LISTEN: Supreme Court hears oral arguments in election law case
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 дек 2022
- The Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Dec. 7 on if state legislatures can create election maps without oversight from state courts. Read more: wapo.st/3FyaIc5. Subscribe to The Washington Post on RUclips: wapo.st/2QOdcqK
Follow us:
Twitter: / washingtonpost
Instagram: / washingtonpost
Facebook: / washingtonpost
Neal provided a master class in preparation! Not to mention his delivery. All attorneys should take note. Brilliant!!
Alito’s tone of incredulous disbelief when Katyal told him that SCOTUS had never overturned a state supreme court’s interpretation of its state constitution was glorious. Like a toddler opening a Christmas present only to find a pile of dead leaves. Katyal really did an amazing job totally defusing Alito’s questions.
Alito is bumping his chest with Katyal…will lose every time.
Skip to 19:44 to begin arguments
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!
Thank you for your service
You're good people - thanks!
Thank you!
Neal Katyal begins at 1:25:00
Neal is an excellent attorney. He's able to go toe to toe with the Supreme Court justices without flickering. Please, put this man on the Supreme Court already.
Listen to Neal Katyal at 1:25:21. He’s an excellent lawyer. Put this man on the Supreme Court.
Why doesn't RUclips have a LOVE button?
The guy from North Carolina sounds like he's on the edge of letting out a monstrous burp.
Exactly my thoughts… and it continued till the very end during rebuttal. One would have thought he’d be done burping by then.
I thought he sounded like someone kicked him in the balls and he was trying not to cry 😂😂😂
Neal Katyal begins at 1:25:00
WAPO Why is volume so low?
WAPO doesn't control the volume for SCOTUS oral arguments sadly. They could have artificially made it louder but this is the original recording
Clarence Thomas should be in prison instead of on the SCOTUS
Neal is far more qualified than half the other justices
Neal Katyal...school children should read his papers and memorize his arguments. This man is a gift from God.
I ❤Neal Katyal! He slayed that dragon with great finesse! 👏👏👏You did ALL your homework! Thank you for educating those Justices! Awesome to watch!
Alito has obviously turned into nothing more than a 4chan troll. Gorsuch is the court jester. Thomas surprisingly comes out as very measured. Although he is usually quiet during oral submissions. He reserves clownish vitriol for written opinions.
They are all 3 brilliant and great justices. Sotomayor is by far more intelligent than the recent diversity appointee. At least I can check my ideological beliefs and not insult my ideological opponents or pretend they are disingenuous in their views.
@@mrsmokestacks21 Calling Alito and Gorsuch brilliant has to be the joke of this still young century. As for Thomas, he pretty much ‘supports’ an insurrection. They are 3 clowns who made their way to the bench purely because of their political affiliations. Jackson alone is a better judge than all of them.
@@kyunbhai49 you’re obviously confessing through projection with your statement on “clownish vitriol”.
@@mrsmokestacks21 you obviously are either naive or a Trumpy dimwit. I’d say the latter.
@@mrsmokestacks21how is calling justice Jackson a “diversity appointee” not insulting your ideological opponents? You can’t even make it through a single sentence without contradicting yourself…
Let’s stop pretending that this court is about deciding constitutional issues. It’s more like deciding which of the right wing wishes can be fulfilled next, never mind the consequences.
They'll get what they want, then it backfires in the end and again they cry foul.
REEEEEEEEEEE
Are we saying that the Supreme Court is going to allow the legislature to dictate what is constitutional in term of elections…that would be insane!
@@redeatmengistie1739 All I am saying is that these conservative judges are partisan politicians in robes. They will not allow the constitution to stand in the way of their agenda.
If Trump cheated in the election and won, you would want the same thing. Liberals are so hypocritical.
Can someone tell me who the attorneys are that are arguing before the court? Thanks.
The attorney for NC is David Thompson. He’s argued in front of the Supreme Court before although he’s not the solicitor general or anything. He actually works for a private DC based firm called Cooper and Kirk (one of the partners there is affiliated with Justice Alito). The guy on the other side Neal Katyal is very well known within the Democratic legal spheres. He was acting solicitor general for President Obama and he’s argued in front of SCOTUS a number of times. If you’re wondering who’s the more experienced and well-respected attorney it’s probably Katyal.
---- > @ 25: 39, a state legislature is constrained by the governor, it's own state Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, the courts,, and elections by We The People.. There's really no argument for an unchecked legislature. Eliminating the courts in a matter would also be a violation of the separation of powers. The Election clause refers to election times NOT election day as defined int Article II, Section 1, clause 3. for federal elections.
"The Election clause refers to election times NOT election day as defined int Article II, Section 1, clause 3. for federal elections." First, federal elections aren't regulated by Article II. Just the election of presidential electors, to the Electoral College. Art I, Sec 4, Cl 1-2 does for the House and Senate. It states, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day." Art. II, Section 1, Cl. 5 has similar language, but it doesn't say the same thing, when it says "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."
First, we know that the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives is a power of State Legislatures, but this power is not virtually unchecked. It is checked by Article I, Section 4, Cl. 2 which states "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." This is different than Art II, Section 1, Cl. 5 which does not uses the phrase "by Law" when it says "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes." The reason for this is because the Constitution has an intricate and well thought out system of checks and balances. A President, in Art. II, Sec 1, Cl 5, has no role in setting the Time of the choosing of their electors, at all. On the other hand, the President does have a role in the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives. If Congress wants to override the State Legislature's constitutional power over federal elections at the State level they need the President to agree and if they don't but vetoes Congress's proposed alterations this is when the Congressional power to override a presidential veto by a 2/3rds majority vote of both Houses kicks in. The President was removed from that, and the term "by Law" isn't used within Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 because the President shouldn't be able to determine the Times, Manners and Places of their own election. The reason for this is obvious, this could effectively grant the President the power to delay or event prevent elections of the President and therefore allow the President to maintain power unless 2/3rds of Congress acts which would be hard to accomplish especially when you take into consideration other provisions of the U.S. Constitution including the adjournment clauses which are Article I, Section 5, Clauses 1 and 4; Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and 3; and Article II, Section 3, Clause 1. These clauses are also very intricate but if they weren't written the way they were along with other clauses we have already talked about (Election Clauses) there would be a host of problems that would arise. For example, the President could veto the Time of their own elections and then adjourn Congress indefinitely, but the Constitution doesn't allow that.
This is because the terms "Time" and "Day" are used to describe everything relative to the timing of the elections of either Representatives, Senators or Presidents. In Article I, Congress can't unilaterally change the Times, Manners and Places of their own elections and in Article II the President can't prevent Congress from altering State Legislature's decisions as to the time of the election of electors and the day (in November) on which those electors give their votes (in December). State Courts and the Governor don't have a role in this respect. This is not a power that State Legislatures and Congress share with Governors/Presidents and Judges. The principles of separation of powers and checks and balances don't describe broadly defined ideas instead they describe narrowly prescribed processes and specifics in the U.S. Constitution.
The check and balance on State Legislatures plenary power over federal elections at the State level is Congress; and the check and balance on Congress's check and balance over State Legislatures, which allows them to override or alter the actions of State Legislatures, is the President. The plenary power of Congress over federal elections at the federal level (i.e. they are the judges of their elections, returns and qualification) is the State Legislatures and the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures (aka voters) since these are the people who have the power to both elect their State Legislators and their members of Congress. The role of Governors, State Courts and federal Courts, with the exception of the U.S. supreme Court, is non-existent. I say that the reason the Supreme Court isn't excluded from this is because the Constitution grants the supreme Court original jurisdiction (trial) power in cases in which a State is a party. State Courts don't have original jurisdiction in federal election cases nor do federal district and circuit courts. The Supreme Court does, insofar as what the federal Constitution states. The powers of the federal and state governments including Congress, President, federal courts and state organs such as the State Legislature, Executive and judges are defined in the Constitution in two ways. First, broadly when the Constitution speaks generally of the United States or of each States, respective states, several states, etc and more specifically when it speaks of the "Legislature therof," "Application of the Legislature," "executive Authority of the State," etc. In the one instance, the powers are broadly defined and general in nature and in the other they are narrowly defined or restricted to the respective organ of the State. In this case, Moore v. Harper is about State Courts violating checks and balances and separation of powers and crossing into a plenary state power of the Legislature. It would be no different than if the State Judges attempted to exert authority over State Legislature's constitutional power to apply for U.S. military assistance in times of invasion or domestic violence. A power that State Legislatures also don't share with the Executive or the Judiciary of the State.
I had to go back and listen to Katyal argue in front of SCOTUS. He is not just a good attorney, but he is an excellent attorney in front of the Supreme Court which is a whole different animal. If he is nominated and confirmed, he would make a fantastic justice
(Personal notes)
27:34 Elliott's debates, volume 3, page 367
Nice work Tommy, or should I call you... Jeff????
1:28:50 maybe I am not grasping all of this yet. If the popular vote in a given state followed federal guides, then makes a shift in governance, is that considered legislation. Until it proves to degrade other functionality of what the guidelines are meant to provide. Hmmmm
The definiton of legislature is the individual state house's of representatives, the lawmakers that state citizens vote for, that define a state either by red or blue terms. THAT'S what the legislature is, the installed by vote, state representatives. It is understood under Article 5, and has the SAME meaning under Article's 1 and 2.
the lawyers for NC sound like even THEY don’t believe in their own arguments…. Stuttering, voice shaky… and we have katyal here super confident and never missing a beat. 🎉
@33:28 the response should be .... common sense your honor, because the founders knew it was obvious no one wanted to give state legislatures all that power.... we’re talking about state legislatures to OVERRIDE the results of an election, ignoring the chosen electors. And we’re talking about gerrymandering. Two mechanisms Rs want to use to retain power in future elections.
You don't know what your talking about
@@roxy746 bullpucky…. A 50-50 state creates a 10 to 4 power advantage for themselves.. now give them total power for control? Bs
The definition of legislature does not change from Article 5 to 1 and 2. It means what it means. Read Article 5, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states." I can ASSURE YOU, State courts, State's governor's, State's Attorney's, DO NOT, CANNOT participate in proposing amendments. Period.
Difficult to understand the underlying logic of the case: so it seems the state legislative can rule on federal elections conducted in each state because... states are sovereign in the way they conduct all elections; but then the argument is that state level supreme courts cannot overrule decisions that break state law... because the elections are federal?! And the Supreme Court majority doesn't see the flaw here because... their views are colored by the party (and the guy) that put them there? I know, Alito perjured himself in Congress to get the job, so everything goes... right?
Ding, ding, ding.....10 points for the correct answer. 👍🏾🙌🏾
So what are these “views” you say they hold that are colored by the party(what party)?
@@commentorinchief788, have you read the piece? Let me ask you: how do you feel, and how would you think Republican Justices would feel if it was a Democrat majority state legislative seeking not to be under the rule of State Law. I guess, then, your (and their) Republican support to State autonomy would kick in once again. You know: you just need to run the "what if this was them?" test and quickly realize some Justices aren't actually being blind to political color.
Their argument is that the Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to make the districts. They interpret legislatures narrowly to mean the state assembly, but thread this inside of Smiley, to mean only for substantive issues and not procedural ones. They claim Congress or federal courts can have oversight, but not the state courts, because it is basically a federal issue.
To me the conservatives came across as skeptical of the argument, but the guy arguing for the Dem was terrible and full of double standards.
This is the problem with such wide ranging opinions governing the rulings handed down by the court over the years.
That said, it’s fundamentally sound either way you slice it. That’s what makes this a bit difficult. You’ll notice justices on either political leaning are taking turns pecking against the notion of overriding state powers. It’s actually a good thing to hear.
As it stands, states can set and conduct elections via legislatures as set forth in their respective state constitutions, HOWEVER in federal elections it is the federal government who will have final say should disputes arise.
For example, if the last presidential election were to have been a total disaster, it’s the House of Representatives who would’ve had the final vote on behalf of their respective states as federal representation.
This loosely makes sense. It’s a way of respecting state sovereignty while invoking federal power to resolve disputes with federal elections.
There’s also a considerable debate to be had about if the federal government should have a say in the matter of which federal elections are conducted. They have a minor role in the way of guaranteeing the mere right to vote and would reign down heavy on constitutional violations in that arena, but are largely quiet about actual organizational issues.
Do we really want the federal government directing the states on the time, place and manner of conducting elections? This would certainly undermine state sovereignty to a degree and centralize federal power even more.
You should be somewhat relieved the court is rigorously questioning the idea of interfering with state sovereignty.
I would have asked judge Jackson to show me a State Constitution that includes its judicial branch and or Executive branch as part of its Legislature? If there is one, then that states court or Executive would have say in the matter by being included as part of "the Legislature thereof" within its Constitution. If those other branches are not included then the US Constitution excludes them.
You mean the State Constitution needs fine print for the ignorant.
@@petermarshall6577 no amount or size of print can cure someone from ignoring them. If they ignore what's there, there is no stopping them from making it up as they wish.
States are sovereign and they all have checks and balances. The federal government can’t change that fact.
@@dr.g3860 So the supremacy clause and swearing oaths to the Constitution and Laws of the United States is secondary to State sovereignty? If you were correct States could restrict voting in either federal or state office elections to 21 year olds, males only, female only or allow 16 year olds to vote in federal elections. Truth is that they can't do that. They could allow 16 year olds to vote in state office elections but Congress would have to do it for federal elections. If States are sovereign what is the point of the US constitution? Don't answer , that's just rhetorical pointing out the silliness of your comment as it doesn't apply to federal elections. A1S4 says Congress can make or alter such Regulations. How could they if States were sovereign in the matter, you see, silly argument.
Except that’s a stupid argument, because as nearly all the advocates noted, this would mean nearly every state has gotten it wrong since the founding fathers. After the Constitution was ratified, courts dealt with controversy involving federal elections and state legislatures understood this. You are saying they all got this wrong, they’ve been wrong since the 1700’s even some of the signers of the Constitution were wrong.
Furthermore, your argument could extend to Congress. Because the Constitution says Congress can pass tax laws (and only gives the President a veto power that can be overridden), your theory would mean that Congress can tax only Republican states 100%, and courts can’t touch them since “other branches are not included then the US Constitution excludes them.”
Of course this is silly, for both states and federal courts, it’s inherent that they can both strike down laws as an unspoken inherent part of there duty. Even Jefferson didn’t bulk at judicial review despite it not being included, because Jefferson understood what you didn’t.
A state constitution need not say the state courts are legislative to interpret or strike down laws, that’s inherent in what a court does in the United States.
*Have a Happy Winter Solstice and a Wonderful Holiday Season.*
And from deep antiquity celebrating more than 5000 rebirths (reberths) and a World Heritage site, the Newgrange Grand Passage Tomb.
*Let the Sunshine in.*
The Sun way up high in the sky.
*Bring me Sunshine.*
“E pluribus Unum..."
2:38:30-2:40:07
"It is no answer to say
the responsibility for
addressing partisan gerrymandering
is in the hands of the people,
when they are represented
by the legislators who are able to
entrench themselves by manipulating
the very democratic process
from which they derive
their constitutional authority."
Gorsich is just as discussing as Alito
Remember the soulless cant see truth. So pay attention to these people and do no business with them.
1:05:10
Lmao
What's funny, sis?
Let’s see what the anti- democratic conservatives on the court decide to do.
Why does it matter, you're not going to live by it anyways LOL
@@demurevilleneuvewinslet8235 only if they install a right wing autocratic for life…
They're so anti-democratic they just made one of the biggest political issues of the past 50 years subject to democracy, while those pro-democracy liberal justices wanted 5 justices to decide what people can vote on.
@@Zenon-fg4dw Take the tin foil hat off and get some fresh air kid.
Hahaha. Anti-democratic conservatives. Hahaha. You might want to look up ALL the definitions of democratic.
Eventually this will lead to the removal of the GOP from almost all prositions of Legislative Trust across state governments, then they'll call FOUL NOT FAIR.
Why
@@roxy746 The PEOPLE dislike losing their rights.