Was our S.C. delinquent in its duty to adjudicate the Texas 2020 election lawsuit?

[johnwk]

Sure, and to the extent that the state legislature felt that the courts were not upholding the laws as they were written/intended, it is the responsibility of the legislature to step in and correct it. Which they didn't do. Which is in effect, tacit approval.

So then we are probably in agreement to the following extent, that our constitutions, state and federal, are not being adhered to by those entrusted to support and defend them.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[TheTexan]

So then we are probably in agreement to the following extent, that our constitutions, state and federal, are not being adhered to by those entrusted to support and defend them.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Quite so.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Quite so.

Then the states are not providing a republican form of government and it is the duty of the Federal Government (including SCOTUS) to ensure that they do.

 

[TheTexan]

Then the states are not providing a republican form of government and it is the duty of the Federal Government (including SCOTUS) to ensure that they do.

That would be a fair statement to make for almost any other issue. But the issue of choosing electors is specifically called out in the constitution as the responsibility of the state legislatures. (Which I know you disagree with and you are entitled to your reasonable opinion)

In either case, it's a fool's errand to expect SCROTUS to uphold the constitution so what's the point.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Then the states are not providing a republican form of government and it is the duty of the Federal Government (including SCOTUS) to ensure that they do.

Not quite. The meaning of the clause may have been to insure a State didn't become a monarchy and to protect the States against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. See https://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation18.html#f321

Would you really want the federal government, instead of local officials, to decide whether a State is abiding by its own laws? Suppose the PA Supreme Court hadn't extended the date for receiving mail-in ballots -- would you seriously want SCOTUS to be able to reverse the decision and rule the same way the PA Supreme Court actually did (i.e., that the extension was warranted by the PA constitution)?

In any event, SCOTUS held in 1849 that questions arising under the clause are political, not justiciable, and that that ''it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.'' Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 42 (1849).

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not quite. The meaning of the clause may have been to insure a State didn't become a monarchy and to protect the States against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. See https://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation18.html#f321

Would you really want the federal government, instead of local officials, to decide whether a State is abiding by its own laws? Suppose the PA Supreme Court hadn't extended the date for receiving mail-in ballots -- would you seriously want SCOTUS to be able to reverse the decision and rule the same way the PA Supreme Court actually did (i.e., that the extension was warranted by the PA constitution)?

In any event, SCOTUS held in 1849 that questions arising under the clause are political, not justiciable, and that that ''it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.'' Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 42 (1849).

A judicial, gubernatorial or bureaucratic dictatorship is no more republican than a monarchy.

And I want the feds to make sure any state in the union is abiding by its own laws and by its Constitution and the federal Constitution when it comes to federal elections that affect the rest of the states.

SCOTUS has already interfered in state election laws in the past and is no more likely to rule the wrong way than state courts.
And while not impossible it is much harder for them to rule that states must break their laws than to rule they must follow them.

Luther v. Borden is from the same era as the Dred Scott ruling and is just as bogus.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

SCOTUS has already interfered in state election laws in the past and is no more likely to rule the wrong way than state courts.
And while not impossible it is much harder for them to rule that states must break their laws than to rule they must follow them.

You missed the point. Who is to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of a State's law, its own Supreme Court or SCOTUS? If you say SCOTUS, then you have given it the sweeping power to determine local law in every State. We're not talking about SCOTUS ruling that the federal Constitution or a federal statute trumps a State's own law, but rather SCOTUS substituting its own judgment for that of the State's highest court on a point of state law.

I didn't realize you disliked federalism so much.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You missed the point. Who is to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of a State's law, its own Supreme Court or SCOTUS? If you say SCOTUS, then you have given it the sweeping power to determine local law in every State. We're not talking about SCOTUS ruling that the federal Constitution or a federal statute trumps a State's own law, but rather SCOTUS substituting its own judgment for that of the State's highest court on a point of state law.

I didn't realize you disliked federalism so much.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter on subjects that relate to the US Constitution.