Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[bogh]

They haven't yet ruled against one man one vote.

If they decide to stand aside and let state legislatures have a free hand at disenfranchising opposition voters, they effectively rule against one man one vote. So that does look like it's coming.

Something not mentioned which I heard on NPR about guns: the new test they have adopted is whether a gun control law is "consistent with American tradition and history."  As a nerd I kind of like that.

Except their decision has zero consistency with actual American tradition and history. And there's quite a bit of American tradition and history that probably shouldn't be a yardstick for modern day jurisprudence.

[Admiral Yi]

If they decide to stand aside and let state legislatures have a free hand at disenfranchising opposition voters, they effectively rule against one man one vote. So that does look like it's coming.

I don't respond to the accusations of suppression as vehemently as most people do.

Except their decision has zero consistency with actual American tradition and history. And there's quite a bit of American tradition and history that probably shouldn't be a yardstick for modern day jurisprudence.

I agree.  I think they've built a glaring vulnerability into their argument.  With the first part more than the second part.

[bogh]

I don't respond to the accusations of suppression as vehemently as most people do.

You don't see any issue with a state legislature being able to actually go ahead with "stop the steal" type reversals of election outcomes completely unchecked?

[garbon]

Why?

Because i'll have a relatively well informed basis on which to judge their rulings.

I see. Well for myself I'm a bit more horrified as there are some very suspect traditional things in American history.

[Admiral Yi]

You don't see any issue with a state legislature being able to actually go ahead with "stop the steal" type reversals of election outcomes completely unchecked?

I think that's the single greatest threat to America at the moment.  It might be a semantic issue, as I don't see that falling under voter suppression, which I think of as measures that make it less convenient to vote.

[bogh]

I think that's the single greatest threat to America at the moment.  It might be a semantic issue, as I don't see that falling under voter suppression, which I think of as measures that make it less convenient to vote.

If the SC rules that elections are entirely within the purview of state legislatures, they're effectively saying there would be no constitutional guard rails against a "stop the steal". That essentially removes one man, one vote as a universal right. Hard to see them vote against one man, one vote more directly in my mind.

[Sheilbh]

Expanding the court seems like the only way to go if it can be attained?

My understanding is that's just regulated by normal legislation - it's not in the constitution. So a majority vote could do it.

Because i'll have a relatively well informed basis on which to judge their rulings.

True and frankly, like me, you'll probably have about as well informed a basis for using history as the judges themselves. So at least there's a level playing field.

Luckily if there's one thing we can rely on its a bunch of sixty and seventy year old men keeping up to date with modern scholarship and not just rejecting it out of hand if it doesn't confirm their priors.

[Admiral Yi]

If the SC rules that elections are entirely within the purview of state legislatures, they're effectively saying there would be no constitutional guard rails against a "stop the steal". That essentially removes one man, one vote as a universal right. Hard to see them vote against one man, one vote more directly in my mind.

As I understand it, a ruling isn't needed as that is consistent with the constitution, which states, if memory serves that states can appoint electors in a manner of their choosing.  The impediment is rather that the states have all passed legislation that says the electors will be chosen by popular ballot.  If some states voted to take that power back there is not a great deal we could do about it except vote them out of office.  Or secede.  Or start a civil war.

[bogh]

As I understand it, a ruling isn't needed as that is consistent with the constitution, which states, if memory serves that states can appoint electors in a manner of their choosing.  The impediment is rather that the states have all passed legislation that says the electors will be chosen by popular ballot.  If some states voted to take that power back there is not a great deal we could do about it except vote them out of office.  Or secede.  Or start a civil war.

Here is an article from NPR summing up the issue
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1106866830/supreme-court-to-take-on-controversial-election-law-case?t=1656662737188

I am bit confused by your position? Your original contention was that they hadn't ruled against one man, one vote (and you seemed to imply that they wouldn't). Now your position seems to be that the SC in fact has no impact on one man, one vote, so they really can't rule against it? So do you think we should:

- Be alarmed by the prospect of them ruling against one man, one vote?
- Not be alarmed because they won't rule against one man, one vote?
- Not be alarmed because one man, one vote isn't really protected constitutionally (and be extension the SC can't undermine it)?

[Admiral Yi]

Here is an article from NPR summing up the issue
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1106866830/supreme-court-to-take-on-controversial-election-law-case?t=1656662737188

I am bit confused by your position? Your original contention was that they hadn't ruled against one man, one vote (and you seemed to imply that they wouldn't). Now your position seems to be that the SC in fact has no impact on one man, one vote, so they really can't rule against it? So do you think we should:

- Be alarmed by the prospect of them ruling against one man, one vote?
- Not be alarmed because they won't rule against one man, one vote?
- Not be alarmed because one man, one vote isn't really protected constitutionally (and be extension the SC can't undermine it)?

If a state legislature took back the autority to choose electors by legislation I would be horrified.  If a state legislature used that power to overturn a contrary popular vote I would be even more horrified.  It would be the end of democracy.

If the Supreme Court their upholds their right to do so, I would not have grounds to object.

The crime lies in overturning an election, not in the court upholding their action.

[Sheilbh]

I think there's something to that. I keep on mentioning the minoritarian/counter-majoritarian points in the US system - but I think it's really key. The constitution is not a democratic document but I think American self-understanding and practice has been that it is a popular democracy since, at the latest, the 60s.

Until now no party has used those counter-majoritarian features as a way of blocking and, to a large extent, deciding how politics functions from the position of a minority - but the GOP have (in my view in the interests of oligarchs with lots of money and the religious right), because they can. It's in the system and always has been. They may actually start to win majorities from that position - I think if they dump Trump and move on to DeSantis that will help, but also just the move of Latino voters to the GOP over the last few years looks quite significant and there is a majority if enough join that coalition.

It's also why I don't think the "restorationist"/"protect the institutions" attitude is one that actually meets the challenge of what's happening. It's sort of linked to Garbon's point about American traditions - popular democracy is a relatively recent one.

[alfred russel]

It isn't clear, looking just at the text, how anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity and ability could conclude that an amendment whose first three words are "a well--regulated militia" does not have anything to do with a well-regulated militia.

From just the text, I think the conclusion: "the right enshrined is the right to keep and bear arms without infringement, and the beginning discussing the militia is a preamble establishing the reason for the right."

[Berkut]

If they decide to stand aside and let state legislatures have a free hand at disenfranchising opposition voters, they effectively rule against one man one vote. So that does look like it's coming.

I don't respond to the accusations of suppression as vehemently as most people do.

Except their decision has zero consistency with actual American tradition and history. And there's quite a bit of American tradition and history that probably shouldn't be a yardstick for modern day jurisprudence.

I agree.  I think they've built a glaring vulnerability into their argument.  With the first part more than the second part.

It isn't a vulnerability though, as you already pointed out with your own reasoning.

You just pick and choose which parts you pretend to care about. If something is "puzzling" you just ignore it in favor of the parts that lead you to the conclusion you already chose.

And you don't have to worry about the "other side" doing the same, because the "other side" isn't going to use the salad bar method of post hoc justification anyway, because it is demonstrably idiotic. If they get the power to fix the mess, they are not going to use this "tradition/textualism" word salad mumbo jumbo anyway.

[Berkut]

Why?

Because i'll have a relatively well informed basis on which to judge their rulings.

I see. Well for myself I'm a bit more horrified as there are some very suspect traditional things in American history.

Look, sometimes in history white people used their guns to make sure they could lynch black people. They even used those guns to stop other white people from interfering!

So you just have to accept that the nerds in all of us will appreciate how neatly that fits into our understanding of history.

[The Minsky Moment]

They haven't yet ruled against one man one vote.

If the Moore case goes as expected it is not clear that principle survives, as it would appear to give each of the 50 state legislatures the power to undo that in federal elections.

Something not mentioned which I heard on NPR about guns: the new test they have adopted is whether a gun control law is "consistent with American tradition and history."  As a nerd I kind of like that.

As a nerd you should not because -- understanding what it involved in a study of 18th century history - you know that such a study is not within the competence of the Court and could not give determinate answers even if it was.

The court's actual review of the history demonstrates the problems. In addition to each side cherry picking examples, rather than making a neutral and fair assessment of the historical evidence as a whole, the majority wrongly assumes that simply because state or colonial legislatures didn't pass laws on specific subjects, that must mean the legislatures believed they didn't have the power to do so.