Update no.1120

Update from the Sunland

No.1120

26.6.23 – 2.7.23

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

This was the last week of the current U.S. Supreme Court session. As has been their practice for quite some time, the Supremes issued a bevy of controversial rulings at the end of the session. Among the end of session rulings were

-- Moore v. Harper [600 U.S. ___ (2023); No. 21–1271] – a decision on federal authority over state gerrymandering cases; reviewed below.

-- Students v. Harvard [600 U.S. ___ (2023); No. 20–1199] – the disembowelment of affirmative action; review pending.

-- 303 Creative v. Elenis [600 U.S ___ (2023); No. 21–476] – a regression of LBGTQ rights after so much progress; review pending.

I believe we can all imagine what the content of the decisions above are given the conservative takeover of the federal bench. Nonetheless, I shall critically review each cased as I am able from the perspective of a concerned citizen.

 

First on my reading list from this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision dump is Moore v. Harper [600 U.S. ___ (2023); No. 21–1271]—a federal judicial authority case regarding state redistricting plan review. The appellant in this case was North Carolina Speaker of the House Timothy Keith Moore, the state having lost the lower court rulings. The 6-3 majority affirmed a lower state court rejection of the legislature’s redistricting plan.

This was not the best written judicial pronouncement I have ever read, but the majority reached the correct conclusion, although by a rather circuitous route. It was Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion that proved the most engaging and enlightening. He wrote, “Nothing about this case prevents the State from either enacting or implementing any districting plan.” I believe he meant exactly what he wrote—“any districting plan.” ‘Any’ is the modifier he chose without qualification. Fortunately, the majority said he was wrong. The notion that the Framers thought unchecked state authority regarding federal elections was consistent with the structure of the Constitution is rather incongruous from any perspective. At the bottom line, the majority decided this one correctly.

With every decennial national census, the reapportionment of representation is established for each state. For those state’s affected, plus or minus, the district boundaries are redrawn to add or subtract the necessary congressional districts. Both major political parties use the practice known as gerrymandering in their efforts gain seats in the House of Representatives under the presumption, they can predict how residents will vote.

The case centers upon a single clause in the U.S. Constitution:

Article I, §4, cl. 1:

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 (sic) Senators.

In the broad, general sense, the question was whether the clause gave state legislatures exclusive supervisory rights over federal elections within their jurisdiction. To the conservatives, the language explicitly establishes each state legislature will determine how federal elections are held—when, where, and how. And thus, state redistricting plans are not reviewable by the federal judiciary, except as they may violate federal laws.

By the conservative strict constructionist interpretation of Clause 1, the states can do virtually anything they want—one polling station, no problem; one hour of voting, no problem. The authority was granted to them by Clause 1. As an extension, the federal judiciary has no authority to review redistricting plans. The more progressives on the bench take a more expansive interpretation in the We, the People, have some authority in a quasi-legislative manner. Fortunately, in this instance, the strict constructionists did not prevail, and the Judiciary rejected the North Carolina redistricting plan, which will in turn dictate closer scrutiny with future plans.

This case gives us another excellent view into the mind of strict constructionists among the justices. The conservative Supremes are not interested in people. They are only concerned with the law—the meaning of each word and its context within a phrase of connected words. Progressives see the words in a different light—the light of We, the People. The Constitution is not just a stack of words. 

We, the People. of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This preamble is the basis of our laws. It sets the stage, tone, and framework for the detailed articles that follow and the laws derived therefrom. The conservatives, strict constructionists, fBICP, MAGA bunch, social conservatives, and whatnot can try to ignore We, the People, but we will not be ignored.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1119:

Comment to the Blog:

“Nothing we know suggests that such a vessel as the Titan submersible would ever be safe in use. The builder never attempted to prove it to anyone. The whole episode screams hubris, complete with the classical penalty of hubris. The only ‘positive’ side I see is that one customer withdrew his deposit prior to the trip, thus saving his own life. Good sense still exists among the wealthy, and I hope it has a higher percentage than this misadventure revealed.

“I appreciate the parts of the U.S. judicial system that remain ethical. I’ll note again here that the vicious attacks on the vulnerable distract from legalizing greed that harms everyone but the very wealthy.

“Robert Reich posted an insightful article this morning on the Russia situation. https://robertreich.substack.com/p/prigozhin-and-trump Also, remember that those troops have been instrumental in the Ukraine invasion.”

My response to the Blog:

Correct. As I stated, the use of carbon matrix composite constructions for external pressure are not appropriate for a host of reasons (at least to our current capability). Rush chose to circumvent regulatory supervision by declaring the vessel experimental. Where he got crosswise with the law is allowing paying customers onto that submersible. I assume aircraft class regulation will soon be applied to submersibles.

Hubris indeed! It is most unfortunate that others had to pay the ultimate price for his hubris. Money tends to lead wealthy folks to a sense of invulnerability and superiority that somehow convinces them physics, commonsense, and the law do not apply to them.

Yes, the preponderance of the judicial system remains ethical and respectful of the law. However, there are notable exceptions, e.g., Alito and Thomas. Fortunately, they are not legal dictators like Judge Roy Bean.

Reich’s assessment to the Russia situation is as plausible and accurate as any. The SS was Hitler’s private army. Unlike the Wagner Group, the SS grew substantially under the aegis of state sanction into a formidable fighting force—Waffen-SS. The Wagner Group (and others) give Putin plausible deniability, e.g., the little green men. Reich articulates the most probable relationship between Putin & the State and Prigozhin. We shall eventually see how this plays out. I do believe Reich is spot on correct about [the person who shall no longer be named] . . . perish the thought.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)