قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / SCOTUS examines North Carolina’s appeals and focuses on Barrett

SCOTUS examines North Carolina’s appeals and focuses on Barrett



What is controversial is that the state courts have the power to determine their own state laws in the election process. Although several justices of the High Court publicly expressed their wishes, the entire court has not been considered. In rare circumstances (for example, in 2000, the Supreme Court had the power to decide elections and challenge candidates) may be crucial. Election results.

When coming in, the three candidates for President Donald Trump may be crucial and may play a role in North Carolina, an important battlefield state led by the Republican legislature and the Democratic governor.

On Tuesday, attorneys for Republican legislators asked the Supreme Court to intervene and block the nine-day extension of the vote while the appeal was in progress. Their goal was a state court decision, which passed a consent order approved by the state election commission as part of a legal settlement. Legislators have asked the Supreme Court to block federal court opinions upholding the same decree. The petition is being processed.

In both cases, the Republican Party hopes that the Supreme Court will restore the deadline passed by the state legislature, and if it is stamped before election day, it will allow votes to be received three days after the election.

The North Carolina dispute will require judges to consider the powers of federal and state courts when changing state election rules. They must also consider the impact of changing the rules too close to the election.

Chief Justice John Roberts often tries to keep the court away from political disputes. He may seek softer, less decisive moves to narrow the scope and reach consensus. But Republican lawyers demand a broad ruling rooted in the Constitution. They believe that the consent order passed by the state court “effectively repealed the regulations made by the North Carolina State Assembly and deprived the state of its ability to enforce its appropriately enacted laws.”
; They pointed out that the US Constitution “protects North Carolina’s election and voting rights.”
This is Brett Kavanaugh's comment on Bush v. Gore on CNN in 2000.

At the confirmation hearing this month, Barrett declined to discuss election-related lawsuits and whether he would withdraw from such cases.

Conservative judges, such as Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas, have clearly expressed their views. Just this week, Gorsuch emphasized the importance of state legislatures setting appropriate rules.

In his opinion on Wisconsin, Gorsuch wrote: “The Constitution stipulates that the state legislature-not federal judges, state judges, governors, and not other state officials-should bear the primary responsibility for setting election rules.” Kavanaugh Added opinions about Wisconsin.

In this case, Kavanov agreed to go further. He said: “The state courts did not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections.”

Kavanov also responded to Trump. He also repeatedly emphasized that the states have good reasons before the deadline, including “avoid the confusion and suspected misconduct caused by the influx of thousands of absentee votes after election day.”

Roberts has always been a swingman.

Amy Coney Barrett joins the Supreme Court at an unprecedented speed

He voted with the liberals to allow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to maintain the residence, but he supported conservatives and prevented similar residences allowed by the Federal District Court of Wisconsin.

He pointed out that state courts have more room to intervene in rulings in accordance with their own state rules, but federal courts do not have the same power to explain the differences. He called the Wisconsin federal court’s decision to allow mediation an “infringement of state legislative procedures.”

Roberts can distinguish Pennsylvania’s state court litigation in North Carolina, but in the case of Barrett, conservatives may not need his vote.

Republicans in Pennsylvania have sent a new petition to the court, and action is yet to be taken.

As for the liberals, they overturned the notion that the state legislature should always have the final say. Wisconsin Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the objection: “If there is no respect for legislators in a certain area, it is election law.” “Because in that area, politicians often have incentives. Conflicts with the interests of voters-that is, suppressing votes will benefit the lawmakers who set the rules.”

Barrett will complicate John Roberts' goal of divorcing the Supreme Court from politics

Kagan also emphasized that the court has made a decision to allow a settlement so that voters will not be deprived of the right to vote “in a dangerous pandemic.”

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have acknowledged the pandemic but said the court should not interfere.

Gosucci wrote in Wisconsin: “In this case, the judge has 6 days left before the election deadline in the state, but 3 or 7 or 10? What prevents different judges from choosing different jurisdictions Where is the jurisdiction?” he asked. “A widely shared national policy trying to make election day a reality will give way to the decree of the Tongtian Tower.”

Now, in her first week on the bench, Barrett can join in.


Source link