The Supreme Court decided to preserve democracy tuesday after a full year to hold the nation in suspense by wondering how it would reign in the event of Moore v. Harper, which could have given the near absolute power of federal elections to the state legislatures. That there was always talk of the highest court in the land adopting a crackpot theory based on a 200 year old lie demonstrates that we have a serious problem with this tribunal and that something must be done about it.
The court rejected the idea that state legislatures have the ultimate authority to decide matters relating to elections, both state and federal, and cannot be overruled by governors or state supreme courts when It’s about developing electoral policy. It’s as radical an argument to come to court as any in recent memory, and the fact that the court even accepted it in the first place is an indication of just how dangerous this court’s tilt really is. Three justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissenting on this decision are also quite frightening.
The majority rejected the most extreme interpretation of the theory offered by the North Carolina Republicans, but compromised somewhat by don’t set a standard for when states overstep their bounds by establishing election laws. “We only argue that state courts cannot transgress the ordinary limits of judicial review so that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. What these “ordinary limits” are is left open. This means that the court keeps the final say on state laws regarding election disputes for itself. This means that judicial elections for the Supreme Court – with the gerrymandering, restrictions and repressive efforts that accompany them – will continue.
Also applies what the court did on monday, planning the next session. He announced he was handling part of the 2017 GOP tax scam. The plaintiffs, Charles and Kathleen Moore, argue the law violated the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to collect federal taxes on income with a single “compulsory repatriation tax”. “, obliging people who hold large stakes in foreign companies to pay taxes on this income. The challenge goes far beyond this single provision of this single law, which has only been imposed on people once. They want the court to rule on if Congress has the power to adopt a “wealth tax,” like the billionaire tax that Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats have championed. The argument they are trying to make is that wealth and assets are not income and therefore cannot be taxed as such. Moore’s attorneys specifically said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, they argued for “closing the door on a federal wealth tax like the one Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to enact.”
This is a case that normally would not even be heard by the Supreme Court. There is no disagreement in the lower courts, which is the usual trigger for the higher court to take a case to settle the dispute. Specifically, however, the Supreme Court has no right to dictate to Congress what legislation it can or cannot hypothetically pass. We don’t know which of the judges decided to hear this case; it only takes four of them to make that decision, and they usually do so anonymously.
The court showed some restraint this session, reserving some pleasant surprises, particularly in terms of voting rights. It’s a good indication that he’s reacting to the public outrage that has focused on the court since it struck down abortion rights last year. Not to mention Alito and Thomas’ ever-growing ethical issues. This is a good reason to maintain the pace of court reform.
This includes applying a code of ethics bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee will examine after the July recess. This could include establishing an 18-year term limit and ensuring that each president can appoint two judges per four-year term.
The other really critical reason is that there are still six scary people on the ground who can pull the rug out from under democracy at any time. That’s why expanding the court must be a serious option for Democrats. This majority is far too dangerous and must be countered.
RELATED STORIES:
Supreme Court rejects radical GOP theory that would reduce curbs on gerrymandering
Lies and fraud became the basis of the Trump-filled Supreme Court majority
