Skip to main content

SCOTUS is Developing a Taste for Chaos

When the current 6-3 Supreme Court agrees to hear a case — no matter how crackpot the legal theory might be — you can be sure we will soon be kissing some important precedent goodbye.

First, they make up their minds, then they hear the arguments. Consequences are for the little people.

With the Dobbs decision, as I’ve written, they’ve upended not just legal precedents, but also the legal institutions that have grown up around those precedents. Generations of case law will now need to be re-litigated, as different states enact different sets of laws based on diametrically opposed worldviews.

State-v.-state lawsuits are already starting to fly, and the legal positions are already being hardened. Interstate cooperation — a crucial component of daily life — is already fraught, and could at any time turn ugly. It’s almost as if chaos were the point.

The six “conservative” justices — they’re conserving very little these days — are pushing everything in the direction of chaos. Whatever the democratic institution they’re invited to tear down, they seem willing to go there. Like they’re remaking the legal system in the image of Ginni Thomas.

With that in mind, let’s turn to Moore v. Harper, possibly the most crackpot case to come before SCOTUS in many decades. Based on the “independent legislature theory” — a tangle of bad-faith legal contortions — it’s a case that couldn’t have been brought before any other SCOTUS in American history, at least not with a straight face. It has, in fact, been laughed out of every courtroom it’s been argued in. Which is no doubt why SCOTUS chose to hear it.

It’s not a mediagenic case, but it is a dangerous one, with fraught implications for the basic machinery of democracy. It comes with a long and convoluted back story that befuddles even those with long attention spans. It might have slipped under the radar, had we not grown so sensitized to the radicalization of SCOTUS.

But the mainstream media, to its credit, has actually stepped up on this one. They saw it coming a few months back, and they’ve kept reporting on it. So while I won’t try to replicate that back story, it’s easy to bring yourself up to speed here, here, hereor you can google it endlessly.

And please do. It’s hard to reduce what the New York Times calls “a political power grab in the guise of a legal theory” down to a few soundbites, but it urgently requires our attention. Because this so-called theory is best characterized as a declaration of the right to gerrymander.

North Carolina Republicans brought the case, having been stopped by their own state courts from drawing electoral maps that were comically gerrymandered. The State Supreme Court ruled, and sharply, that they’d violated all sorts of guarantees enshrined in the North Carolina Constitution — free elections, free speech, free assembly, equal protection — and that the maps had been carefully crafted to favor Republicans, possibly forever. Neither the power grab nor the ruling that smacked it down was subtle.

But who needs subtle when SCOTUS has your back? Those same Republicans, now aided by fringe elements of the legal profession — the likes of John Eastman, Sydney Powell, and, yes, Ginni Thomas — think they have a shot at throwing the entire federal election system into chaos. Even worse, they think it’s a great idea.

If they get their way, SCOTUS could simply nullify the role of state courts in deciding how federal elections are conducted. This would not affect state or local elections — federal only. Go figure.

But under such a ruling, every state legislature would be “independent” of judicial oversight. They would be authorized to draw their federal electoral districts any way they want, with total impunity, and the courts could do nothing about it.

Forget separation of powers. Forget checks and balances. Forget free and fair elections. All power to conduct federal elections would now rest in the hands of state legislatures, most of which are now firmly in the hands of nutjobs. State supreme courts would have no power to overturn even the most extreme gerrymanders.

And once this legal can of worms is pried open, all kinds of slimy things can slither out. Those same nutjob legislatures would theoretically be free, not just to gerrymander, but also to write any sort of law they want, as long as it concerns federal elections: voter ID, voter suppression, even the ability to reject electors in a presidential race. In theory, such an independent legislature could even nullify the veto power of its governor.

There’s more. With a single ruling, SCOTUS will have torn up election laws on the books of every state in the union, and new legal frameworks will need to be rebuilt from scratch, at great taxpayer expense. Much the way they’ve done with Dobbs.

There is some good news, sort of. Reading the tea leaves of the public arguments, John Roberts appears to want no part of this idiocy — it’s a bridge too far, even for him. Amy Coney Barrett, surprisingly, was likewise skeptical in her questioning. If those two vote against it, the whole thing could go away like a bad dream. But I’m not holding my breath.

The other good news, sort of, is that a bad ruling would apparently be more likely to benefit Democrats than Republicans, at least in the short term. I won’t get into the electoral math (see here), but it’s based on the fact that states with Democratic-led legislatures tend to be more populous, with more congressional seats, and hence with more districts to redraw. So the solidly-Democratic California legislature, say, would suddenly be free to shape its 52 congressional districts any way it wants, with no interference from state courts. They would surely draw maps that heavily favor Democrats.

Other blue and purple states would surely do the same. In such a radicalized scenario, Democratic legislatures would have no choice but to gerrymander as ruthlessly as Republicans. And for a while, they’d have the means to do so.

I call this good news, but there’s nothing good about the independent legislature theory.

The mainstream legal community — progressives and conservatives alike — has rightly condemned it with uncharacteristic unanimity, not to mention disgust. Few legal doctrines have ever faced such universal loathing.

Would that matter to a guy married to Ginni Thomas? Probably not. Would that guy be able to convince four more of his fellow vandals? We’ll find out in June, when they hand down the decision.

But having already thrown the legal system into total chaos with the Dobbs decision, SCOTUS seems to be cultivating a real taste for it.



  1. Thomas is a lost cause, but I live in hope that the other conservative judges will move to the center over time as has happened in the past.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The GOP's Weaknesses are More Apparent than its Strengths

  Anyone who’s paying attention now understands that this election is a whole lot scarier than it ever should have been. It’s a shame — and an indictment of our constitutional system — that it comes down to an election at all. Surely, the Trump problem should have been settled by now, with no further elections required to get him out of our lives. His crimes were such that the real crime was letting him remain at large. All those checks and balances we were taught to revere should have somehow found a way to rid us of this monster. But the Supreme Court seems to have Trump’s back, though it’s not clear what that gains them. If anything, it makes one wonder what Trump is holding over them, and what might happen to their families if they don’t keep him out of prison. So it will come down to the election, and the lines couldn’t be drawn more indelibly. I prefer to think this can work out well — that these scorched-earth hacks can be overwhelmed at the ballot box

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

Trump and Pecker Sittin’ in a Tree

  Before there was Fox News, before there was Rush Limbaugh, before there was the sprawling rightwing ecosystem of fake news and vicious smears we so enjoy today, there was the National Enquirer . For most of our lives, the Enquirer stared up at us from the checkout aisle of our local supermarket. Somehow, we never made the connection that its readers would one day fit the stereotype of the Trump voter — under-educated, gullible, malleable, easy targets for disinformation. The Enquirer nurtured those targets over many decades, got them to believe virtually anything, and helped lay the groundwork for the sort of know-nothing insurgency that brought Trump into all our lives. Decades ahead of its time, the Enquirer was peddling fake news long before it was fashionable. It appealed unapologetically to humanity’s baser instincts, the ones most of us try to rise above. It was always flamboyantly sleazy, and always there in plain sight, something we could dependably