Left melting down over election case about to be heard by Supreme Court

This commentary is by Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project Action.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case called Moore v. Harper, and the left is having a meltdown. Vox calls the case “deranged.” Mother Jones says the Court is preparing to “rig” the next election. And Marc Elias, the Democrat’s leading election lawyer, whines continuously that the Court is about to upend democracy by embracing a “fringe” legal theory.

Just what is this “fringe” theory? Progressives call it the Independent State Legislature Theory, but most Americans have another name for it: The Constitution. All the way back in 1787, the Framers had the foresight to give the power to write the rules of federal elections to lawmakers — not courts — and that’s driving today’s litigious left crazy.

Wikimedia Commons/Public domain

With a presidential election now just two years away, Moore v. Harper offers the Supreme Court its best opportunity to avoid chaos in future elections — and to avoid finding itself in the unenviable position of deciding another Bush v. Gore-style post-election dispute.

Queue the outrage from Elias and others. After all, if the Justices issue a constitutionally-grounded ruling in this case, their highly lucrative, nationwide campaign to use rogue courts to rewrite election laws for political gain could grind to a halt. If it does, Elias will have nobody to blame but himself.

The case arose when Elias and his clients challenged the redistricting maps drawn by North Carolina lawmakers and invited the Democrat-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court to seize the authority to draw maps for itself. The Democratic Justices did just that, treating the state constitution like a Ouija board as they grasped at any vague provision they could find to justify their power grab. In the end, the partisan majority redrew the state’s maps to advantage Democrats.

Fortunately, North Carolina legislators fired back, challenging the partisan ruling on the grounds that it violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause. That teed up the current case, which has huge ramifications for everything from redistricting to adopting voter ID.

At bottom, Moore is a case about who has the power to write election laws. When the framers crafted the Constitution, they handed that responsibility to lawmakers. The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause clearly states that times, places, and manners of holding elections for U.S. Senators and Representatives “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

One thing everyone should agree on is that a court is not a legislature, anymore than a legislature is a governor or a governor is a court. The difficulty, of course, is that Elias and so many progressives want courts to act as super-legislatures and impose their views — and their politics — particularly as Republicans control more and more state legislatures. But as an amicus brief by the Honest Elections Project points out, that view utterly ignores the history and text of the Constitution. Should the Supreme Court justices agree, it would deal a major blow to Elias’s anti-democracy campaign.

That makes Moore a clear threat to Elias’s anti-democracy campaign to skew voting laws for partisan gain. His cynical “voting rights” litigation is aimed at swaying election outcomes by rewriting election laws, and thanks to virtually unlimited funding from the left’s biggest dark-money outfits, he has built a 70-attorney law firm that can challenge practically any voting law in any state. In the process, he risks chaos and undermines voter confidence in elections.

Just last month, Elias went down to Georgia and scored a victory with the assistance of a handpicked activist judge who granted his request for a bonus day of voting in the contentious runoff election between Democrat Sen. Raphael Warnock and GOP challenger Herschel Walker. Elias’s gamble, which paid off, was that large Democratic counties would be the only ones with the resources to pull off an extra day of holiday voting. From start to finish, his maneuver was thoroughly partisan and drenched in hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, the most vocal critics of Moore peddle the fairy tale that legislatures would be made all-powerful, or would even be able to retroactively reverse election results. But that is simply not the case. The fact is, lawmakers will still be answerable to Congress and to the U.S. Constitution, as outlined in the Elections Clause. The laws they pass would still follow routine legal processes, such as submitting bills to governors to sign. And nothing in Moore raises the prospect of legislatures invalidating future elections extralegally and after the fact.

Doing so would, at the very least, violate federal law.

With a presidential election now just two years away, Moore offers the Supreme Court its best opportunity to avoid chaos in future elections — and to avoid finding itself in the unenviable position of deciding another Bush v. Gore-style post-election dispute. The issue will not go away, and the next time it rears its ugly head could be in the middle of a contested presidential race.

Elias, after all, will certainly be back in court coaxing activist judges to rewrite the election laws of key states for Democrats’ advantage.

In this case, anyone who loves our republic should hope for a win for North Carolina’s lawmakers. After all, Moore isn’t a case about giving them power — its about affirming the power of lawmakers to make laws. And what is more democratic than that?

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Public domain
Spread the love

27 thoughts on “Left melting down over election case about to be heard by Supreme Court

  1. Another interesting case I heard about recently. Supreme Court of Arizona. HUNT v. CAMPBELL Dec. 22, 1917. ” In 1916, Thomas Campbell was declared the winner and held office for nearly one year before the Arizona Supreme Court determined that in fact Hunt had won reelection.” Brazil is a canary in the coalmine. Google Brazil and find news is censored to feature primarily stories about the World Cup. Last known status of the contested election held in late October 2022: The military is siding with Bolsonaro over Luiz Inacio Lula da Silvar, who was released from prison in 2019 (convicted of taking bribes from engineering firms in return for public contracts.) The Supreme Court of Brazil sided with Lula da Silvar. Thousands upon thousands of people took to the streets and the military stepped in. At this point, it appears the lines are drawn. Hard to find verifiable information on what is going on there now. Here in the United States, will our Supreme Court rule to uphold the US Constitution or rebel against it? If the ruling shows rebellion, will our military uphold their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? We are facing a Red Sea moment in the USA.

  2. Let’s see who do we trust, our forefathers who wrote the Constitution, this document
    has prevailed for over 250 years, it may not be perfect but these wise men knew and
    could see that politicians could and would manipulate their writings, and in today’s
    world with their sleazy lawyers like Marc Elias,…….yeah !!

    The Supreme court has only one job to read, understand and support what was written
    in the Constitution, not to be swayed to the power-hungry left……… pretty pathetic.

    Wake up people, they’ll do whatever to stay in power, even if it means the destruction
    of the country as we know it. If our country is so bad why are millions flocking here ??

    • I wouldn’t dare make such a foolish statement as “power-hungry left’. EVERY politician is power-hungry and corrupt, it’s in their DNA.

  3. If you’d pull your heads out of your asses, get involved with your local committees, we will discover the truth on our own. F*** scotus. We’ve got this.

  4. The most amazing thing about Brunson v. Adams is that the U.S. Solicitor General waived the right to defend the government.

    • Yes, Dave basically admitting that they don’t have a defense. They rushed the certification of Biden and that speaks volumes about the question, what was the rush to get it done. I bet Nancy Pelosi and her flying monkeys had something to do with it. She didn’t authorize the national guard or fences prior to J6 but immediately fenced off the capitol right after to make it look like DC was going to be under attack. If you find a picture of the national guard stationed in DC after the riot note that they are carrying M4 machine guns but none of them have magazines in the rifles. So many lies!

  5. Welp, if the Left is melting down- then we are surely onto something here…

    Their meltdown alone speaks volumes.
    When you know you are in the right, there is no need to have meltdowns.

  6. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case that could overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future. The case, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al, sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.

    If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president.

    The Epoch Times

    • Epoch Times and American Thinker are just now reporting on Brunson v. Adams, but I reported on it December 1st here:

      https://mobile.twitter.com/VTCitizenMedia/status/1598383602630160384

      Peter Welch, Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy are among 385 members of Congress accused of “thwarting investigation” of election rigging by “powerful covert enemy,” “national security breach,” and “act of treason & fraud.”

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/22-380.html

      Excellent explanation of Brunson v. Adams here:

      https://rumble.com/v1ypimo-juan-o.-savin-scotus-case-could-close-congress.html

      • BRUNSON v. ADAMS DEFENDANTS:

        Named persons in their capacities as United States Senators:

        TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO; MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN; RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A. BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL; SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R. CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY; SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN; JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER; KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN; MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S. KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD; PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY; MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI; CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C. PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E. RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C. SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH; DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER; JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY; HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN; TODD YOUNG

        Named persons in their capacities as United States House Representatives:

        ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR; COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE; DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR; NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M. ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY; ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD 0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON; MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN; KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY; JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M. CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER; JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER; GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG; DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW; HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS; MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA DEGETTE; ROSA L. DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE; ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE; TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO; ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL; MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R. GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA; JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES; ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M.GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE; DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L. HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH; STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H. HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL; HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.; MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R. KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.; BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU; ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G. LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM; A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN; PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER; GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D. MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE; SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N. MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F. NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS; ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O’HALLERAN; ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.; DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS; CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER; AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M. RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K. ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L. RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P. SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER; AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT; TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES; ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER; GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL; BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS; MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS; RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES; RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE; MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER; MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ; MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN; PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD; NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG;

        JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her capacity as Vice President of the United States

      • “Seeds of Treason” – Toledano/Lasky provides a detailed history of the Hiss-Chambers case and illustrates the (too often successful) infiltration and subversion of our government by dogmatic zealots of a special interest cabal politically supportive of the Stalinist USSR. It reveals a significantly analogous subversion and use of government agencies in the takeover attempt by globalists powers (largely for over a century) supported by the Progressive faction of the Democrat party.

      • I forgot to add that Vermont is mentioned as one of the 31 states that violated the constitution prior to the 2020 election. We should also note that this issue before the court pertains to a violation of their oaths of office. Perhaps Vermont legislators and political leaders who swear to an oath to protect and not harm our constitution should take notice that they do so under the pains and penalties of perjury. This includes the judiciary as well as the VT supreme court.

        • I read your link Dano, it is interesting.
          I don’t see how the SC can NOT hear the case really..the way this article explains this.
          It’s about time that someone reel in these states that seem to think that having a pandemic means from then on they can do whatever they want to do. The pandemic is over and this last election should have been completely returned to normal procedures. And that is but one issue..

          NH is on here too- which doesn’t surprise me.

    • Readers should note that the SCOTUS has not yet decided to hear this case. It is expected to make the announcement next month.

      • If they fail to take up the case, they will be violating their oaths of office, back to catch 22. Then what, continued unconstitutional everything?

        • As Benj. Franklin said: “[T]his Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; …. can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

        • Dano look at this Tweet, Rep. Paul Gossar has risen up in support of what former President Trump is saying about this.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f0fd574684c88e6098ba7c4ba675e10374303774c3cb0a2875e4355e133dae0b.jpg

          I am thinking that perhaps more will soon join Rep.Gossar.
          When you add up what is going on with Twitter and what is being revealed about the suppression of so much information, then the Sam Bankman Fried scam- I read yesterday that he gave over a Billion with a B to the Democrats and some Republicans..
          Even the Fauci hearing.. why on earth were these elections conducted this way when it’s more and more clear what a scam Covid was and is?

          These last two elections should be scrapped.. there is just MANY very bad issues.

      • Article Erroneous Headline: “Left melting down over election case about to be heard by Supreme Court”

        Thanks for the FACTS Jay.

        • Erroneous Headline? Not really.

          From this article: “Marc Elias, the Democrat’s leading election lawyer, whines continuously that the Court is about to upend democracy by embracing a “fringe” legal theory.”

          Who is Mr. Elias? He “… represents dozens of U.S. senators, governors, representatives and their campaigns as well as the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Priorities USA, Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC. Marc served as general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 and John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004.”

          • Jay, what is it? Has the court taken up the case or has it not yet decided to take it up.

            You do realize, don’t you, that you made this statement that they haven’t taken it up. That they will decide NEXT month if they will take it up or not.

        • Joy:

          The Brunson vs Adams case was just added to the SCOTUS docket for hearing. The case hasn’t been heard yet. But a ‘conference date’ has been set for January 6, 2023.

          But let’s stop moving the goal posts, shall we. You said the headline to this TNR article was ‘erroneous’. I explained why it isn’t.

          Next.

Comments are closed.