Thread

1. goatlover · 1790365865 · focus · HN ↗

   Why do the courts even entertain this administration's requests when Trump has made it clear he wants to unconstitutionally take some form of control over state elections because he doesn't want Democrats to retake control of Congress?

   The only conclusion seems to be that conservative majorities on SCOTUS and the Eighth Circuit want this to happen as part of their unitary executive theory.

   An even more cynical conclusion is that they want the next two elections to be tampered with in favor of the Republican Party, so they remainin in control of the Federal government.

   1. legitster · 1790367234 · focus · HN ↗

      I know people are generally really cynical of SCOTUS these days (with some warrant), but SCOTUS is at least supposed to be neutral towards the other branches. Their job is to interpret the law, not pick and choose favorites.

      In this case, I think they are not completely unreasonable. This specific move is one of the things the executive branch has been allowed to do, by previous legislators who gave it this power.

      1. cosmicgadget · 1790368460 · focus · HN ↗

         > it's my wife's fault we raised the flag upside down on January 6

         Yeah, there's quite a lot of reason to believe SCOTUS is political. I think the simplest one: the conservative justices lied and/or told half-truths about their views on Roe v Wade. Under oath. The ones who lied are liars. The ones who dodged the question are politicians.

         1. legitster · 1790370186 · focus · HN ↗

            Sotomayor literally made the same types of claims about DC v Heller during her confirmation hearing, despite later joining a dissent to overturn the results. So if that's the case it runs both ways.

            It's also worth pointing out that there is a gulf of difference between how a court interprets law and the constitution, and how a court interprets a previous "Precedent". Courts have a lot of power to throw out or reverse previous precedent, but much less permanent power to change interpretation of the laws themselves.

            1. cosmicgadget · 1790382381 · focus · HN ↗

               Interested to read about these claims (and which case intended to overturn DC v Heller) but that would just make the Roberts court more political.

               > Courts have a lot of power to throw out or reverse previous precedent

               Yes, we've seen the death of stare decisis.

               > less permanent power to change interpretation of the laws themselves.

               They have to work harder to do it but this court has not been shy about reinterpeting everything through the Calvinball (originalism) lens.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.