- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kav and ACB are complete SCOTUS busts
Posted on 6/27/23 at 12:33 pm to 3nOut
Posted on 6/27/23 at 12:33 pm to 3nOut
quote:
if the people of NC elected people that enforced/voted for this, then it's incumbent of the people of NC to unelect them if they don't like it. Not get SCOTUS involved.
Wrong.
If this were true, then there would literally be no reason for the Supreme Court to even exist. They are the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws and to determine what the law is (see McCulloch v. Maryland). Here, you're talking about a state law that impacts the ability of a state's supreme court to determine the legality of a law promulgated by the state legislature (regarding elections) and whether any other state government entity can alter a legislature's actions on federal elections.
The judicial branch is one of the things that was placed in the Constitution to ensure that a tyrannical majority couldn't just arbitrarily pass laws that were not fair to a minority. Just because the North Carolina legislature is controlled by Republicans (a majority), it doesn't give the legislature the sole authority to promulgate its own elections laws, irrespective of whether or not they are constitutional.
If you don't like this decision, you don't like the idea of checks and balances, or the Constitution, for that matter.
This post was edited on 6/27/23 at 1:05 pm
2
Posted on 6/27/23 at 12:42 pm to Jack Ruby
I agree Kav and ACB have been total disappointments for sure. This is a white guilt move by these 2. Irony being the one black male doesn't agree with them. They got into the swamp and now are inconsistent. Gorsuch unfortunately opened up the gates for the current tranny garbage we are seeing.
I've said it before, my biggest concern during this Biden term, now that the senate is totally Dem thanks to GA and PA, is that Thomas or Alito will be "Scalia'd."
At this point, Roberts tenure as head SCOTUS has flipped every American opinion on how things should be. Reading the Constitution and doing your best to understand has been destroyed by the Commicrats, and Roberts has helped destroy any consistency on the fundamentals.
I've said it before, my biggest concern during this Biden term, now that the senate is totally Dem thanks to GA and PA, is that Thomas or Alito will be "Scalia'd."
At this point, Roberts tenure as head SCOTUS has flipped every American opinion on how things should be. Reading the Constitution and doing your best to understand has been destroyed by the Commicrats, and Roberts has helped destroy any consistency on the fundamentals.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 12:52 pm to Jack Ruby
Overturned R v W, busts...
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:03 pm to fjlee90
quote:
Bet a lot of you would be upset if it was California gerrymandering districts.
To call a spade a spade, it might be time to sue states like California that gerrymander to favor Democrats.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:14 pm to Jack Ruby
This can’t be true, I saw a picture of ACB with red glowing eyes on this very board
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:16 pm to Jack Ruby
They are frightened. It worked. SCC Justices have to watch their back. Sad.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:24 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
This can’t be true, I saw a picture of ACB with red glowing eyes on this very board
This board was so infatuated with ACB because she was a female Catholic. They didn't look any further than that.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:27 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
If you don't like this decision, you don't like the idea of checks and balances, or the Constitution, for that matter.
Agreed. Many here are just emotional and see that this particular decision swings against a Republican legislature.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:32 pm to Jack Ruby
Ironic that this is a case from NC, where Mel Watt was consistently re-elected in a 'district' that was literally designed to elect a black person. Some parts of his district were barely wider than the interstate.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:33 pm to Tandemjay
quote:
Trump was only given appointment choices that Mitch (GOPe uni-party side) would let get thru the senate.
F the GOPe.
Trump didn't put in the work, like most things during his term. Put his faith in the wrong people and got played.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:35 pm to fargobison
I knew Kav was a bad choice when he was first announced.
ACB I am pretty surprised by.
ACB I am pretty surprised by.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:37 pm to Indefatigable
I think they are illiterate also and don't realize this is confirming the state Supreme Court ruling.
The USSC just confirmed the North Carolina SC had the authority to ensure this specific legislative action fell in line with the NC Constitution, which is about as state's rights as you get. The opposite ruling (and I haven't read the ruling or briefs I'm just going by OP's wording) would seem to neuter the NCSC and permit a direct, limited federal overview of state legislative action and create a super legislative model that seems to violate how the NCSC views their state separation/delegation of powers.
The USSC just confirmed the North Carolina SC had the authority to ensure this specific legislative action fell in line with the NC Constitution, which is about as state's rights as you get. The opposite ruling (and I haven't read the ruling or briefs I'm just going by OP's wording) would seem to neuter the NCSC and permit a direct, limited federal overview of state legislative action and create a super legislative model that seems to violate how the NCSC views their state separation/delegation of powers.
This post was edited on 6/27/23 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:37 pm to Tandemjay
quote:
Trump was only given appointment choices that Mitch (GOPe uni-party side) would let get thru the senate.
F the GOPe.
Trump was Mitch's puppet?
Posted on 6/27/23 at 1:48 pm to jlnoles79
quote:
Trump was only given appointment choices that Mitch (GOPe uni-party side) would let get thru the senate.
F the GOPe.
quote:
Trump was Mitch's puppet?
This is the same poster talking about Trump's shite pick of Christopher Wray:
quote:
We have been through this fed boy. Trump was only given appointment choices that Mitch (your uni-party side) would let get thru the senate.
No wonder he never went "scorched earth" the first time around; Mitch wouldn't give him permission.
Tandemjay couldn't come up with an excuse for Reince Priebus, so he just ghosted the thread.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 2:06 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
They are the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws
I always forget this. Which part of Article III grants the supreme court the power to determine constitutionality of state laws?
Posted on 6/27/23 at 2:08 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
Kav and ACB are complete SCOTUS busts by Jack Ruby
So trump failed yet again?
Color me shocked
Posted on 6/27/23 at 2:09 pm to notsince98
quote:
I always forget this. Which part of Article III grants the supreme court the power to determine constitutionality of state laws?
Well nothing in Article 3 specifically, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is how.
But the USSC just confirmed the ruling of the NCSC, so I'm not sure what you're really arguing here.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well nothing in Article 3 specifically, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is how.
But the USSC just confirmed the ruling of the NCSC, so I'm not sure what you're really arguing here.
Not arguing anything. Just questioning the claim that the USSC has been granted the authority you mentioned.
I can't find anything in the 14th that grants that power to the USSC either, though.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 2:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yeah. I'm not really seeing this as some huge horrible call. I can see the minority position here as arguably correct, and, I can see the majority decision here as arguably correct.
Neither is egregiously out of bounds.
Now, what I would like to see a court rule is that gerrymandering is ALWAYS illegal.........even done to craete majority minority districts. Liberals claim to oppose gerrymandering but that's not the case at all.
They want to keep gerrymandering for their gimme districts, then split the REST of them "fairly" which is just dumb.
Neither is egregiously out of bounds.
Now, what I would like to see a court rule is that gerrymandering is ALWAYS illegal.........even done to craete majority minority districts. Liberals claim to oppose gerrymandering but that's not the case at all.
They want to keep gerrymandering for their gimme districts, then split the REST of them "fairly" which is just dumb.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 2:55 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
Complicating the matter was the fact that the state’s Supreme Court flipped after the 2022 midterms, with the subsequent GOP majority ruling that they did not have oversight in the matter. The 4-3 Democrat-leaning court turned into a 5-2 Republican-leaning court.
It was the 4-3 Democrat state supreme court that ruled against the GOP map. The GOP legislature took the case all the way up to USSCOTUS. USSCOTUS basically ruled in favor of the 4-3 Democrat state supreme court.
Now that the NC state supreme court is 5-2 Republican leaning can the NC state legislature move forward with a tweaked GOP leaning map then the Dems will challenge and eventually the NC state supreme court will rule in the legislature's favor and it will be backed by the USSCOTUS?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News