Paula BeardDec 4, 2022
Robert Reich

RT @[email protected]

Weā€™re about to witness one of the most important cases ever to come before the Supreme Court.

Moore v. Harper could let extremist state legislatures disregard the popular vote and choose their preferred presidential candidate.

That's not hyperbole.

šŸ¦šŸ”—: https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1598799167609925632

Robert Reich on Twitter

ā€œWeā€™re about to witness one of the most important cases ever to come before the Supreme Court. Moore v. Harper could let extremist state legislatures disregard the popular vote and choose their preferred presidential candidate. That's not hyperbole.ā€

Twitter
Dec 3, 2022 at 9:47amWeb
Show threadTheRealRKG365Dec 3, 2022
@rbreich so far, courts have been upholding the rule of law and the basic tenets of Democracy. Praying that SCOTUS sees this case in the same light. We already have a working system: if there are irregularities, they are investigated. If there is criminal activity, it is adjudicated. Fact-free beliefs have no place in the courtroom or the election boards!
Show threadDaisyDogDec 3, 2022
@TheRealRKG365 @rbreich I cannot see how a court could decide in the favor of ā€˜Independent Legislatureā€™ in a case which determines the continuation of a practice of voting customary for over two centuries. Asserting the rights of statesā€™ legislatures to ignore the courts which interpret the law unbalances the tripartite system completely in an unprecedented way. Anyone with a background in law could make this argument.
Show threadJubtDec 3, 2022
@rbreich chilling
Show threadMrs A, Gr Lks Costal EliteDec 3, 2022
@rbreich this is frightening
Show threadErnest RipepiDec 3, 2022
@rbreich I am not heartened by this particular courtā€™s record as it pertains to voting rights.
Show threadEyalLDec 3, 2022

@rbreich

The awful part is that a naive reading of the constitution seems to allow legislatures to do this.

Of course the constitution did not foresee gerrymandering.

If this comes to pass, perhaps the blue states ought to secede to retain their democracy?

Show threadDaisyDogDec 3, 2022
@EyalL @rbreich would SCOTUS be so brash as to throw out centuriesā€™ of precedent and custom? Their ā€˜comservativeā€™ amd ā€˜originalistā€™ arguments on other matters uphold the notion of continuity with XVII-XIX c. praxis, and even far older. They realize that ā€˜Independent Legislatureā€™ is an ahistorical distortion of a constitutional expression left terse and vague not for the sake of preventing judicial oversight of election law but to ensure broad applicability.
Show threadEyalLDec 3, 2022

@daisydog

Iiuc there's no precedent here, just custom. And custom has no legal standing afaik (not a lawyer!)

And the constitution explicitly says legislatures decide how to elect the president, not the people.

This would be reasonable in a world without gerrymandering. Because it'd approximate the will of the people alright.

@rbreich

Show threadMamaBodesDec 3, 2022
@rbreich@masto.
That would be a travesty!
Show threadEdward BurrowDec 3, 2022

@rbreich

Absolutely key case. Will effect the very substance of American democracy.

Show threadDaveyb61Dec 3, 2022
@rbreich we're about to realize to reality of electing these election deniers, is our Democratic Republic about to implode as Stalin predicted?
Show threadgrossDec 3, 2022
@rbreich The way the US holds their elections is unfitting to a superpower, heck to any decent developed country. Gerrymandering, highly partisan primaries, butterfly ballots and similar stupidities, long queues, days and weeks of ballot counting, legal uncertainty on validating, now this...
Show threadlock_the_float23Dec 3, 2022
@rbreich That is a declaration of war - civil war. It is also taxation without representation. I should be seen as illegal. We should go the other way - throw out the electoral college; adopt ranked choice ballots for all national elections; and only use one national voting district. Simple majority rules - popular vote is the only vote.
Show threadhumanity404Dec 3, 2022
@rbreich agree with the problem but not the solution...
it's clear democrats are not interested in resolving any of these issues permanently. They handled Sinema & Manchin with kidgloves despite their outrageous stands (compare that to the way democratic leadership rush to CRUSH any progressives who don't tow the corporate line)
Show threadJohn YatesDec 3, 2022
@rbreich If so, the #DOJ must arrest the justices voting to allow that for sedition!
Show threadMReynoldsDec 3, 2022
@rbreich THIS. SUPER important.šŸ˜³
Show threadDr. Dave SolotDec 3, 2022
@rbreich Do you think NPVIC could counter a bad SCOTUS decision made here?
Show threadSFborn1940Dec 3, 2022
@rbreich Anti-democratic forces have been waiting for a conservative-dominated Supreme Court. National elections should be a simple, majority vote, period. Anything else invites corruption.
Show threadyrrejDec 3, 2022
@rbreich
Extremist legislatures elected by their extremist constituents.
Show threadJaime ADec 3, 2022
@rbreich first, toot
Show threadPachillesDec 3, 2022
@rbreich Is there any way to force Representatives to actually represent the will of the citizens they are actually supposed to represent?
Show threadSilentwolfDec 4, 2022

@rbreich

Republicans should quit meddling and trying to control everything.

Show threadChristopher FailleDec 5, 2022
@rbreich No, it is not "hyperbole" exactly but it is a limited take. Consider the more hopeful reading of where this case stands that Ian Macdougall makes at SALON. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-supreme-court-bid-to-let-lawmakers-overturn-elections-could-badly-backfire-on-gop/ar-AA14Kx99
Republicans' Supreme Court bid to let lawmakers overturn elections could badly backfire on GOP

Moore v. Harper could transform the law ā€” but not in the way that many pundits, or even politicians, anticipate

MSN