The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that state constitutions can protect voting rights in federal elections and state courts can enforce those provisions, in a key opinion that should safeguard the integrity of the 2024 election.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that state constitutions can protect voting rights in federal elections and state courts can enforce those provisions, in a key opinion that should safeguard the integrity of the 2024 election.
The dissent didn’t state that the case should have gone the opposite way… they argued that the case should be moot based on the fact that the original dispute that caused the case had been settled. At least, that’s my understanding.
He wants to leave room for ISL in the future, though considering how this court treats precedent I am not sure it matters.
yeah that was my take away too from a very quick scan. I honestly couldn’t be bothered to read the entire dissent because I couldn’t imagine WTF Thomas needed that many pages to say the court didn’t need to even decide the case. He started off with a bunch of “we don’t ‘advise’” themes and then I just lost interest. I’m hoping SCOTUS blog does a decent summary of the decent. If it seems interesting enough maybe I’ll take the time to read the full text.
But based on his theme my answer would be, “yeah maybe. But you know what else the SCOTUS should do, take cases and issue decisions when it’s obvious ‘this shit ain’t dead’ and maybe, just maybe, you all should put a nail in the coffin of stupid ideas to remove all ambiguity”