Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Oopsie Daisy

(6,670 posts)

15. It should have been unanimous. The fact that 3 dissented is terrifying to me.

Reply to LetMyPeopleVote (Original post)

Tue Jun 27, 2023, 11:36 AM

Jun 2023

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rejects fringe elections theory [View all] LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 OP

Marbury v. Madison saved the right of state courts to review state election statutes. Ocelot II Jun 2023 #1

MORE Marbury griping? grrr.... I need to pay more attention HelpImSurrounded Jun 2023 #6

It Is An Odd Bit, Ma'am The Magistrate Jun 2023 #8

The concept of judicial review was established well before Marbury, Ocelot II Jun 2023 #14

We Place Different Weights On The Political Factors, Ma'am The Magistrate Jun 2023 #23

If you have a better idea for determining whether a law is constitutional, I'd like to hear it, but Ocelot II Jun 2023 #33

I Repeat, Ma'am: I Do Not Object To Judicial Review The Magistrate Jun 2023 #34

One reason I love DU... cilla4progress Jun 2023 #28

Alito, Thomas of course -shitweasels are gonna shitweasel. Fuck Gorsuch too. Totally. Comfortably_Numb Jun 2023 #2

Disgusting fucking assholes. Eliot Rosewater Jun 2023 #9

Typical of Alito and Thomas, madaboutharry Jun 2023 #3

Is SCOTUS stepping away from polarizing partisanship? bucolic_frolic Jun 2023 #4

Or.... If we give states the rights then SCOTUS loses some of their power to rule the masses? LakeArenal Jun 2023 #7

Lately, it seems, that the supreme court giveth, and the supreme court taketh away. BComplex Jun 2023 #11

As judgment states, no way to get around the precedent, courts CAN review any legislative leap Alexander Of Assyria Jun 2023 #12

Hope so. You sound right! 🤞🏼 LakeArenal Jun 2023 #17

Give the devils their due EnergizedLib Jun 2023 #5

Thank you Neal Katyal LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 #18

A great victory for voters and loss for those that want to end elections Takket Jun 2023 #10

The Moore v. Harper decision effectively eliminates the John Eastman theory of presidential electors LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 #13

Jeffrey Clark gets murdered by Arnold...lol Nevilledog Jun 2023 #16

It should have been unanimous. The fact that 3 dissented is terrifying to me. Oopsie Daisy Jun 2023 #15

It's not quite as terrifying as you might think. Ocelot II Jun 2023 #22

Your parenthetical question holds merit. Plus, the "try again later" is a dangerous message. Oopsie Daisy Jun 2023 #25

True, but even Alito didn't join that part of the dissent. Ocelot II Jun 2023 #27

Informative comment, thank you! WestMichRad Jun 2023 #26

That's good news RussBLib Jun 2023 #19

The Big Story kentuck Jun 2023 #20

Helpful distillation - cilla4progress Jun 2023 #29

Alito and Thomas of course voted yes liberalmediaaddict Jun 2023 #21

Statement from Senator Schumer LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 #24

6-3 decision republianmushroom Jun 2023 #30

This should IMO be a 9-0 decision. mwooldri Jun 2023 #31

The 'Independent State Legislature Theory' Is Dead LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 #32

Hallelujah! Cha Jun 2023 #35

For this thread LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 #36

Today's ruling is arguably also arguably a blow to John Eastman in the fight over his law license. LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2023 #37