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.

 

Comments

  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.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Joe Biden Isn’t Even Breathing Hard

Joe Biden hit it out of the park last week. His State of the Union speech, most agree, was pitch perfect. Even some Republicans, even some Fox pundits, even a toxic tool like Rick Santorum had to stretch to find something to quibble with, though not for lack of trying. Biden eviscerated Trump without once mentioning him by name. He castigated the Supreme Court, with all the due respect they weren’t due. He finessed the Middle East. He stood up for reproductive rights that his Catholic upbringing never allowed for. He taunted Republicans for their naked hypocrisy on immigration, called them out for their betrayal of Ukraine, and got righteously pissed off at what he’s too polite to call an attempted Christo-fascist coup. All this while demonstrating, quite convincingly, that eighty is the new sixty. What came through for me, most of all, was how much he gets off on this. You could see it in that stroll through the very venue that was his workplace for most of hi

The Trouble with Being Born

  In a red state, it’s no great privilege to be born. Certainly not from a legal standpoint. Republican-run governments are highly protective of the unborn, and are now extending legal protection to frozen embryos, at least in Alabama. If you happen to be one of those far-from-born organisms, you now enjoy all the rights of a living child. It’s when you get yourself born that things get complicated. Not that you would then lose those rights, just that they’d be widely ignored, poorly enforced, and cynically violated. But as long as you stay unborn, you’ve got lots of rights you don’t need. In Alabama — a theocracy-in-waiting — the entire nine months of your gestation are now protected by law, and violations of that law will be subject to investigation and enforcement. Logic would now say that if you, a formerly frozen embryo, were to die anywhere along that timeline, a charge of murder could be brought against anyone who might be seen as responsible. The crime

The Golden Age of Both-Siderism is Upon Us

Two things to consider going forward: One, Biden is way more popular than the mainstream media would have you believe. Two, Trump is way less popular than the mainstream media would have you believe. The common denominator here is the mainstream media, who seem bent on ushering the well-honed “both sides are bad” narrative into a golden age. The more Trump descends into a Shakespearean sort of madness, and the more the Republican party follows him into the abyss, the more the press will strain to find something, anything, that makes Democrats look equally bad. It isn’t easy, but this is their formula and they’re sticking to it. They stuck to it all through the 2022 midterms — remember the Red Wave? — and ended up looking like inept fools. There is no sign that they’ve learned anything from that. And it’s not just about their stories, or the deceptive spin they put on their headlines. It’s also about their dishonest use of polls. When The New York Times releases a poll sho