Moore v Harper SCOTUS arguments today, the case that could destroy our democracy

[LymphocyteLover]

A few key excerpts

Link to tweet

....

Link to tweet

....

Link to tweet

[True Blue American]

1. I listened to it this morning

Alito and Thomas doing most of the arguing. Neil Kartyal doing a great job.

[LymphocyteLover]

3. Good to hear, thanks

[elleng]

5. That's something I'd like to hear!

Alito, Thomas, and Katyal!

[Cha]

13. TY, TBA.. do you know

when we find out if we lose our Democracy or not?

I don't see how Democracy Loving Americans would stand for this without a Fight to Save our Democracy?

[gab13by13]

2. The arguments are finished.

Just 3 hours of debate to decide the fate of our democracy. Once the states have unchecked power to run elections Magats won't have to worry about who won, they can pick their own electors regardless of the popular vote.

Bye bye checks and balances.

Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito are locks to destroy democracy.

[LymphocyteLover]

4. it couldn't be more serious for our future... this freaking fascist SCOTUS is out of control

[Zeitghost]

6. States can already select electors

Without a public vote. It has always been that way.

The issue here is congressional elections.

[gab13by13]

8. Do you believe that this will only apply to gerrymandering?

It all depends on the final decision, but if the SC gives the states unchecked authority they will not stop with Congressional elections.

As far as states choosing electors for the Electoral college, this decision will give states the authority to disregard how the people voted for president, just what Trump and Eastman wanted.

[Zeitghost]

12. That is already possible

And constitutional. There is nothing in federal law or the constitution that requires a public vote to select electors. Each of the states has chosen to do so, but they could also choose not to.

Article II Section 1:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

[Mysterian]

7. If the radical Supreme Court corrupts the election process

it's time for the president to pack the court.

[NYC Liberal]

9. That definitely won't happen now that the GQP controls the House

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. The House has nothing to do with confirming Judges,

that's the Senates job.

[NYC Liberal]

24. They said "pack the court". I assume they meant expanding the number of seats.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. They did and still the House has no say in who gets confirmed.

it's the exclusive job of the Senate to confirm Fed. Judges.

[NYC Liberal]

27. Expanding the size of the Supreme Court requires legislation

That has to be passed by the House and the Senate.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

28. You are correct, so I apologize for the misinformation.

Also, you're right about nothing getting done as long as the repukes have the majority in the House.

[gab13by13]

10. Absolutely, add 4 more justices.

[Cha]

11. I don't see how those of us

in the Majority, who Treasure our Democracy, would stand for minority rule.?

[Mad_Machine76]

14. Nobody would

Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2022, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Republicans should be careful what they wish for because they will freak TF out when the shoe is on the other foot. If Republicans don't want Democratic-controlled states changing the votes or subverting elections when they rightfully win, then they shouldn't want to exercise that same power in states they control too. And no matter what they do, they may not control all of the states they control now forever either.

[Cha]

16. TY Mad Machine..

let's hope the SC does the sane thing.

[Mad_Machine76]

17. Yes

Fortunately, the Twitter read on the arguments (for what they're worth) is that Barrett and Kavanaugh may not be sold on the "theory". Not always the best predictor of the final vote but there may yet be hope. It sounds like there is a lot of confusion about what ISL theory even is

[Cha]

19. Oh boy! 🤞🤷‍♂️🤞💕 TY! nt

[elleng]

15. According to the Brennan Center,

'Moore v. Harper should be an easy case. There is no coherent theory of constitutional interpretation under which the independent state legislature theory makes sense.'

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/moore-v-harper-heads-high-court?

[Hortensis]

29. Thanks. Very readable explanation. Michael Waldman can

explain legal issues to me any time, and I wish he would.

My best guess is that, if it's rejected, it'll be because of the blatant indefensibility of this particular attack on representative government, a desire of some justices to still be seen as respectable, not for lack of a coherent constitutional argument per se.

[In It to Win It]

18. I listened to the live stream. Neil Gorsuch is impossible!

There’s a lot wrong with that guy.

[Mad_Machine76]

20. Republicans sure know how to pick 'em

don't they?! And our country is (and will be) worse for it.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. For this thread

Link to tweet

[bdamomma]

22. K&R

nt

[Kaleva]

25. Freepers have no love for Kavanaugh and Barrett

Who they consider to be members of the Swamp, the Uniparty, the GOPe, or the Deep State..