking the right of State courts to review the Constitutionality of the legislators in making election laws.

As I have said before, nothing about the Roberts Court feels legitimate. Something is going to give. People that are this united in their attempt to undermine a fair process probably do a lot of conspiring. So, I hope there are more leaks. Phone records or recordings. Whatever it takes.

America is about checks and balances. You take that away and you're dealing with an intentional attempt at a take over.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Some of us got real fucking mad when we saw people

saying shit like "I will vote for her but I will have to hold my nose."

When they said that so EVERYONE could hear they convinced at least one person not to vote at all.

If you said this YOU are responsible. PERIOD

Oh, did you see the case they will hear next year that will allow red states to decide elections ANYWAY THEY WANT!

[tinrobot]

2. Aren't the red states all about state's rights?

Apparently, that's only the case when it serves their needs.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. States rights to take power from the Federal government.

I am curious how they are even slighting Governors in favor of the legislators. What is their reasoning? To take power from the Democratic governors who have a tenuous hold on red states?

[Zeitghost]

12. Their reasoning

Is the Constitution clearly gives the power to select electors to the Electoral College to state legislatures.

[Baitball Blogger]

13. There has to be more to this.

Language or rulings that define it better.

Since the Court is big on using tradition when it suits their purpose, they should definitely use tradition in this case, because they are again, going rogue.

[Zeitghost]

14. It seems pretty clear

"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"


No public election is required, they could literally draw names from a hat or do a best 2/3 of roux sham beaux if they wanted. The voters of the state would likely toss them out at the earliest opportunity and with good reason, but it would be constitutional.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. We'll see what our scholars come up with.

Since textualists are so good at trying to get into the heads of the Founding fathers to decide what they really meant when they came up with the Constitution, our side has a few months to use our scholars to research the background of this ruling to find out what the check and balance was in place at the time to counter abuses.

Because, let's face it. They are going to try to pass off fake electors to Congress. There's no way that this was what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

[Zeitghost]

16. What do you believe the founders had in mind?

Because it certainly was not public elections for President.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. I know. The Right want to take us down a rabbit hole.

Or, farther down the rabbit hole. Our side needs to talk about this issue aggressively, until it becomes a kitchen table issue.

[Zeitghost]

19. The only real issue I see to decide

Is at what point in the process can a legislature no longer change how their electors are chosen.

If the state law says an election is required, can they change that prior to an election? Absolutely, I don't think there is any challenge to that. But can they change it after an election but before the slate of electors is certified? That's a little more complicated; state law would say no, but does that mean an alternate slate would be unconstitutional? I'm not sure.

[Baitball Blogger]

25. The people would say no and it has traditionally been understood that way,

since the Constitution was a thing. Before The Roberts Rogue Court, judges ruled on the concept of fairness. Based on fairness, a judge would rule against allowing fake electors to replace proper electors. And on another concept as well. Tradition. Tradition has played a role in this conservative Supreme Court's reasoning in other cases. How can they say it doesn't apply now, when all states have been using the fair and honest method since 1787?

[BunkieBandit]

34. Doesn't tradition almost sound like precedent

Could that be where we got hoodwinked. They massage the message then pul the rug out from under us?

[Baitball Blogger]

36. I call textualism voo-doo wordsmithing, so, yeah.

It's like they're speaking in tongues, and until we can crack the code we can't use their own weapon against them.

But, if someone could take the time to research their cases and see how they used one reasoning in one case to obtain their desired theocratic objective, but in another case they ignored the same reasoning because it would have resulted in the opposite of their desired goal, maybe we could at least convince the peanut gallery and help them see what we already know: The Roberts Court has de-legitimized itself.

[Zeitghost]

35. I'm not sure what you mean by fake electors?

Electors certified by the state legislatures would be by default, real electors.

[Baitball Blogger]

37. Are they?

Try selling that one to the people who learn that the electors are not staying true to the vote.

Fake is fake. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. What is this Robert's Court you speak of?

[Baitball Blogger]

6. A.k.a. the Roque Conservative Court.

RCC. Sadly the same initials as the Roman Catholic Church.

[Thomas Hurt]

9. You could just go with the United States Roman Catholic Court at this point.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Yep.

[czarjak]

8. The "Racism is dead" one?

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Scalia warned us before he died.

That's where he was headed. This was always part of a larger scheme.

[SergeStorms]

20. I've said it before....

Trump being unsuccessful in his coup was just the end of 'plan A'. The Supreme Whore Court is 'plan B'.

[plimsoll]

29. Its hard to think of his little chuckle

as a warning. More like the super villain getting ready to monologue.

[plimsoll]

22. Right! It's the Thomas court.

[Thomas Hurt]

23. Personally, I give more credit to Alito, he emasculated Roberts with Dobbs.

[plimsoll]

30. That's true.

But calling it the Thomas court will tell Roberts exactly what his "legacy" is, while probably pissing Alito off. I think of it as a twofer. Bonus points because Thomas told us exactly where he plans to go next and Alito just sneered at everyone.

[spanone]

5. ⚖️K&R⚖️

[msfiddlestix]

7. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

[HUAJIAO]

18. It's already a done deal, unless...............

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216873121

[bringthePaine]

21. 🦘J 'roobert's 'roopublican court🦘

[Mr. Evil]

24. I'm still wondering

who paid Justice Boofy Beerbong's massive debts, paid for his house and his country club membership.

As they say, follow the money... and Charles Koch.

[Cosmocat]

26. Your last sentence is that his is, and they really are not hiding it

This IS going to happen, and when it does R run states will never again allow a D to win an election.

It will be officially over.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

27. I said some time ago that the court should be ignored

It didn’t go down too well at the time, but seems pretty visionary now. I mean, there’s a fucking QAnon true believer with a wife who tried to assist in overturning a Presidential election on there; this is not a legitimate institution, it has no enforcement mechanism and deserves not to have its members threatened but instead treated as a ceremonial relic of a bygone age.

If governors of blue states want to be taken seriously, they need to get with the times and ignore the sham or they’re almost as much to blame for tragedies that unfold as a result of recent decisions.

[Ohio Joe]

28. I'm seeing it as the exact opposite...

If you look at the just decided case of Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas was looking to give states the ability to override federal law. Basically... They wanted the SC to decide they had no right to exist and that states rights trumped federal law... They lost 5-4.

That they lost is good but the idea was that 4 justices wanted to give states the right to be above federal law.

As I'm understanding it, this voting rights case is pretty much the same... States want the right to overrule federal law when it comes to voting.

Like Torres, this is another massive states right case, where the SC will once again decide if they should even exist.

[LeftInTX]

32. Yeah, but this is voting

The other one was military service versus a state agency.....

They want a permanent Republican majority. They won't make a decision on principal, but on what they want.

Not too much was a stake for the nation in Torres vs DPS because I believe DPS was already violating a federal law.

They won't decide on principal, but they will decide on what "they want"...They're dictators who want a Republican majority at all costs. Torres vs DPS wasn't about elections.

[Ohio Joe]

33. As I see it, they boil down to the same thing...

Giving states the right to overrule federal law. They will keep picking at it the same way they did abortion... The ultimate goal this time is to make it so that state law is supreme.

[BootinUp]

31. The court radicals may not have the votes

to do that. One can hope.