Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's time to treat Moore v. Harper as the danger to democracy that it is. This PBS News Weekend video tells you about Moore v. Harper, and how it could affect elections. I STRONGLY suggest you watch it.
If the Rep. take back the WH in 2024 and have the votes in the senate I would suggest first to replace Clarence Thomas who is getting older with an equally reliable conservative vote. Then fill as many Federal court vacancies as possible and last but not least restore the filibuster to 60 votes. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/polit...ter/index.html
If the Rep. take back the WH in 2024 and have the votes in the senate I would suggest first to replace Clarence Thomas who is getting older with an equally reliable conservative vote.
Since a SCOTUS appointment is for life, there is no process to replace a justice, absent the person agreeing to leave or impeachment.
Since a SCOTUS appointment is for life, there is no process to replace a justice, absent the person agreeing to leave or impeachment.
Yes, you can only ask. However, Thomas saw first hand and what happens when you overstay your welcome (RBG) and might be receptive to stepping down to ensure he's replaced by a strong conservative.
Since a SCOTUS appointment is for life, there is no process to replace a justice, absent the person agreeing to leave or impeachment.
You are right; I took the subtext to that post to be that the Republicans would try to talk Thomas into retirement. Many will point to Ginsburg - the Democrats wanted her to retire when Obama was in office to ensure he could nominate her replacement. She did not, and we know what happened. Trump got his second nomination this way when Justice Kennedy retired.
You are right; I took the subtext to that post to be that the Republicans would try to talk Thomas into retirement. Many will point to Ginsburg - the Democrats wanted her to retire when Obama was in office to ensure he could nominate her replacement. She did not, and we know what happened. Trump got his second nomination this way when Justice Kennedy retired.
"The Notorious RBG." She was rock star to many on the Left and loved it. It was reported the Obama Admin had asked her several times to step down... but no. Her ego wouldn't allow it.
Since a SCOTUS appointment is for life, there is no process to replace a justice, absent the person agreeing to leave or impeachment.
Leonard Leo has a $1.6 billion dollar trust fund that is designated the shape the court$. There's nothing against the law to per$uade someone like Thomas from $tepping down.
What will happen if State legislatures had complete (absolute) control of elections...
State legislatures can ignore all federal election laws.
Gerrymandering will become more extreme, ensuring State legislatures will control their own destiny
State legislatures can determine the winner of any election, the results cannot be challenged by state courts or federal courts.
I think elections should be subject to the checks and balances that are provided by the constitution, Moore v. Harper would negate those checks an balances.
What will happen if State legislatures had complete (absolute) control of elections...
State legislatures can ignore all federal election laws.
Gerrymandering will become more extreme, ensuring State legislatures will control their own destiny
State legislatures can determine the winner of any election, the results cannot be challenged by state courts or federal courts.
I think elections should be subject to the checks and balances that are provided by the constitution, Moore v. Harper would negate those checks an balances.
Reading the Constitution as it is written is not a danger to our democracy The Constitution explicitly establishes certain powers with the state legislatures, alone. In this case, the Elections Clause of the Constitution in Article 1, § 4, clearly provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding” congressional elections shall “be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” It's in black and white. Similarly, the power of ratifying amendments to the Constitution lies with the legislatures of the states, alone. The fact that the normal legislative process generally authorizes a veto by the governor is of no consequence as the Constitution explicitly grants the ratification authority to the legislatures of the states. Only those who are unfaithful to the Constitution and want to disregard it for the sake of convenience would hold otherwise.
If the Supreme Court rules as it should in this case, at an initial matter, the partisan NC Supreme Court, which read a prohibition against partisan gerrymandering in the state constitution for the first time in hundreds of years (), will be checked and power returned to the state legislature on the matter as the Constitution dictates. More sweepingly, others who would try to interfere with the state legislatures' authority in congressional elections (as they did during the 2020 election in several states) will be checked.
That would be a win for the Constitution.
As for the hysterical points made by leftists that a ruling in favor of the NC legislature would allow state legislatures to run elections completely unchecked, as usual when it comes to the left in these matters, that's a bold lie. Not only would state legislatures be bound by constitutional provisions (on race, sex, compactness, etc.), but the Elections Clause explicitly allows Congress to override state legislatures in setting rules for congressional elections. Rather, state courts and state executive officials would not be able to unilaterally interfere with laws passed by the legislature in accordance with the plain text of the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Constitution explicitly establishes certain powers with the state legislatures, alone. In this case, the Elections Clause of the Constitution in Article 1, § 4, clearly provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding” congressional elections shall “be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” It's in black and white. Similarly, the power of ratifying amendments to the Constitution lies with the legislatures of the states, alone. The fact that the normal legislative process generally authorizes a veto by the governor is of no consequence as the Constitution explicitly grants the ratification authority to the legislatures of the states. Only those who are unfaithful to the Constitution and want to disregard it for the sake of convenience would hold otherwise. 
