ISL (independent state legislature) theory was considered "fringe" until very recently. In sane times, with a SCOTUS that understood the importance of voting rights and free and fair elections, it would still be a fringe theory. My best hope is that SCOTUS will decide against it, not on its (lack of) merits but because the uproar against…
ISL (independent state legislature) theory was considered "fringe" until very recently. In sane times, with a SCOTUS that understood the importance of voting rights and free and fair elections, it would still be a fringe theory. My best hope is that SCOTUS will decide against it, not on its (lack of) merits but because the uproar against the SCOTUS majority's arrogance and "originalist" ignorance has spread across the land and has (I hope) even caused concern among their puppeteers at the Federalist Society. The Dobbs decision surely contributed to GOP setbacks in the midterms, and the Court's legitimacy is very much in question.
Susanna, When, last July, I started learning and writing about the ISL, I referred to it as the fringe ISL Legal theory, though it already had advanced to the Supreme Court. Recently, for reasons you noted, I dropped the modifier “fringe.” As for how the Court will rule, I always had believed that the issue of legitimacy would serve as a guardrail. Presently, however, excluding gun control legislation (a fraudulent reading of the 2nd Amendment, in my view), I am growing increasingly wary of the High Court’s position on preserving fundamental protections.
Shelby v. Holder (2013), gutting the Voting Rights Act, was bad news, and that was decided before the Trump/McConnell trio joined the bench. D.C. v. Heller (2008) IMO misread, probably intentionally, the intent behind the 2nd Amendment -- Carol Anderson's book THE SECOND only came out last year, but it does a very good job of torching the argument that ignores the "militia" and claims the amendment was entirely about individuals. SCOTUS has been headed in this direction for quite a while, and how, when, and where the course correction is going to come I don't know. But I hope it comes before the Court makes a shambles of U.S. democracy.
Susanna, Anderson’s THE SECOND sounds like a good read. Thanks for noting it. As for the High Court, if, in 24, the Dems hold the Presidency, retake the House and pick up enough Senate seats, wherein 50 either would set aside or modify the filibuster to add 4 justices to the Court, they must act. Given that the Judiciary Act of 1869 increased the size of the Supreme Court, setting it at nine justices, one for each federal circuit (today there are thirteen), grounds for expanding the Court clearly exist.
ISL (independent state legislature) theory was considered "fringe" until very recently. In sane times, with a SCOTUS that understood the importance of voting rights and free and fair elections, it would still be a fringe theory. My best hope is that SCOTUS will decide against it, not on its (lack of) merits but because the uproar against the SCOTUS majority's arrogance and "originalist" ignorance has spread across the land and has (I hope) even caused concern among their puppeteers at the Federalist Society. The Dobbs decision surely contributed to GOP setbacks in the midterms, and the Court's legitimacy is very much in question.
Susanna, When, last July, I started learning and writing about the ISL, I referred to it as the fringe ISL Legal theory, though it already had advanced to the Supreme Court. Recently, for reasons you noted, I dropped the modifier “fringe.” As for how the Court will rule, I always had believed that the issue of legitimacy would serve as a guardrail. Presently, however, excluding gun control legislation (a fraudulent reading of the 2nd Amendment, in my view), I am growing increasingly wary of the High Court’s position on preserving fundamental protections.
Shelby v. Holder (2013), gutting the Voting Rights Act, was bad news, and that was decided before the Trump/McConnell trio joined the bench. D.C. v. Heller (2008) IMO misread, probably intentionally, the intent behind the 2nd Amendment -- Carol Anderson's book THE SECOND only came out last year, but it does a very good job of torching the argument that ignores the "militia" and claims the amendment was entirely about individuals. SCOTUS has been headed in this direction for quite a while, and how, when, and where the course correction is going to come I don't know. But I hope it comes before the Court makes a shambles of U.S. democracy.
Susanna, Anderson’s THE SECOND sounds like a good read. Thanks for noting it. As for the High Court, if, in 24, the Dems hold the Presidency, retake the House and pick up enough Senate seats, wherein 50 either would set aside or modify the filibuster to add 4 justices to the Court, they must act. Given that the Judiciary Act of 1869 increased the size of the Supreme Court, setting it at nine justices, one for each federal circuit (today there are thirteen), grounds for expanding the Court clearly exist.
Scalia himself famously declared it to be a "ghoul that that keeps arising" !