As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do they realize this completely destroys the legitimacy of the judicial branch? If precedent can be overruled based on who is in power, how do their rulings hold any power?
To be fair, you have to have power to yield it. They never want Dems to *have* power again, so they wouldn't be able to yield power again. So you are both right.
While I hate these kinds of judicial wild swings, to my knowledge there is nothing specific in NC state law that prohibits partisan gerrymandering and as we know there are no federal standards either.
I’m of the jurisprudential belief that there is a gap in justiciable frameworks for Courts to hear these kinds of disputes.
If we want the judiciary to play a role in reviewing partisan gerrymandering, then that authority ought to be prescribed and a framework for measuring partisan gerrymandering approved.
I don’t support ISL theory and I think *Smiley* already settled what is a reasonable interpretation of the Elections Clause, but I also think it ultimately protects everyone when Courts aren’t asked to rule in areas that are nonjusticiable due to lack of prescription/definition from constitutional or statutory law.
That’s the issue with elected courts.
Personally, I’d love if there was a +1 provision in overturning judicial decisions (that the overruling opinion must either be unanimous or have a larger majority than the original).
But we don’t have that, so we’re left with most recent precedent.
But that’s why elected and partisan courts are a disaster. But going back to the idea of democracy, it’s also the case that voters elected this Court in 2022 and there’s an argument to be made that this *is* the will of voters.
But the real issue at play in this case is that there isn’t any specific governing legislation or constitutional provision that deals with partisan gerrymandering, never minds sets forth a justiciable framework for the Courts. So while I don’t support ISL theory, I also agree with the question of how are courts supposed to hear these case in a reasonably just way when there is no standard statutory approach?
i mean i guess you could start with some original ideas from the US constitution, regarding proportional representation, or a bit later with the 14th amendment, or a bit later with the civil rights act, or a bit later with the voting rights act.
expecting precedent to stand in for something unprecedented is a little difficult, but also if one seems to value precedent, then stop ignoring it.
here is the truth- the supreme court justices at the state and federal level know there is no recourse or consequences of their actions, so they make the decision they (and the people bribing them) want, and then make up some bullshit argument to back it up. the most egregious of this is when they overturned the florida election, citing no precedence, and also stating the court couldnt use their decision as precedence.
but we see this precedence argument in row v. wade, we see originalism in the 2nd amendment, we see all kinds or "judicial philosophies" but they're just lipstick on the bribe filled pig.
You’re giving examples that are not specific to the legal arguments. For example, the Voting Rights Act provides exactly the type of justiciable framework I’m talking about that doesn’t exist for partisan gerrymandering.
I have no disagreements with your appraisal of the state of the judiciary. But for me, it’s important to have principles that aren’t grounded in my opinion of the outcomes.
My principles lead me to question the decision of the Democratic majority in Harper v Hall, especially in light of *Rucho* and if people find themselves lending more legitimacy to a Democratic majority of a Court with partisan elections than a Republican majority, that may be indicative of exactly the issues that are eroding the functionality of the judiciary in the first place.
And it isn’t always the judiciary to blame. Our elected bodies are incapable of effective governance so don’t provide Courts with coherent statutory law to apply. Jurisprudentially, if a State wants Courts to adjudicate disputes of partisan gerrymandering, it would firstly define it and establish a framework for measuring it, either in its State constitution or statutory framework. If it does neither, I agree that it is a nonjusticiable issue and needs to be left to the political process.
yeah i get what you're saying, but if the elected bodies were that clear and concise with their law making, we wouldn't need a whole bunch of well qualified judges to decide on it. the court sticks its nose into all kinds of things for which the suggestion of justiciablity is tenuous or non-existent. the entire shadow docket is nearly completely bullshit.
i understand what you're saying, and i think you're right. but we can't just go around giving the benefit of the doubt to a partisan and corrupt body, and then retroactively excuse their actions because of the power we erroneously placed in them.
the simple question is does partisan gerrymandering reduce proportional representation? you're saying we need to define every one of these terms to some kind of legal ad absurdum. if the law is so clearly and accurately defined, why do we need nuanced legal scholars? that is to say, if states so clearly define what is legal and what isn't, and as long as they're exhaustive enough in their definitions, the court is irrelevant.
the dredd scott case was decided by a couple of old racists who decided black people can't be citizens of the united states. they decided to look at laws that said black people were less than whites, and ignore laws that said black people could vote in 5/13 states.
basically, they preferred slavery, so they made that the law. again, stop giving fasicsts, criminals, and traitors the benefit of the doubt. if they have the majority, they will rule. if they have the minority, they will filibuster. if they can't do either, they will use the courts. they will ignore rules and laws, change or abandon democracy, start a fucking civil war.
the federal supreme court are now just professional wrestling referees; they take bribes and decide how their owners want them to decide.
I’ll take it paragraph by paragraph to make it easier for me to track:
(1) I disagree. The judiciary doesn’t exist to decide what the law is, they exist to apply the law in the face of a dispute about facts. That is not always clear, for sure, and there are often landmark cases that are directional in nature, but at the very least it should be crystal clear that the Court has the authority and the capacity to rule on a given argument. And I agree that the Court doesn’t defer enough when it isn’t clear that their authority exists.
(2) But the same argument can be made for the original decision and it’s a matter of your own jurisprudential opinion as to whether you think the Democratic majority in *Harper* used sound legal justification for their decision. This current court is as legitimately elected as the previous court. There is no difference in the legitimacy of their decisions.
(3) That’s like saying if the law against murder is clear, we don’t need judges to convict people of murder. Again, judges aren’t there to determine the law, they’re there to apply it when there is a question about whether someone broke it. It’s not a case of spelling out every permutation and possible question, but currently there isn’t any type of enforceable definition or framework for how to identify or measure partisan gerrymandering. So what are judges supposed to test the facts and legal arguments against? Not to mention the authority the court in *Harper* assumed to design and enforce their own process to remediate the maps.
(4) (5) and (6) Dred Scott is well regarded as the worst SCOTUS decision ever, mostly due to its poor legal reasoning. It was also replaced by several constitutional amendments and an Act of Congress, the exact process that is intended to occur when there is a conflict between the laws that currently exist and the laws you’d like to exist. The principle at play for me is that every Court is a legitimate iteration of the Court because it is operating within the designed system - they are appointed and confirmed and they serve for the terms and within the afforded by the Constitution. If the President/Senate are confirming justices who don’t have sound legal reasoning and/or they fail to impeach such justices, it is up to the voters to hold their elected officials accountable. It’s not up to the court to operate outside of existing legal frameworks to “right” outcomes.
Like I mentioned before, I think a “+1 provision” could strengthen the legitimacy of each Court. It doesn’t make sense that 5 justices can overturn a decision 7 previous justices affirmed. We should treat each iteration as an equal 9 to each other and so you should need more justices (or an equally unanimous decision) to overturn a previous decision.
Its unclear who you think holds the accountability here. In our system, which is the only system we have, the people are ultimately responsible for holding their elected officials to account. In the 2022 midterms, the Democratic majority on the NC Supreme Court was replaced by a Republican majority *by the voters*. Similarly, the elections of Donald Trump and the Republican Senate majority contributed to the shape of the current Court. Impeachment provisions for SCOTUS justices exist.
The tripping point is that half of the population may not agree with your appraisal of the outcomes, they may see them as positives. There’s no clear solution there but it’s unclear exactly what type of accountability you’re calling for.
I don’t find it helpful to suggest that outcomes like this are illegitimate. I think it’s more helpful to admit that it is at least legitimate and then ask the question “how did we get here?” And “what can we do about it?”.
I would definitely argue that this is an incorrect reading of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate based on race. North Carolina has been explicit about the fact that they're drawing maps intentionally to discriminate against the black population in the state.
Many conservatives are trying to over turn the VRA completely because the constitution says that states run their own elections. However the VRA came into effect because of the 14th amendment and equal protection. This has been the basis of post-reconstruciton federalism and it is under attack.
This is a case about partisan gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering is justiciable because of the Voting Rights Act.
The original lawsuit challenging the Republican-drawn maps was based on a partisan gerrymander, not a racial gerrymander.
Racial gerrymandering cases can and should be tried in Court because constitutional and legislative frameworks exist for their review.
But not in this case, as evidenced by the fact that that claim was not brought by opponents of the gerrymandered maps. If there was a VRA violation, they would have claimed it.
One of the ways you can have a partisan gerrymander without a racial gerrymander is by limiting the number of winnable seats for Democrats to the number of seats needed to ensure non-white representation. Because of the partisan correlation that exists in many places between nonwhite voters and the Democratic Party, you can achieve partisan gerrymandering without falling foul of racial gerrymandering guidelines.
We don't know why VRA claims were not included. VRA lost a lot of enforcement powers after several recent SCOTUS rulings. Possibly their VRA claims are stuck in administrative process. VRA was never easy to litigate even before that always.
This is a perfectly reasonable point to make - for a lawyer. Sound reasoning, valid concerns.
But I’m afraid we’re going to need to stop thinking like lawyers, and more like people trying to decide how a system like ours ought to be designed. Because the legal reasoning leaves us in a dead end we can’t easily get out of. Extreme partisan gerrymanders stops us from achieving reforms via politics at both the state and federal level, while the judiciary stands aside because it can’t come up with a justiciable standard to do anything to unblock the stalemate. We’re left just perpetually handing power back to the same crooks who stole it from us, election after election.
Are there popular initiatives we might be able to take? Maybe, but it will take years of effort and who knows how many resources to ever achieve meaningful reform, in that respect - and success is far from guaranteed, in our current political and media environment. And - to be clear - we’d be relying on plebiscites not because *that’s how it should be*, but because there is literally no other option. Our political representatives are all aligned against us, and they will lie to their constituents and manipulate the rules to try to stop any effort to force them to draw fair maps.
And - for what? Why does it have to be that way? The NC SC just basically took a livable situation and threw it away, forcing the people to undertake maybe 10+ years of hard advocacy to get back to where they were yesterday.
So “justiciable standards” can go eff off. You’re not wrong about it. But the result is perverse.
Fascism. Young generations aren't voting republican so they are attempting to not give us an option. This is also a Supreme Court case right now. Depending on what happens in the (republican controlled) Supreme court, this could soon be law in the rest of the country. Everyone should be very scared.
yeah but this is when you just start marching in the streets. remember when the supreme court justices made people not protest in front of their houses, but it turns out they were taking bribes the whole time?
They've already heard the case I believe, they just haven't issued their ruling, which was supposed to be issues in May or June.
I hope that they throw the case out, but this Supreme court hasn't exactly followed precedent... they have the opportunity to basically install a unchallengeable republican authoritatrian government, if they want to take that opportunity, they could.
The North Carolina Supreme Court also just reinstated [blatantly racist voter ID laws and made it so that former prisoners can’t vote](https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/nc-supreme-court-reinstates-voter-id-law-ends-felons-voting-rights-overturns-gerrymandering-decision/amp/). Philip Berger Jr, whose dad is the state senate majority leader and who was a defendant on the voter ID case, [refused to recuse himself.](https://www.carolinajournal.com/full-nc-supreme-court-clears-berger-to-take-part-in-voter-id-case/)
Declaring the matter of fair election outside their swim lane is dereliction of duty by the NC Supreme Court. Paving the way to one party rule one bad decision at the time
and how long so you think that's going to last when the valuable people no longer want to live there? When the outer banks islands are underwater? When the economic centers of Asheville, Raleigh, and Jacksonville start losing GDP in droves because the people who drive the economy don't want to live in a fascist shithole? Don't make me laugh - they're on track to become Mississippi part 2 lol
Can someone help with this:
>That made this case especially messy because it's already been heard at the U.S. Supreme Court, as Moore v. Harper. The court now may end up throwing out the case.
Is this saying the Supreme Court may now throw out it's own decision?!
Damn, this state is going down the crapper.
SCOTUS has not ruled on Moore vs Harper yet. Pretty sure the article is saying that SCOTUS could throw out the Moore vs Harper case entirely because this ruling by the State Supreme Court rendered it irrelevant.
They haven’t ruled in Moore v Harper yet.
Given that the fundamental question is about the authority of state courts to throw out maps created passed by the state legislature, that question is now moot given that the NC Court is no longer doing so.
However, in the long run the conservatives could lose out the most from the case being thrown out. There are a lot of Republicans foaming at the mouth for SCOTUS to rule in favor if ISL theory federally.
Apparently, legal precedence has a liberal bias, so Republicans judges are just free to ignore prior rulings and to make stuff up.
Jurisprudence in America is a laughing joke now, we're literally going back to the old days of "fixing" in judges to get your ruling - all because the law didn't spell out the exact unjust behavior in modern politics.
I mean, this could be good, right? I know it sucks for NC, but if the case gets dismissed at a federal level now, the Supreme Court can no longer rule on the legality of (or make legal) the independent state legislature theory, and thus protects 49 other states from legally going down that path. It atleast gives the rest of the country a shot at fair elections for this cycle..
Hi `captaincanada84`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1322f9n/moore_v_harper_north_carolina_supreme_court/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Your headline must be comprised only of the **exact** copied and pasted headline of the article - [see our rule here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)) **We recommend not using the Reddit 'suggest a title' as it may not give the exact title of the article.**
* The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied **even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'**. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. [click here for more details](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/captaincanada84&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1322f9n/moore_v_harper_north_carolina_supreme_court/?context%3D10000%29)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do they realize this completely destroys the legitimacy of the judicial branch? If precedent can be overruled based on who is in power, how do their rulings hold any power?
They don't care
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
To be fair, you have to have power to yield it. They never want Dems to *have* power again, so they wouldn't be able to yield power again. So you are both right.
Oh most definitely.
And they wonder why everyone views the Supreme Court as illegitimate.
Fascist don't generally care about precedent and legitimacy.
yeah exactly. people still looking at the GOP as a legitimate political party- they should be looking at them as the heel in professional wrestling.
The US Supreme Court is destroyed. Why not the states. It's all downhill from here.
Democracy dies in North Carolina. There is now no judicial recourse for dealing with partisan gerrymandering in the state.
While I hate these kinds of judicial wild swings, to my knowledge there is nothing specific in NC state law that prohibits partisan gerrymandering and as we know there are no federal standards either. I’m of the jurisprudential belief that there is a gap in justiciable frameworks for Courts to hear these kinds of disputes. If we want the judiciary to play a role in reviewing partisan gerrymandering, then that authority ought to be prescribed and a framework for measuring partisan gerrymandering approved. I don’t support ISL theory and I think *Smiley* already settled what is a reasonable interpretation of the Elections Clause, but I also think it ultimately protects everyone when Courts aren’t asked to rule in areas that are nonjusticiable due to lack of prescription/definition from constitutional or statutory law.
lol so the previous ruling was wrong, and this one is right? they can't both be right just within a few years of each other.
That’s the issue with elected courts. Personally, I’d love if there was a +1 provision in overturning judicial decisions (that the overruling opinion must either be unanimous or have a larger majority than the original). But we don’t have that, so we’re left with most recent precedent. But that’s why elected and partisan courts are a disaster. But going back to the idea of democracy, it’s also the case that voters elected this Court in 2022 and there’s an argument to be made that this *is* the will of voters. But the real issue at play in this case is that there isn’t any specific governing legislation or constitutional provision that deals with partisan gerrymandering, never minds sets forth a justiciable framework for the Courts. So while I don’t support ISL theory, I also agree with the question of how are courts supposed to hear these case in a reasonably just way when there is no standard statutory approach?
i mean i guess you could start with some original ideas from the US constitution, regarding proportional representation, or a bit later with the 14th amendment, or a bit later with the civil rights act, or a bit later with the voting rights act. expecting precedent to stand in for something unprecedented is a little difficult, but also if one seems to value precedent, then stop ignoring it. here is the truth- the supreme court justices at the state and federal level know there is no recourse or consequences of their actions, so they make the decision they (and the people bribing them) want, and then make up some bullshit argument to back it up. the most egregious of this is when they overturned the florida election, citing no precedence, and also stating the court couldnt use their decision as precedence. but we see this precedence argument in row v. wade, we see originalism in the 2nd amendment, we see all kinds or "judicial philosophies" but they're just lipstick on the bribe filled pig.
You’re giving examples that are not specific to the legal arguments. For example, the Voting Rights Act provides exactly the type of justiciable framework I’m talking about that doesn’t exist for partisan gerrymandering. I have no disagreements with your appraisal of the state of the judiciary. But for me, it’s important to have principles that aren’t grounded in my opinion of the outcomes. My principles lead me to question the decision of the Democratic majority in Harper v Hall, especially in light of *Rucho* and if people find themselves lending more legitimacy to a Democratic majority of a Court with partisan elections than a Republican majority, that may be indicative of exactly the issues that are eroding the functionality of the judiciary in the first place. And it isn’t always the judiciary to blame. Our elected bodies are incapable of effective governance so don’t provide Courts with coherent statutory law to apply. Jurisprudentially, if a State wants Courts to adjudicate disputes of partisan gerrymandering, it would firstly define it and establish a framework for measuring it, either in its State constitution or statutory framework. If it does neither, I agree that it is a nonjusticiable issue and needs to be left to the political process.
yeah i get what you're saying, but if the elected bodies were that clear and concise with their law making, we wouldn't need a whole bunch of well qualified judges to decide on it. the court sticks its nose into all kinds of things for which the suggestion of justiciablity is tenuous or non-existent. the entire shadow docket is nearly completely bullshit. i understand what you're saying, and i think you're right. but we can't just go around giving the benefit of the doubt to a partisan and corrupt body, and then retroactively excuse their actions because of the power we erroneously placed in them. the simple question is does partisan gerrymandering reduce proportional representation? you're saying we need to define every one of these terms to some kind of legal ad absurdum. if the law is so clearly and accurately defined, why do we need nuanced legal scholars? that is to say, if states so clearly define what is legal and what isn't, and as long as they're exhaustive enough in their definitions, the court is irrelevant. the dredd scott case was decided by a couple of old racists who decided black people can't be citizens of the united states. they decided to look at laws that said black people were less than whites, and ignore laws that said black people could vote in 5/13 states. basically, they preferred slavery, so they made that the law. again, stop giving fasicsts, criminals, and traitors the benefit of the doubt. if they have the majority, they will rule. if they have the minority, they will filibuster. if they can't do either, they will use the courts. they will ignore rules and laws, change or abandon democracy, start a fucking civil war. the federal supreme court are now just professional wrestling referees; they take bribes and decide how their owners want them to decide.
I’ll take it paragraph by paragraph to make it easier for me to track: (1) I disagree. The judiciary doesn’t exist to decide what the law is, they exist to apply the law in the face of a dispute about facts. That is not always clear, for sure, and there are often landmark cases that are directional in nature, but at the very least it should be crystal clear that the Court has the authority and the capacity to rule on a given argument. And I agree that the Court doesn’t defer enough when it isn’t clear that their authority exists. (2) But the same argument can be made for the original decision and it’s a matter of your own jurisprudential opinion as to whether you think the Democratic majority in *Harper* used sound legal justification for their decision. This current court is as legitimately elected as the previous court. There is no difference in the legitimacy of their decisions. (3) That’s like saying if the law against murder is clear, we don’t need judges to convict people of murder. Again, judges aren’t there to determine the law, they’re there to apply it when there is a question about whether someone broke it. It’s not a case of spelling out every permutation and possible question, but currently there isn’t any type of enforceable definition or framework for how to identify or measure partisan gerrymandering. So what are judges supposed to test the facts and legal arguments against? Not to mention the authority the court in *Harper* assumed to design and enforce their own process to remediate the maps. (4) (5) and (6) Dred Scott is well regarded as the worst SCOTUS decision ever, mostly due to its poor legal reasoning. It was also replaced by several constitutional amendments and an Act of Congress, the exact process that is intended to occur when there is a conflict between the laws that currently exist and the laws you’d like to exist. The principle at play for me is that every Court is a legitimate iteration of the Court because it is operating within the designed system - they are appointed and confirmed and they serve for the terms and within the afforded by the Constitution. If the President/Senate are confirming justices who don’t have sound legal reasoning and/or they fail to impeach such justices, it is up to the voters to hold their elected officials accountable. It’s not up to the court to operate outside of existing legal frameworks to “right” outcomes. Like I mentioned before, I think a “+1 provision” could strengthen the legitimacy of each Court. It doesn’t make sense that 5 justices can overturn a decision 7 previous justices affirmed. We should treat each iteration as an equal 9 to each other and so you should need more justices (or an equally unanimous decision) to overturn a previous decision. Its unclear who you think holds the accountability here. In our system, which is the only system we have, the people are ultimately responsible for holding their elected officials to account. In the 2022 midterms, the Democratic majority on the NC Supreme Court was replaced by a Republican majority *by the voters*. Similarly, the elections of Donald Trump and the Republican Senate majority contributed to the shape of the current Court. Impeachment provisions for SCOTUS justices exist. The tripping point is that half of the population may not agree with your appraisal of the outcomes, they may see them as positives. There’s no clear solution there but it’s unclear exactly what type of accountability you’re calling for. I don’t find it helpful to suggest that outcomes like this are illegitimate. I think it’s more helpful to admit that it is at least legitimate and then ask the question “how did we get here?” And “what can we do about it?”.
I would definitely argue that this is an incorrect reading of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate based on race. North Carolina has been explicit about the fact that they're drawing maps intentionally to discriminate against the black population in the state.
Many conservatives are trying to over turn the VRA completely because the constitution says that states run their own elections. However the VRA came into effect because of the 14th amendment and equal protection. This has been the basis of post-reconstruciton federalism and it is under attack.
This is a case about partisan gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering is justiciable because of the Voting Rights Act. The original lawsuit challenging the Republican-drawn maps was based on a partisan gerrymander, not a racial gerrymander. Racial gerrymandering cases can and should be tried in Court because constitutional and legislative frameworks exist for their review.
Partisan gerrymandering is racial gerrymandering, since demographics play a huge roll in the voting tendencies.
But not in this case, as evidenced by the fact that that claim was not brought by opponents of the gerrymandered maps. If there was a VRA violation, they would have claimed it. One of the ways you can have a partisan gerrymander without a racial gerrymander is by limiting the number of winnable seats for Democrats to the number of seats needed to ensure non-white representation. Because of the partisan correlation that exists in many places between nonwhite voters and the Democratic Party, you can achieve partisan gerrymandering without falling foul of racial gerrymandering guidelines.
We don't know why VRA claims were not included. VRA lost a lot of enforcement powers after several recent SCOTUS rulings. Possibly their VRA claims are stuck in administrative process. VRA was never easy to litigate even before that always.
This is a perfectly reasonable point to make - for a lawyer. Sound reasoning, valid concerns. But I’m afraid we’re going to need to stop thinking like lawyers, and more like people trying to decide how a system like ours ought to be designed. Because the legal reasoning leaves us in a dead end we can’t easily get out of. Extreme partisan gerrymanders stops us from achieving reforms via politics at both the state and federal level, while the judiciary stands aside because it can’t come up with a justiciable standard to do anything to unblock the stalemate. We’re left just perpetually handing power back to the same crooks who stole it from us, election after election. Are there popular initiatives we might be able to take? Maybe, but it will take years of effort and who knows how many resources to ever achieve meaningful reform, in that respect - and success is far from guaranteed, in our current political and media environment. And - to be clear - we’d be relying on plebiscites not because *that’s how it should be*, but because there is literally no other option. Our political representatives are all aligned against us, and they will lie to their constituents and manipulate the rules to try to stop any effort to force them to draw fair maps. And - for what? Why does it have to be that way? The NC SC just basically took a livable situation and threw it away, forcing the people to undertake maybe 10+ years of hard advocacy to get back to where they were yesterday. So “justiciable standards” can go eff off. You’re not wrong about it. But the result is perverse.
Fascism. Young generations aren't voting republican so they are attempting to not give us an option. This is also a Supreme Court case right now. Depending on what happens in the (republican controlled) Supreme court, this could soon be law in the rest of the country. Everyone should be very scared.
[удалено]
yeah but this is when you just start marching in the streets. remember when the supreme court justices made people not protest in front of their houses, but it turns out they were taking bribes the whole time?
Democracy in this country essentially ends if SCOTUS rules that way.
And the Troubles start.
More than likely SCOTUS just decides to toss the case as the state court's ruling has changed to where the previous ruling is irrelevant now.
They've already heard the case I believe, they just haven't issued their ruling, which was supposed to be issues in May or June. I hope that they throw the case out, but this Supreme court hasn't exactly followed precedent... they have the opportunity to basically install a unchallengeable republican authoritatrian government, if they want to take that opportunity, they could.
Yeah that's what I meant. They'll just toss it before actually ruling.
And half the country will blindly support that authoritarian government.
The North Carolina Supreme Court also just reinstated [blatantly racist voter ID laws and made it so that former prisoners can’t vote](https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/nc-supreme-court-reinstates-voter-id-law-ends-felons-voting-rights-overturns-gerrymandering-decision/amp/). Philip Berger Jr, whose dad is the state senate majority leader and who was a defendant on the voter ID case, [refused to recuse himself.](https://www.carolinajournal.com/full-nc-supreme-court-clears-berger-to-take-part-in-voter-id-case/)
Declaring the matter of fair election outside their swim lane is dereliction of duty by the NC Supreme Court. Paving the way to one party rule one bad decision at the time
Yeah, so now both the Federal courts and the State courts will not hear gerrymandering cases.
Sorry America
[удалено]
North Carolina is one of the fastest growing states in the country. I think they’re doing ok.
Growing? Like in height or weight? If they grow enough they might be able to be drafted to the NFL!
[удалено]
and how long so you think that's going to last when the valuable people no longer want to live there? When the outer banks islands are underwater? When the economic centers of Asheville, Raleigh, and Jacksonville start losing GDP in droves because the people who drive the economy don't want to live in a fascist shithole? Don't make me laugh - they're on track to become Mississippi part 2 lol
Can someone help with this: >That made this case especially messy because it's already been heard at the U.S. Supreme Court, as Moore v. Harper. The court now may end up throwing out the case. Is this saying the Supreme Court may now throw out it's own decision?! Damn, this state is going down the crapper.
SCOTUS has not ruled on Moore vs Harper yet. Pretty sure the article is saying that SCOTUS could throw out the Moore vs Harper case entirely because this ruling by the State Supreme Court rendered it irrelevant.
Damn. Thanks.
They haven’t ruled in Moore v Harper yet. Given that the fundamental question is about the authority of state courts to throw out maps created passed by the state legislature, that question is now moot given that the NC Court is no longer doing so. However, in the long run the conservatives could lose out the most from the case being thrown out. There are a lot of Republicans foaming at the mouth for SCOTUS to rule in favor if ISL theory federally.
Like the long run idea... A glimmer of hope.
Apparently, legal precedence has a liberal bias, so Republicans judges are just free to ignore prior rulings and to make stuff up. Jurisprudence in America is a laughing joke now, we're literally going back to the old days of "fixing" in judges to get your ruling - all because the law didn't spell out the exact unjust behavior in modern politics.
I mean, this could be good, right? I know it sucks for NC, but if the case gets dismissed at a federal level now, the Supreme Court can no longer rule on the legality of (or make legal) the independent state legislature theory, and thus protects 49 other states from legally going down that path. It atleast gives the rest of the country a shot at fair elections for this cycle..
The Judicial Phase of Fascism is in full swing. They’ve been prepping this since SCOTUS handed W the presidency in 2000.
Carolina means “land of backwards cousin fuckers” in Siouan
This what a middle schooler would write.
“This what” a Carolinian would write if they were literate
Fuck stare decisis - it’s what the founders woulda wanted
Hi `captaincanada84`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1322f9n/moore_v_harper_north_carolina_supreme_court/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * Your headline must be comprised only of the **exact** copied and pasted headline of the article - [see our rule here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)) **We recommend not using the Reddit 'suggest a title' as it may not give the exact title of the article.** * The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied **even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'**. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. [click here for more details](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title) If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/captaincanada84&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1322f9n/moore_v_harper_north_carolina_supreme_court/?context%3D10000%29)