• Nick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have to say, I’m pleasantly surprised by this ruling. The way the court was leaning, I was fully expecting them to uphold the Independent State Legislature theory. And I’m extremely glad they rejected it, as it would have opened the door for MAGA-leaning state legislatures to unilaterally overturn their states’ election results, which is utterly terrifying.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the supreme court very much rules with it’s own relevance in mind.

      Too much fuckery and the party in power will start supporting things like term limits and court packing.

      There needs to be at least some fuckery, though, just to ensure the free yacht vacations and rent free homes for their moms don’t disappear.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If in the last few months, SCOTUS wasn’t being delegitimized through solid investigative journalism by some members of the press that the right-wing justices would have been ruling in the opposite.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a theory going around that the main thing SCOTUS has been doing for a couple decades is increasing the power of courts over the other branches of government, and this decision is exactly in keeping with that.

      • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All government branches try to upset the delicate balance as far as they can, and this might be part of it…but they did slap down quite a stinker here.

        • KuchiKopi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Congress has been shirking it’s power in favor of groveling before the executive branch for several generations, excluding a brief post-watergate reassertion of power.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented

    Well, no surprise there, even though their reason was that the decision is moot.

    • baldingpudenda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Correct if I’m wrong, I’m just starting to read these supreme court decisions straight from the court, but is the dissent that basically the case was about gerrymandering not being a “judiciable” thing and it was a political one? That we should only look at the cases and not at the ppl it would affect?

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it was because NC updated their constitution to eliminate political gerrymandering, so the specific issue is moot. Here’s the salient part from the article (talking about what Roberts wrote):

        “Although partisan gerrymandering claims are no longer viable under the North Carolina Constitution, the North Carolina Supreme Court has done nothing to alter the effect of the judgment in Harper I enjoining the use of the 2021 maps. As a result, the legislative defendants’ path to complete relief runs through this Court,” he wrote. Harper I is the North Carolina Supreme Court’s February 2022 decision.

    • outrageousmatter@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed, this at least means our democracy is still safe to continue. Though the 3 assholes should get impeached for thinking this is a good idea.

  • Chocrates@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well I will celebrate a positive outcome!
    I am still skeptical of the institution, wonder if they are throwing us some softballs in preparation of another really bad decision.

  • Borg286@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wasn’t there an attempt to have electors vote for whoever wins the popular vote. It was contingent on enough states joining forces. I forgot what it’s name is, but wouldn’t such a thing rely on electors being able to vote dynamically?