The Judiciary HAS held

[EffieBlack]

[sheshe2]

1. You called it, Effie.

[Leghorn21]

2. Yes m'am, I remember your post about this fourteen years ago, Effie!!

At the time, I was like, wellllllll mmmmmmmmmm, SURE HOPE SO

So far, so great!!

(sure feels like that long ago, yep!!)

[EffieBlack]

4. It sure does feel that long ago!

[OhZone]

3. Cool are you the one who said

The judiciary will hold?

I remember that post.

[malaise]

5. K & R

Yes indeed

[msongs]

6. not until biden is sworn in. always time for more attakcs nt

[Mister Ed]

7. When I saw you post this promise many moons ago, I took heart...

.. because I knew in my heart you were right.

Thank you, ma'am.

[Cracklin Charlie]

8. I believe you assured us of this long ago.

Your words then gave me comfort.

Thank you, EffieBlack.

[coeur_de_lion]

9. Thank God

I wasn't too worried but it is nice to have confirmation.

[mcar]

10. I must admit, I had many doubts

But it has held.

(Doesn't mean we'll like future decisions )

[Nictuku]

11. It makes me very proud of our country

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. I was sure it would.

I was a clerk for an appellate court many years ago, and I saw first-hand how careful judges are - at least the ones I worked with - to stick to the law and avoid politics. They also don't like having their own powers invaded or questioned by politicians. The bias we see from judges arises from legal rather than political philosophies, which don't necessarily coincide. For example, a "conservative" court will tend to take a more restrictive view of individual rights than a "liberal" court, but that doesn't mean they will ignore the law altogether to suit the whims of a politician, especially the one who appointed them. We've already seen that judges appointed by Trump have thrown out his ridiculous lawsuits. Even Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have written opinions holding against the administration. There are some bad judges. Most of them are not.

[AwakeAtLast]

13. That was my exact thought, too!

I'm so thankful!

[crickets]

14. I remember your post on this. At the time, I took heart.

Since then it's been a bumpy ride, but you were right. The judiciary did hold. We have republic still.

[mnmoderatedem]

15. never in doubt, really

judges, even right leaning ones, are not going to have their legacy be circumventing the legal process and just hand the election to trump in an authoritarian sort of way. No matter what they did prior to, and after, they would be remembered for nothing else. They would never escape it.

[George II]

16. I've been saying for a couple of years that when it comes down to it, regardless....

....of how conservative judges may be ideologically, they will rule on the side of the Constitution and the country.

We've now seen it dozens of times since Election day, and at least twice today, too.

[octoberlib]

17. For now.

[tiredtoo]

18. Ditto

The stacked SCOTUS will be hearing the Texas case.

[dware]

34. You mean like they heard the PA case? nt.

[tiredtoo]

38. Hopefully yes. nt

[Gilbert Moore]

19. You gave me

You gave me hope.

As I watched the trumpanzee legal team pee up a rope, your post gave me a degree of comfort.

We are so close to the finish line and they have exhausted their avenues of pursuit. It's all over.

THANKS for sharing your wisdom !

[sandensea]

20. For now

May it ever be so - but as Gore v. Bush showed us, they're not immune from crass political pressure.

And with all these 30/40-something year-old Cheeto appointees entrenched in their judgeships for life, we may not be so lucky next time.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. If anything, this has established as clear as day

why Roberts throwing out Section 4 "pre-clearance" (and Section 5 that is tied to it listing states/localities) of the 1964 Voting Rights Act, helped to create this current litigation nightmare.

If anyone needed proof through documentation, of how counties in specific states with large minority populations were targeted for harassment, not just for voter suppression, but for total disenfranchisement and premeditated negation of their votes, here we have that proof, compiled from over 50 frivolous lawsuits (so far), just over the past month.

[ancianita]

22. Well put! I wonder

if Roberts is rethinking that decision.
I hope GA Dems can win us a chance for a new, more permanent voting rights act.

Absent that, it looks as though the suits are here for good. Big Corp is behind them, imo.
On their end it's nothing personal, just business.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. I think the gist of the arguments in the 2013 VRA case

was that the list of states/counties requiring DOJ "pre-clearance" before making any changes in their voter laws, were "outdated". So basically the court threw out those sections and sent it back to Congress to update.

And in fact, House and Senate Dems have attempted a recent update with the " (John Lewis) Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019" (H.R. 4 in the House and S.4263 in the Senate) to restore and update the VRA.

Since a new Congress will be seated next month, those bills are moot and they have to resubmit them for the new session. But I would think that given what we have experienced with this election so far, they would have quite a bit of additional material to include in their updated legislation.

[ancianita]

24. Thanks. Helpful history.

Indeed, the 117th will definitely have to harden up new legislation. States will challenge it, regardless.

[jonstl08]

25. Legacy

I was telling friends the Supreme Court especially John Roberts would not want to have anything to do with deciding this election because they would be concerned about their legacy.

Still believe that and hope it stays true. Feel Trump and his GOP enablers are going to try some more crap.

[Hekate]

26. I remember when you posted that. Thank you so much for the reminder. Even now...

...there are days it’s hard to hold on to the light.

[DesertRat]

27. Yes!

[littlemissmartypants]

28. Kicked and recommended. ❤ nt

[betsuni]

29. K&R

[Gothmog]

31. I was worried

I am glad to agree with you on this

[Maeve]

32. One more case and we can relax completely

I really, really want to have faith, but....let the Supreme Court slap down Texas and be done with it.

You have been a beacon of light thru this and I thank you for that. I wish I could believe totally, but my faith in America's strength has been shaken to the core the past few years. Looking out my front door and STILL seeing three houses with tRump signs out is very depressing.

[dware]

33. Yes they have, and so has the Military by publicly stating that they have

no role in the election, nor in civilian law enforcement duties.

[betsuni]

35. Kick

[Caliman73]

36. I miss your posts Effie.

Good to see you even for a short post.

Yes they are definitely holding. While concern about such partisan judges still remains in other areas, I agree that the VAST majority of judges and justices understand when some one is blatantly trying to destroy every democratic principle we have, in order to retain power. They do not want to be remembered in history as the people who handed the US to fascism.

[Bettie]

37. So far so good

but I won't lose the anxiety until the inauguration is completed.

[Gothmog]

39. Tomorrow may be interesting

From Prof. Hasen's election law blog. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119508

The Supreme Court today in Carney v. Adams turned back a suit for lack of standing. The Court quoted from an earlier opinion by Justice Powell, in words that might be thought to have some bearing on the case Texas wants the Court to hear:

In other words, a plaintiff cannot establish standing by asserting an abstract “general interest common to all members of the public,” id., at 440, “no matter how sincere” or “deeply committed” a plaintiff is to vindicating that general interest on behalf of the public, Hollingsworth, supra, at 706–707. Justice Powell explained the reasons for this limitation. He found it “inescapable” that to find standing based upon that kind of interest “would significantly alter the allocation of power at the national level, with a shift away from a democratic form of government.” United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166, 188 (1974) (concurring opinion). He added that “[w]e should be ever mindful of the contradictions that would arise if a democracy were to permit general oversight of the elected branches of government by a non-representative, and in large measure insulated, judicial branch.” Ibid.; see also Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 222 (1974); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500 (1975)

.

Today's ruling may play a case in the SCOTUS review of the Texas lawsuit

[ProfessorGAC]

40. K&R! (nt)