Supreme Court questions jurisdiction in sweeping election law clash | The Hill

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether it can still move ahead in a major election law case involving the authority of state legislatures. The justices are hearing an appeal from North Carolina Republican lawmakers of a decision by the state’s top court, which struck down North Carolina’s GOP-drawn voting maps. But that underlying decision was overruled last week, and the Supreme Court in a brief, unsigned order has asked for additional briefing on whether it still has jurisdiction.

The development is the latest sign the justices may be heading toward an off-ramp in the high-stakes case, which has weighty stakes for future elections. In Washington, D.C., the Republican lawmakers promoted a sweeping constitutional argument that would give near-total authority to state legislatures in drawing congressional maps and settling other federal election issues, known as the independent state legislature theory.

But Republicans in the midterm elections retook control of the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the new majority agreed to rehear the court’s earlier order striking down the legislature’s maps. The court overruled that decision along partisan lines on Friday. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court justices have asked the parties to file additional briefs by May 11 on whether they can still move ahead. The parties wrote to the justices to the justices indicating they would be pleased to do so if requested.

It marks the second time the court has asked for additional briefing in the case. The justices similarly questioned their jurisdiction after the state court agreed to rehear the case.

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
    hexagon
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Editing situations at many sites have gotten weird.

    Like at the NYT - articles are free of errors as you'd expect. But some of the opinion writing is atrocious. Sometimes there are clearly factual errors.

    My wild hunch is that some authors get carte blanche and although mistakes are fixed the content is basically untouched. The quality has gotten bad if not terrible over the past couple years.

    This article from last week for example...

    archive.today • Opinion | Donald Trump May Have Begun Losing - The New York Times

    By far it's the worse written thing I've ever read at that damn site. I thought I was having a stroke. It's majestic in its awfulness...

    The effect of the [January 6th] committee’s presentation, a kind of effort at building consensus about recent history, was less tangible: to reorient the country’s attention, through the hearings, to how bad Jan. 6 really was. Attention is hard to maintain and focus, especially when, with Mr. Trump, it’s as if we’re always trying to hold water in our hands.

    • nohaybanda [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Wdym this is art. It perfectly communicates a Liberal's baffled inability to comprehend the failure of their own ideology.

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        hexagon
        ·
        2 years ago

        I wonder if the author, Katherine Miller, doesn't actually exist and the NYT is testing out AI. If so - they are using the wrong app. It's shit.

    • Multihedra [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah that’s impressively terrible, and not what I’d expect from NYT

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
        hexagon
        ·
        2 years ago

        I chose another article by her at random. It's like the written equivalent of flicking fluorescent lighting that's giving you a headache. It's the same hard to parse text, and in addition there is the problem of run on sentences with too many comas, inserted oddly and maybe a semicolon; plus it's a worse than AI written text as she seems intent on never putting words in an order that flows smoothly.

        archive.today • Opinion | Joe Biden's Greatest Strength Is Also His Greatest Vulnerability - The New York Times

        If he runs for this second term, squarely in this space of all these contradictions, Mr. Biden is making the same ask as he did during the 2020 election — to trust him, to trust that he will be proven right about himself. Qualitatively, Mr. Biden represents familiarity and stability, which both derive from his age and sit in uneasy tension with it.

        There is something weird and hinky at play. Maybe she's the faildaugther of somebody very important or at least very important to the NYT. Or she's in a sexual relationship with somebody in power there. Or both?