28 Comments

I think this was simply Roberts saying that no one gets to kill democracy but Roberts and he prefers a death by a thousand cuts over death by obvious partisan sledge hammer.

Expand full comment

I appreciate the insight on the Supreme Court case, but the insight into the North Carolina district maps is absolutely wild. How can these people claim to be proponents of democracy while creating a map that turns a 50/50 election into a 71/29 result for one party. That's absurd.

Expand full comment

Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito were the dissenting votes. Gee, I wonder what their compelling interests are in this case.

Expand full comment

So, we collectively dodged a chaos bullet? But there's always another one and more to come, right?

Expand full comment

I still believe this court's switch to supporting democracy in recent decisions is a realization that justices could be added to the court to restore trust in a court proven corrupt in recent exposures by INDEPENDENT investigative journalism and not by the corporate media that concealed the corruption for decades. Democrats need to start adding justices now. If not, we know Republicans will add their own to seal off all hope of democracy the next time they acquire sufficient power. It's likely what the three dissenters from democracy are counting on. This is no time for Democrats' do-nothing dinking.

Expand full comment

The first 2 paragraphs under "Under the Asterisk" are very scary. No right thinking person believes what was done in Bush v. Gore was well intentioned. It would seem by using that case to create law the Supreme Court is setting a low-key precedent meant to relieve our minds of any "tomfoolery" in this case.

I'm not relieved and agree with comment for Dem's to add to the court before the Repubs do it.

Expand full comment

What does it say that when I heard the decision, I was more relieved than anything else?

Expand full comment

I wonder if this ruling will have any bearing on Eastman’s disbarment proceedings.

Expand full comment
founding

Thank you for shining more light on one of our many threats to our democracy. investigating who was dissenting and why, of course the answer is Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, although Alito didn't find this threat worth investigating! We can all appreciate Attorney Neal Katyal to s greater degree--the legal reasoning requires a scholarly and brilliantly practical legal mind.

Expand full comment

Did the prosecution make their case in such a way that caused the narrow ruling, or did the court insert that language in support of their decision rather than in response to an argument?

Expand full comment

I hope this Supreme [Cesspool] court imagines the American MAJORITY ready to march with pitch forks if so much as misspell “constitution.”

Expand full comment

Interesting take by Michael Podhorzer: "We don’t have a “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court; we have a Federalist Society majority of six justices who are all members of that group, and who were only nominated by Republican presidents after being vetted by that group. We should think of the Federalist Society majority not necessarily as agents of the Republican Party, but as agents of the sponsors and corporate interests who created and continue to fund the Federalist Society, the Republican Party, and the Super PACs that support Republican candidates.

The Federalist Society justices are not political partisans; they are interest group partisans."

But they do NOT necessarily support MAGA chaos.

https://michaelpodhorzer.substack.com/p/dont-be-surprised-by-moore-v-harper

Expand full comment

It was a good day for Democracy.

Expand full comment

The grift evolves. SSDD.

Expand full comment