News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
i agree with other posters.. their best option is throwing it back to the states. they can rule that the states each get to decide on 'is insurrectionist' that is then only removable by 2/3rds of congress, per the constitution. leaves them without having to actually make a decision.
NAL but isn't Constitutional law a federal issue the must be ruled on by SCOTUS? Otherwise it seems that SCOTUS would, in effect, be redundant if states can individually rule on constitutional matters.
right, the supreme court could absolutely decide that the states get to decide.
think of it this way.. its up to the supreme court to decide how the law was intended. the only specific roles mentioned in the constitution are where the 2/3rds of congress can 'remove the penalty of being an insurrectionist'.. this implies that the states (via congress) have the right to both decide who, and who does not get marked as 'insurrectionist'.
the house cant decide for individual states, and so each state could be left to decide for themselves... leaving it to an action of congress to undo.
They'd be negating any power they have if they did tho ... essentially making SCOTUS useless.
I mean it's why they've sided with citizens/groups who have challenged the state attempts at gun regulation, based on the 2nd Amendment.
its not like they are saying 'ok, from now on all laws are left to the states'.
were talking about the interpretation of a single clause here, which very specifically involves states rights ... and its like youre ignoring the part where it would take their ruling to allows the states to do it.
i dont understand how you think thats removing them from the process.
Because if SCOTUS gives up power in one area of Constitutional law, it opens the door for them losing ruling power over the whole Constitution.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the "times, places, and manner of holding elections".
The US Constitution already says it’s the State’s authority. They don’t cede anything because they are just following what the Constitution says on this one specific issue.
Article 3, Section 1 and 2 state that SCOTUS is the supreme court of justice for everything to do with the Constitution. There is nothing there that says SCOTUS can abdicate its job by bumping anything to do with the Constitution to a lower court.
Right, they interpret the Constitution. If their interpretation of Article 1 Section 4 says it’s up to the states then they have done their job and interpreted the constitution.
Article 1, Section 4 does NOT give the states control over Presidential elections ... only for senators and reps.
You're kind of right. Article 1, Section 4 does not address presidential elections but Article 2 does, by handing it directly back to the states to pick their own electors for the Electoral College. Electors elect the president, hence the name.
(This is exactly why Mike Pence refused to get in the car on January 6: the voters had voted, the electors had represented them (or not) but constitutionally the president isn't elected until Clause 3 of Article 2 is fulfilled and the Electoral College votes are certified by the President of the Senate, who at the time was Mike Pence, and that was the point of getting Pence out.)
Take a moment and go back and look at Article 2, the article that addresses the executive. Note that it only addresses the Electoral College and says nothing about popular votes, SCOTUS, or even how electors should be chosen.
You're looking at the US Constitution's entire provision for presidential elections. That's it. Article 2. **
Now understand that along with that, through time and tradition over some 200+ years (depending on what event you want to count from), including various SCOTUS rulings, EVERYTHING involving federal elections that is not otherwise specifically addressed does indeed devolve to the states under Article 1, Section 4.
EDITED TO ADD current relevancy regarding Trump's attempt to remove Mike Pence
**I am specifically referring to the original Constitution and not to the later rulings on the First and Fourteenth Amendments in case anyone wants to get picky, lol
I mean, they are the ones who are deciding if the precedent applies by the time it gets back up to them.
Also, you assume that basically anyone in the scotus gives a shit about long term consequences. They know they can get their 10-20 years before all the hell impacts them.
Like with a lot of these things: You are assuming good faith action. This is not a nickelodean sitcom where logic and puns trap the villains. The villains in this case will just say "We rule in our favor"
making a ruling isnt giving up something. their job is interpretation and nothing more.
i think if youre expecting a 'he is' or 'he isnt' ruling from the supreme court, youre going to be disappointed. thats just not how they function.
You're saying they have the option to bump it down to the states. Then why did a lawyer say this?
because hes not wrong and reinforces everything ive said here
This is bizarre. Your statement presupposes that SCOTUS already has "ruling power over the whole constitution" (whatever that means???) AND ignores the entire concept of judicial review. Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, SCOTUS has had the job of interpreting constitutional law for both the federal government and individual states.
Also, SCOTUS is not, as we have recently seen, bound by stare decisis at all. Who or what power is going to bind SCOTUS to previous rulings? SCOTUS has overruled its own prior decisions time and time again, and lost absolutely nothing.
Furthermore, in the United States, the only power constitutionally able to check the judicial is the legislative, and Congress can't just overturn SCOTUS rulings or demand that SCOTUS not hear cases brought before it.
SCOTUS derives its powers directly from the US Constitution and has already proven over the last 200+ years that it does not gain or lose any powers whatsoever by interpreting (and reinterpreting) that law as requested.
EDITED TO ADD link to Marbury, above, which Wikipedia describes as "the single most important decision in American constitutional law."
They won't. They will throw it to Congress since it will give the Pope what he wants.