Joanne Freeman

On Moore v. Harper and why the "independent state legislature theory" makes no sense.

Oral arguments in #SCOTUS have begun.

They're hyper-citing founder-folk because they can't support their claim w/actual evidence from the founding period.

Below is a paragraph from the amicus brief filled by a group of historians of the founding period. The brief as a whole can be found here:

https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1271/244058/20221026155401139_Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Founding%20Era%20Scholars%2021-1271.pdf

Dec 7, 2022 at 3:57pmWeb
Show threadDoctor😷G 🇵🇹🇺🇸Dec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 It's the Supreme Calvinball Court now. Rules and "sense" are whatever they say it is. Logic, fairness, precedent, whatever, are IRRELEVANT.
Show threadNancy WhiteDec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 Not a historian and not a lawyer, but …
Show threadHistorian1661Dec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1600519842246926340?s=20&t=LFXgYgXKciH77qfvjOqR4g
Elie Mystal on Twitter

“Gorsuch is arguing, with a straight face, that the STATE LEGISLATURE OF ANTEBELLUM VIRGINIA... was the bulwark AGAINST the expansion of slavery in the state of Virginia. These white people are off the damn chain.”

Twitter
Show threadMartin Vermeer FCDDec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 Also, they all had Montesquieu on their bookshelves.
#Montesquieu #SeparationOfPowers
Show threadஐஇΛɔϛƐɐ‾ᄅ³ᄅᄅ™Dec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 Does that mean SCOTUS will not hear it?
Show threadCarolineCherryDec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 Fabulous. Hopefully the judiciary will not be interpreting in this odd way. It feels very forced.
I truly hope not .
Show threadHistorian1661Dec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 The conservative justices use originalism as an excuse to do whatever they want to do. There's no consistency. They love states rights one case and are against them the next. They quote English history if it supports their cause. They're making it up as they go along.
Show threadJaniceClaireDec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 You mean they can't find any 17th Century witch-hunters who have written about state legislatures' rights?
Show threadtoxtethogradyDec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 This Court is not swayed by legal arguments or original or whatever. They are only concerned with the political outcome. Notably, we don't know where two of Trump's appointees will land on this one, as it appears it may cause a rend in the legal fabric of the Universe...
Show threadBW RockDec 7, 2022
@jbf1755 - you can tell the quality of the plaintiff's argument when it is based on the 1818 fake Pinckney attempt at a rewrite of history. Outrageous!
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/12/moore-v-harper-charles-pinckney/
How a fake document could help the Supreme Court diminish our democracy

They've adopted alternative facts, but are the conservative justices ready to embrace fraud?

Mother Jones
Show threadNick BaxDec 8, 2022
@jbf1755 #alttext As historians who have studied and written extensively about the constitutional history of the revolutionary era, our answer to the question driving this litigation is clear. The original public meaning of the Elections Clause did not give the state legislatures exclusive power to regulate congressional elections, unchecked by the state constitution or other branches of state government. (1/3)
Show threadNick BaxDec 8, 2022
@jbf1755 Nothing in the records of the deliberations at Philadelphia or the public debates surrounding ratification supports that contention. There is no evidence that anyone at the time expressed the view that Petitioners now espouse; nor would anyone have attempted to disprove an idea that had never been broached. (2/3)
Show threadNick BaxDec 8, 2022
@jbf1755 Petitioners interpretation is also historically implausible in view of the framers' general fear of unchecked power and their specific distrust of state legislatures.
There is no plausible eighteenth-century argument to support Petitioners' view. (3/3)
Show threadbluerootsradioDec 8, 2022

@jbf1755 Seems the proponents of ISLT are trying to use a theory created 10 years after the Constitution was signed to give the originalist Justices a reason to pull a theory of their own out of thin air like they've done in the past.

The originalist Justices have no problem making their own originalism when their is no real text to back them up.