SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in Moore vs Harper today, dems are terrified

Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113

Check Twitter, there is a full-on coordinated effort to paint this decision as being an attempt to overthrow democracy.

Any time the dems get upset about an elections case, you can bet your last dollar it's cause the case could make it harder for them to cheat, and that's what is happening here.

At the heart of Moore vs Harper is the 'elections clause' of Article I of the Constitution. The clause says that the 'Times, places and manner' of elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof". Further, Article II adds that states may appoint electors for the presidential elections "in such manner that the Legislature thereof may direct'.

In general, the case is about whether state courts or the state legislature have the ultimate say in elections. This case involves the 'independent state legislature' theory. The theory says that state legislatures regulate federal elections, and the state courts have almost no say in that process.

SC has never directly ruled on if Articles I and II support the independent state legislature theory is valid, so this will be a big decision either way.

In short, dems want the theory to get shot down, so they can continue to use activist judges in state courts to subvert state legislatures and the will of the people.

Election integrity is on the docket today. Let's hope the SC's hot streak of issuing rulings in line with the Constitution continues.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
J Michael Luttig is not a "dem" 😎

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dent-legislature-theory-supreme-court/671625/
There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory
Such a doctrine would be antithetical to the Framers’ intent, and to the text, fundamental design, and architecture of the Constitution.

By J. Michael Luttig

images


he Supreme Court will decide before next summer the most important case for American democracy in the almost two and a half centuries since America’s founding.

In Moore v. Harper, the Court will finally resolve whether there is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation known as the “independent state legislature.” If the Court concludes that there is such a doctrine, it would confer on state legislatures plenary, exclusive, and judicially unreviewable power both to redraw congressional districts for federal elections and to appoint state electors who quadrennially cast the votes for president and vice president on behalf of the voters of the states. It would mean that the partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts by state legislatures would not be reviewable by the state courts—including the states’ highest court—under their state constitutions.

Such a doctrine would be antithetical to the Framers’ intent, and to the text, fundamental design, and architecture of the Constitution.

The independent-state-legislature theory gained traction as the centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In the Supreme Court, allies of the former president argued that the theory, as applied to the electors clause, enabled the state legislatures to appoint electors who would cast their votes for the former president, even though the lawfully certified electors were bound by state law to cast their votes for Joe Biden because he won the popular vote in those states. The Supreme Court declined to decide the question in December 2020. The former president and his allies continued thereafter to urge the state legislatures, and even self-appointed Trump supporters, to transmit to Congress alternative, uncertified electoral slates to be counted by Congress on January 6.

That as many as six justices on the Supreme Court have flirted with the independent-state-legislature theory over the past 20 years is baffling. There is literally no support in the Constitution, the pre-ratification debates, or the history from the time of our nation’s founding or the Constitution’s framing for a theory of an independent state legislature that would foreclose state judicial review of state legislatures’ redistricting decisions. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that the Constitution contemplates and provides for such judicial review.

To the extent that advocates of the independent-state-legislature theory have any evidence at all to support the theory, it is exceedingly thin. Their textual argument is that the total disempowerment of state courts necessarily follows from the fact that the elections clause empowers the state legislatures to prescribe the “manner” of holding congressional elections.

But there is neither more nor less significance to the fact that the Constitution assigns this quintessential legislative power to the state legislatures than that the Constitution assigns federal lawmaking to Congress, rather than to the executive or the judiciary. And yet, the Constitution provides for judicial review of the actions of both.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nail1988

kjfreeze

Gator Great
Jan 17, 2005
3,276
5,650
113
"...appoint state electors who quadrennially cast the votes for president and vice president on behalf of the voters of the states."

This is what we call a Republic. It's what we did before Wilson. This article is just bold talk from a one-eyed fat man. Sometimes, constitutional amendments can cause harm rather than good.
 
  • Love
Reactions: nail1988

fatman76

Bull Gator
Jun 15, 2007
6,501
12,806
113


Check Twitter, there is a full-on coordinated effort to paint this decision as being an attempt to overthrow democracy.

Any time the dems get upset about an elections case, you can bet your last dollar it's cause the case could make it harder for them to cheat, and that's what is happening here.

At the heart of Moore vs Harper is the 'elections clause' of Article I of the Constitution. The clause says that the 'Times, places and manner' of elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof". Further, Article II adds that states may appoint electors for the presidential elections "in such manner that the Legislature thereof may direct'.

In general, the case is about whether state courts or the state legislature have the ultimate say in elections. This case involves the 'independent state legislature' theory. The theory says that state legislatures regulate federal elections, and the state courts have almost no say in that process.

SC has never directly ruled on if Articles I and II support the independent state legislature theory is valid, so this will be a big decision either way.

In short, dems want the theory to get shot down, so they can continue to use activist judges in state courts to subvert state legislatures and the will of the people.

Election integrity is on the docket today. Let's hope the SC's hot streak of issuing rulings in line with the Constitution continues.
The squealing children are using the ultimate slippery slope argument here.

Confirm the Constitution says that SL are in charge of elections and they'll forever ignore actual elections and just pick whomever they want for eternity.

What it really says: Activist judges can't make election law.

SMDH at these people...
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113

Scared shitless.

Dems be honest with yourself: Doesn't it give you pause that every time there's a chance to strengthen election integrity, the dems put on the full court press to stop it?

WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be the ones in power, not a political party. Doesn't that worry you?
 

Gator Fever

Bull Gator
Feb 13, 2008
22,673
6,238
113
Of course the state laws shouldn't be able to be tossed aside by activist Judges when it comes to this stuff like happened under the cover of Covid in 2020 but I wonder if they will address the situations where they use the state constitution to redraw congressional lines stating they violate the state constitution. That is the tricky issue imo.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
Of course the state laws shouldn't be able to be tossed aside by activist Judges when it comes to this stuff like happened under the cover of Covid in 2020 but I wonder if they will address the situations where they use the state constitution to redraw congressional lines stating they violate the state constitution. That is the tricky issue imo.

That's EXACTLY where this case originated from...not from COVID events but from gerrymandering being denied by the North Carolina courts


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suprem...-legislature-theory-moore-v-harper-elections/

How did Moore v. Harper get to the Supreme Court?​

The current dispute arose from the redistricting process undertaken by North Carolina's GOP-controlled General Assembly after the 2020 Census.

Under the congressional map adopted by the state legislature in November 2021, Republicans had an advantage for 10 of the state's 14 House seats. The state supreme court, however, rejected that map, finding it was an extreme partisan gerrymander that violated the North Carolina Constitution.

The General Assembly adopted new congressional voting boundaries, but that map, too, was rejected by a North Carolina trial court. Instead, it went on to approve a map created by a group of special masters and assistants and ordered the plan to be used solely for the 2022 election cycle. Under the court-drawn congressional map, Republicans were favored to win six seats to Democrats' four, with the four remaining districts more competitive, according to an analysis from the Campaign Legal Center.

A request by North Carolina Republican leaders to the state supreme court for it to pause use of the court-crafted maps was declined, so they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene for the first time in late February.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nail1988

fatman76

Bull Gator
Jun 15, 2007
6,501
12,806
113
Of course the state laws shouldn't be able to be tossed aside by activist Judges when it comes to this stuff like happened under the cover of Covid in 2020 but I wonder if they will address the situations where they use the state constitution to redraw congressional lines stating they violate the state constitution. That is the tricky issue imo.
Isn't this just Gerrymandering?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjfreeze
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113
Got a chance to listen to some of the oral arguments just now.

What I noticed is that every justice asks the defendant's lawyer a question about their argument. If it is a liberal justice asking the question, they simply end the questioning after the lawyer has given the answer.

But when it is Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh or Barrett, they ask followup questions and use other court cases or hypotheticals in order to CHALLENGE the claims of the lawyer. That's not being partisan, that's being a good Supreme Court Justice. The libs are simply there to help the defendant's lawyer make their argument. The justices following the Constitution are actually doing their job, asking the lawyer to show that his argument is solid.

BTW it was either Gorsuch or Alito that finally got Katyal for the defense to admit that he believes that if a state supreme court rules that 'The state constitution should be fair", that the state supreme court can do that. He added that such an abstract ruling would be fine, because he claims there are other 'checks and balances' that would keep such a vague and abstract ruling from leading to corruption.

Hilarious. We have a SC with 3-5 judges at best that are committed to the Constitution, and the rest are committed to their politics.
 

Gator Fever

Bull Gator
Feb 13, 2008
22,673
6,238
113
Isn't this just Gerrymandering?

I guess the case was but many times they will use cases like this to clarify related things (like ignoring the legislature passed state laws on voting). As far as the gerrymandering that is a tricky one when it comes to state supreme courts using things like a state constitution equal protection clause (or something like that) to say the districts are unlawful. From what I think I heard the Dems in a few states got the lefty courts to use that to redraw the districts while in the states where its gerrymandered in their favor they leave the issue alone of course and some states dont have their state constitution written in a way to attack it as easy legally I think.
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113
OMG. Defendant counsel Donald Verrili is now being questioned. Same as before. each justice asks him to clarify a point, the lib justices have no followup, the Constitutional judges do.

Then we get to Sotomayer. Her question is (remembered as best I can): "I'm thinking of how I would write an opinion that agrees with you and rules in your favor. Thinking back to each of the challenges to your argument from my colleagues, how would you address each and respond to each point?"

In other words "Here is a chance for you to have a do-over in answering the questions from the Constitutional justices, cause you kinda looked bad under direct questioning, so here's your chance to clean up your mess, I won't get in your way."

Unbelievable.
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113
Arguments in the case have concluded. It was announced court is adjourned till Monday. No clue if that means they will give decision then, or decision could be at any time and they will simply hear new cases starting Monday. Or maybe decision will be held till the end of the sessions and all decisions given together.

BTW, as I recall @kalimgoodman loved him some 'I can't tell you what a woman is' Jackson. She was a joke today. All libs were there just to fluff the defense from what I heard, but she was head cheerleader. One 'question' she asked was just her agreeing with a point a defense lawyer made. So much so that Alito interjected "I'm sorry Justice Jackson, was there a question there, or did you just want to shake your pom poms vigorously in counsel's face?"

Just kidding, Alito didn't say that. But I suspect he was thinking it.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
Got a chance to listen to some of the oral arguments just now.

What I noticed is that every justice asks the defendant's lawyer a question about their argument. If it is a liberal justice asking the question, they simply end the questioning after the lawyer has given the answer.

This is a "malone" lie

But when it is Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh or Barrett, they ask followup questions and use other court cases or hypotheticals in order to CHALLENGE the claims of the lawyer. That's not being partisan, that's being a good Supreme Court Justice. The libs are simply there to help the defendant's lawyer make their argument. The justices following the Constitution are actually doing their job, asking the lawyer to show that his argument is solid.

This is a "malone" lie

BTW it was either Gorsuch or Alito that finally got Katyal for the defense to admit that he believes that if a state supreme court rules that 'The state constitution should be fair", that the state supreme court can do that. He added that such an abstract ruling would be fine, because he claims there are other 'checks and balances' that would keep such a vague and abstract ruling from leading to corruption.

This is a "malone" lie

Hilarious. We have a SC with 3-5 judges at best that are committed to the Constitution, and the rest are committed to their politics.

How much of this hearing did you catch? 🤣
 

fatman76

Bull Gator
Jun 15, 2007
6,501
12,806
113
OMG. Defendant counsel Donald Verrili is now being questioned. Same as before. each justice asks him to clarify a point, the lib justices have no followup, the Constitutional judges do.

Then we get to Sotomayer. Her question is (remembered as best I can): "I'm thinking of how I would write an opinion that agrees with you and rules in your favor. Thinking back to each of the challenges to your argument from my colleagues, how would you address each and respond to each point?"

In other words "Here is a chance for you to have a do-over in answering the questions from the Constitutional justices, cause you kinda looked bad under direct questioning, so here's your chance to clean up your mess, I won't get in your way."

Unbelievable.
She's basically saying, if I understand: "Listen, that sucked. You looked bad and quite frankly despite the fact I've made up my mind on who I'm writing this opinion in favor of I'm struggling to make it sound coherent and convincing. What would you write if you were me?"
 

ghost_of_ukalum1988

Swamp Thing
Jan 7, 2022
948
2,088
93
54
J Michael Luttig is not a "dem" 😎

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dent-legislature-theory-supreme-court/671625/
There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory
Such a doctrine would be antithetical to the Framers’ intent, and to the text, fundamental design, and architecture of the Constitution.

By J. Michael Luttig

images


he Supreme Court will decide before next summer the most important case for American democracy in the almost two and a half centuries since America’s founding.

In Moore v. Harper, the Court will finally resolve whether there is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation known as the “independent state legislature.” If the Court concludes that there is such a doctrine, it would confer on state legislatures plenary, exclusive, and judicially unreviewable power both to redraw congressional districts for federal elections and to appoint state electors who quadrennially cast the votes for president and vice president on behalf of the voters of the states. It would mean that the partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts by state legislatures would not be reviewable by the state courts—including the states’ highest court—under their state constitutions.

Such a doctrine would be antithetical to the Framers’ intent, and to the text, fundamental design, and architecture of the Constitution.

The independent-state-legislature theory gained traction as the centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In the Supreme Court, allies of the former president argued that the theory, as applied to the electors clause, enabled the state legislatures to appoint electors who would cast their votes for the former president, even though the lawfully certified electors were bound by state law to cast their votes for Joe Biden because he won the popular vote in those states. The Supreme Court declined to decide the question in December 2020. The former president and his allies continued thereafter to urge the state legislatures, and even self-appointed Trump supporters, to transmit to Congress alternative, uncertified electoral slates to be counted by Congress on January 6.

That as many as six justices on the Supreme Court have flirted with the independent-state-legislature theory over the past 20 years is baffling. There is literally no support in the Constitution, the pre-ratification debates, or the history from the time of our nation’s founding or the Constitution’s framing for a theory of an independent state legislature that would foreclose state judicial review of state legislatures’ redistricting decisions. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that the Constitution contemplates and provides for such judicial review.

To the extent that advocates of the independent-state-legislature theory have any evidence at all to support the theory, it is exceedingly thin. Their textual argument is that the total disempowerment of state courts necessarily follows from the fact that the elections clause empowers the state legislatures to prescribe the “manner” of holding congressional elections.

But there is neither more nor less significance to the fact that the Constitution assigns this quintessential legislative power to the state legislatures than that the Constitution assigns federal lawmaking to Congress, rather than to the executive or the judiciary. And yet, the Constitution provides for judicial review of the actions of both.
Guess what? Luttig doesn’t get to decide the case. No one cares to read your shitty links.
 

ghost_of_ukalum1988

Swamp Thing
Jan 7, 2022
948
2,088
93
54
OMG. Defendant counsel Donald Verrili is now being questioned. Same as before. each justice asks him to clarify a point, the lib justices have no followup, the Constitutional judges do.

Then we get to Sotomayer. Her question is (remembered as best I can): "I'm thinking of how I would write an opinion that agrees with you and rules in your favor. Thinking back to each of the challenges to your argument from my colleagues, how would you address each and respond to each point?"

In other words "Here is a chance for you to have a do-over in answering the questions from the Constitutional justices, cause you kinda looked bad under direct questioning, so here's your chance to clean up your mess, I won't get in your way."

Unbelievable.
Sotomayor is nothing but an activist in a black robe. Arguably one of the worst SCOTUS justices of all time.
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113
She's basically saying, if I understand: "Listen, that sucked. You looked bad and quite frankly despite the fact I've made up my mind on who I'm writing this opinion in favor of I'm struggling to make it sound coherent and convincing. What would you write if you were me?"
Even better LOL "I'm giving you a do-over, but I want you to do something for me too..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatman76
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113
Sotomayor is nothing but an activist in a black robe. Arguably one of the worst SCOTUS justices of all time.
Activist judges vs Constitutional judges, that's exactly what it is.

Kagan, Sotomayer and Woman Who Can't Say 'Woman' are activist judges.

Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas are Constitutional judges.

I think Kavanaugh, ACB and Roberts are 'Get-along to get-along' judges. Kavanaugh and ACB may grow out of their roles.
 

nail1988

Bull Gator
Jan 14, 2004
9,680
17,385
113
That's EXACTLY where this case originated from...not from COVID events but from gerrymandering being denied by the North Carolina courts


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suprem...-legislature-theory-moore-v-harper-elections/

How did Moore v. Harper get to the Supreme Court?​

The current dispute arose from the redistricting process undertaken by North Carolina's GOP-controlled General Assembly after the 2020 Census.

Under the congressional map adopted by the state legislature in November 2021, Republicans had an advantage for 10 of the state's 14 House seats. The state supreme court, however, rejected that map, finding it was an extreme partisan gerrymander that violated the North Carolina Constitution.

The General Assembly adopted new congressional voting boundaries, but that map, too, was rejected by a North Carolina trial court. Instead, it went on to approve a map created by a group of special masters and assistants and ordered the plan to be used solely for the 2022 election cycle. Under the court-drawn congressional map, Republicans were favored to win six seats to Democrats' four, with the four remaining districts more competitive, according to an analysis from the Campaign Legal Center.

A request by North Carolina Republican leaders to the state supreme court for it to pause use of the court-crafted maps was declined, so they asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene for the first time in late February.

@Gator Fever fevered-brain 🧠


@RayGravesGhost believes in judicial tyranny so he won’t understand state legislature and state rights.
 

nail1988

Bull Gator
Jan 14, 2004
9,680
17,385
113
Activist judges vs Constitutional judges, that's exactly what it is.

Kagan, Sotomayer and Woman Who Can't Say 'Woman' are activist judges.

Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas are Constitutional judges.

I think Kavanaugh, ACB and Roberts are 'Get-along to get-along' judges. Kavanaugh and ACB may grow out of their roles.

The Kommie Brown makes Kagan and the unwise Latina look like Rhodes scholars. She is by far the dumbest of them all.

The Kommie asked really stupid questions today and got her ass absolutely handed to her by the lawyers. It was embarrassing
 

DCandtheUTBand

Gator Great
Sep 5, 2001
3,220
5,521
113


Check Twitter, there is a full-on coordinated effort to paint this decision as being an attempt to overthrow democracy.

Any time the dems get upset about an elections case, you can bet your last dollar it's cause the case could make it harder for them to cheat, and that's what is happening here.

At the heart of Moore vs Harper is the 'elections clause' of Article I of the Constitution. The clause says that the 'Times, places and manner' of elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof". Further, Article II adds that states may appoint electors for the presidential elections "in such manner that the Legislature thereof may direct'.

In general, the case is about whether state courts or the state legislature have the ultimate say in elections. This case involves the 'independent state legislature' theory. The theory says that state legislatures regulate federal elections, and the state courts have almost no say in that process.

SC has never directly ruled on if Articles I and II support the independent state legislature theory is valid, so this will be a big decision either way.

In short, dems want the theory to get shot down, so they can continue to use activist judges in state courts to subvert state legislatures and the will of the people.

Election integrity is on the docket today. Let's hope the SC's hot streak of issuing rulings in line with the Constitution continues.
So plain text is a "theory?"

The Constitution and it original intent scares dems/libs/leftist/collectivists?

Ya dont say!

Oh yeah and we are a Republic as you know.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
ACB will probably decide this case from what some people are thinking.

Some... :rolleyes: If Roberts and Kavanaugh are not on board ACB won't matter


https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-grapples-independent-state-150221354.html
Supreme Court seems poised to reject robust reading of ‘independent state legislature’ theory

The spotlight for Wednesday’s oral arguments was focused on three of the high court’s six conservative justices: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.


Those three justices will likely serve as the deciding factor in any decision. The court’s three liberals were extremely hostile to the theory during oral arguments, while the three other conservatives have signaled sympathy for a muscular version of the theory, both in previous writings and during arguments in front of the court on Wednesday.
 

DCandtheUTBand

Gator Great
Sep 5, 2001
3,220
5,521
113
One other problem...if SCOTUS rules rightly that Legislatures set the rules and should not be overruled by the other branches this comes a bit late after 2020 and then the flipping of Mi and Pa legislatures to blue. We keep letting the bank robbers get away with the money while wagging a finger.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: instaGATOR

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
So Michigan & PA legislatures that voted for the changes in 2020 were 100% absolutely within their rights to change the mail-in voting regulations?

That kinda blows up the whole illegal voting law changes argument that trump supporters have been crying about for 2 years right?


https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1099...supreme-court-decision-mail-in-voting-lawsuit
Pennsylvania's mail-in voting law is upheld by the state's Supreme Court
Updated August 2, 20225:17 PM ET

"We find no restriction in our Constitution on the General Assembly's ability to create universal mail-in voting," Justice Christine Donohue wrote in the majority opinion.

The state law, which passed with bipartisan support in 2019, has become a main focal point in a Republican-driven campaign against mail-in voting in Pennsylvania.



https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/michigan-makes-positive-election-law-changes/
Michigan Makes Positive Election Law Changes
By
Christopher Thomas
Sep 28, 2020

The Michigan legislature recently passed two bipartisan election laws and sent them to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) for her signature. Election officials initiated these election year changes due to concern about processing an expected high volume of mail ballots in November because of COVID-19.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
The cases underlying the Moore v Harper SCOTUS case have been decided in North Carolina...


https://www.yahoo.com/news/voter-id-partisan-gerrymandering-struck-171205795.html
Voter ID, partisan gerrymandering struck down in NC rulings just before court flips to GOP

The North Carolina Supreme Court issued two important rulings in voting rights cases Friday, on gerrymandering and voter ID.

Both rulings found that Republican lawmakers had acted unconstitutionally to diminish the influence of Democratic voters — by passing a voter ID law with rules that intentionally discriminated against Black voters, and by redrawing the state’s political districts in such a way that rendered many Democrats’ votes essentially pointless in races for Congress and the state legislature.

“The right to vote is a fundamental right, preservative of all other rights. If the right to vote is undermined, it renders illusory all ‘other rights, even the most basic,’” Justice Anita Earls wrote in the voter ID case, quoting from a civil rights case from 1964.

Both rulings were 4-3 decisions, purely along party lines with all the court’s Democrats in the majority and all the Republicans dissenting.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/n-carolina-voter-id-still-195731657.html
N. Carolina voter ID still void after Supreme Court ruling

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A 2018 law requiring photo identification to vote in North Carolina remains invalidated after a narrow majority on the state Supreme Court agreed Friday with a lower court decision that struck it down.

In a 4-3 decision, the court’s Democratic justices said they saw no reason to disturb the 2021 ruling that voided the photo ID law. The lower court said the law violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution because it was tainted by racial bias and designed to help Republicans retain their grip on the General Assembly.

“We hold that the three-judge panel’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence showing that the statute was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose,” Associate Justice Anita Earls wrote in the majority opinion. “The provisions enacted ... were formulated with an impermissible intent to discriminate against African American voters in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.”
 

GatorTheo

Bull Gator
Gold Member
Apr 1, 2002
24,550
1,477
113
The cases underlying the Moore v Harper SCOTUS case have been decided in North Carolina...


https://www.yahoo.com/news/voter-id-partisan-gerrymandering-struck-171205795.html
Voter ID, partisan gerrymandering struck down in NC rulings just before court flips to GOP

The North Carolina Supreme Court issued two important rulings in voting rights cases Friday, on gerrymandering and voter ID.

Both rulings found that Republican lawmakers had acted unconstitutionally to diminish the influence of Democratic voters — by passing a voter ID law with rules that intentionally discriminated against Black voters, and by redrawing the state’s political districts in such a way that rendered many Democrats’ votes essentially pointless in races for Congress and the state legislature.

“The right to vote is a fundamental right, preservative of all other rights. If the right to vote is undermined, it renders illusory all ‘other rights, even the most basic,’” Justice Anita Earls wrote in the voter ID case, quoting from a civil rights case from 1964.

Both rulings were 4-3 decisions, purely along party lines with all the court’s Democrats in the majority and all the Republicans dissenting.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/n-carolina-voter-id-still-195731657.html
N. Carolina voter ID still void after Supreme Court ruling

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A 2018 law requiring photo identification to vote in North Carolina remains invalidated after a narrow majority on the state Supreme Court agreed Friday with a lower court decision that struck it down.

In a 4-3 decision, the court’s Democratic justices said they saw no reason to disturb the 2021 ruling that voided the photo ID law. The lower court said the law violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution because it was tainted by racial bias and designed to help Republicans retain their grip on the General Assembly.

“We hold that the three-judge panel’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence showing that the statute was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose,” Associate Justice Anita Earls wrote in the majority opinion. “The provisions enacted ... were formulated with an impermissible intent to discriminate against African American voters in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.”
How would a voter ID law discriminate against black voters?
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,071
113
It highlights the fact that the left sees black people as inferior.
And it highlights the inherent racism of the left. Same thing we see when it comes to illegal immigration. The left claims we must bring in illegals, saying they will do the low-paying crop-picking jobs that WE DON'T WANT TO DO. As if that's all the left thinks they are good for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NavigatorII

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-false-claim-donald-211640345.html
Fact check: False claim that Donald Trump can be reinstated by Moore v. Harper SCOTUS ruling
Sudiksha Kochi, USA TODAY
Tue, December 20, 2022 at 4:16 PM EST·6 min read


In the Facebook video, the narrator claims that during the 2020 election, state legislatures from seven different states put forward separate electors for Trump. The narrator goes on to state that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the North Carolina state lawmakers in Moore v. Harper, those electors would be valid and the seven states would flip “constitutionally and legally,” thereby making Trump the president.

But experts said this is nonsense.

Edelson said there were no dueling electors in any legitimate sense. There is, however, evidence of an effort by Trump and his allies to use slates of fake electors to overturn the 2020 election, as USA TODAY previously reported.

But the claim is baseless.

There is no mechanism for Trump to be reinstated as president, according to experts. Constitutional law experts told USA TODAY Moore v. Harper has nothing to do with the 2020 election.