115
Supreme Court rejects theory that would have meant radical changes to election rules
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
115 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
13 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know about "the majority", but I'm pretty sure Roberts has been twisting arms so that his legacy isn't being the chief justice who presided over the downfall of the court.
Entirely possible, though it seems like he was twisting arms the last session to get his colleagues to slow down, and we all saw how that turned out. Something has shifted, and I'm not really sure what, but while the Court as a whole is decidedly right-wing, it's more chastened than the triumphalist 2021-22 session.
I have a suspicion that the court would have left Roe at least partially intact if the draft memo hadn't leaked.
I highly doubt that.
Consider that the NC supreme court had overturned the original ruling that was being appealed, making this case moot. They could have simply passed on this case and we'd be at exactly the same place.
For doing absolutely nothing and clearing the lowest possible bar, they are getting credit for "moderating". News agency proclaiming this a "win for a democracy" and showing the "even handedness" of the court... That they took up the case at all is why we're here!!