423
Alabama GOP refuses to draw second Black district, despite Supreme Court order (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., have been calling state legislators about the map, which could affect control of Congress.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 136 points 3 years ago (6 children)

A lot of people were wondering this during the later Trump years: what's to stop government officials from simply ignoring the Supreme Court (or another branch, for that matter). It's surely a "Constitutional Crisis", but many conservatives seem more interested in preaching about the Constitution than actually following it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 88 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    what's to stop government officials from simply ignoring the Supreme Court

    A federal government being willing to enforce the law Reconstruction style and send in federal troops to effect the arrest of these traitors and the unconditional surrender of their government. Anything less is just giving the anti-democratic forces time to get stronger and chip away at more of our society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 54 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    A federal government being willing to enforce the law Reconstruction style and send in federal troops to effect the arrest of these traitors and the unconditional surrender of their government. Anything less is just giving the anti-democratic forces time to get stronger and chip away at more of our society.

    At first I was writing a comment to say the Posse Comitatus Act wouldn't allow this, but it seems like the Insurrection Act of 1807 is an exception, and would apply in this instance.

    Specifically:

    10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law

    The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

    (1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
    (2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

    In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

    Edit: I feel compelled to point out that we're not here yet, because the SCOTUS order has a review process for the new voting maps, and if a judge rejects them, the judge can authorize a third party to draw the maps for Alabama. If the Alabama government rejects those third-party maps, then shit gets real.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    It won't get that real. Ohio's GOP has been ordered by our state Supreme Court since before 2016 to redraw fair voting maps and not only did they not, but they submitted blatantly unfair maps that didn't even come close to their guidelines. The Court has done nothing and will continue to do nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    We are most certainly within a constitutional crisis. You can probably start the timeline at the 2000 Supreme Court ruling where the court said it had no authority to rule, but it did. The republicans blocking the supreme court nomination was also a clear breakdown of the system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago

    Legally? Nothing. See Worcester v. Georgia, where the apocryphal quote "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it" comes from.

    Ultimately, though, if a state decides it doesn't want to follow federal law any more, that's secession, and we've fought a civil war over it before.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    It's actually not a Constitutional crisis. Specifically because there's practically zero enumerated duties of SCOTUS in the Constitution.

    Thank Marshall for conniving his way into actual power for the court. But it can vanish just as easily.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent