Dark Days At U.S. Supreme Court See Rare Ray Of Light...

 

By EDUARDO PAZ-MARTINEZ

McALLEN, Texas | What has amounted to the continuing darkest days in the recent history of the ever-squirrely U.S. Supreme Court was interrupted today by a decision more in line with fair and neutral justice. The court's partisan politics have been front-center of late, with its Republican appointees playing the conservative card at will.

A mid-day ruling to do with state legislatures wishing to politicize elections saw the court go against such blatant strong-arming. Mostly, it went against Republican governors, such as Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida - the two totally into voter suppression.

This informative tidbit from axios.com: [ The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected one of Republicans’ most audacious attempts to control elections. In a 6-3 decision, the justices said states' election laws can be challenged in court - a rebuke to a burgeoning conservative movement that has sought to block the courts from hearing such cases.

A group of North Carolina GOP lawmakers had asked the court to embrace a sweeping legal theory called the independent state legislature doctrine. The theory holds that state legislatures have total control over their state's election rules, including the procedures that govern presidential elections. Even if a state legislature does something that would violate the state's constitution, proponents of the independent state legislature theory argue, the courts have no ability to stop them.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument in one of the highest profile cases of its term. ]

This, btw, is the same court - six appointed by Republicans and three by Democrats - that a few days ago denied a claim by Native American tribes to a historic share of water from the Colorado River.

Yep. Lately, it's been Hell to be a Supreme Court associate justice, especially if your name is Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito - both Republican-appointees. Thomas and Alito have both been subjects of in-depth news reporting (by Pro-Publica) detailing information to do with both accepting numerous gifts and taking expensive vacation trips paid by others, including some who have business before the high court.

A clear breach of ethics, as we know it, the freewheeling gift-taking has yielded nothing from Chief Justice John Roberts, who not that long ago declined to testify on the matter before a congressional committee seeking an explanation.

Perhaps, with this decision, the court wants to make amends, of sorts.

You think?...

-30-

[Editor's Note:...Journalist Dan "The Man" McLanahan reported from the press office of the Supreme Court. Also contributing was summer intern Monique Galonsky in Austin, Texas...]...]