Today in Supreme Court History: September 7, 1958

9/7/1958: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the Little Rock School Board's petition to suspend its integration program. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court ordered the integration of Central High School.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Uhler v. AFL-CIO, 105 S.Ct. 5 (decided September 7, 1984): Rehnquist says federal courts have no jurisdiction to stay California Supreme Court's striking from the ballot a referendum requiring the legislature to apply to Congress for Constitutional Convention to add a "Balanced Budget Amendment"; California court had held that under Article V of the U.S. Constitution a Convention can be called only by the State Legislatures on their own initiative (and not as directed by referendum) and also that referendum was improper under the California Constitution (the Balanced Budget Amendment, pushed by Reagan-era Republicans -- a new definition of "chutzpah" -- fell two states short of the two-thirds required under Article V, and also failed to make it via the other Article V route, passage of two-thirds of each House of Congress)

[John F. Carr]

Rehnquist mentions what we now call the "independent state legislature" doctrine, calling it an "important and by no means settled" question of law. But there was an independent state law basis for the California Supreme Court's decision. The voters can pass laws and what they passed wasn't a law. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts once threw out a ballot initative on similar grounds: it proposed to regulate the procedures to be followed by the legislature.

I wonder if any people commenting on the independent state legislature doctrine in 1984 are still going on about it today, and whether they have switched sides. In the California case it protected a liberal interest (deficit spending). Now it is seen as helping conservatives. We may find out next year if it really exists, depending on how _Moore v. Harper_ is decided.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. (Though deficit spending, for quite some time now, has been practiced by Republicans a lot more than by Democrats, at least on the national level.)

[John F. Carr]

Democrats are on a spending spree recently. The only serious move towards a balanced budget was by the Clinton-Gingrich team beween the end of the Cold War and the start of the War on Terror. (Bush's tax cuts didn't help.)

[Frank Drackman]

yeah, letting people spend their own money, bad idea (if so bad why did Barry Hussein keep them after they expired? (except for the top rate)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Clinton did it without any help from Gingrich. All the Republicans wanted to do (as always) was cut taxes on the rich and Clinton would veto it. By the time GW Bush came in Republicans were actually arguing that surpluses were bad.

FY 1969 (LBJ's last) was a surplus. Since then, the deficit has hit record levels during every Republican Administration, and gone down during every Democratic Administration. It's practically an iron law of American politics by now.

[Frank Drackman]

Biggest "Bush Tax Cut" was cutting the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%, hasn't been increased since. "Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire" would have increased that lowest bracket 50%, which is why Barry Hussein didn't do it.
Trump nearly doubled the standard deduction most Amuricans take (even more now with Sleepy's 80,000 armed agents hitting the books)

[F.D. Wolf]

The ruling of the California court seems contrary to what the Supreme Court later held in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Redistricting Commision, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).

Arizona voters had passed a ballot initiative taking away redistricting authority from the legislature and to an independent commission. The legislature sued, arguing that the Constitution specifically gives that power to state legislatures. A 5-4 Court held that the word "Legislature" in the Constitution essentially meant the lawmaking process in the state, which includes referenda and initiatives. The case was decided on ideological lines, with Justice Ginsburg (joined by Breyer, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Kagan) writing the majority opinion. with Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Thomas, Scalia, and Alito) dissenting.

As John F. Carr noted, in Moore v. Harper the Court will review a similar case out of North Carolina, where the legislature is challenging maps drawn by the state courts. In March, the Court had denied a stay of the 4-3 ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court upholding the court-drawn map. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented from that denial. Kavanaugh concurred, citing the closeness of the election.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[John F. Carr]

Did the newspapers and journals of the 1950s scream about the death of democracy and the rule of law the way they do in the 2020s? The civil rights era was full of decisions that affected lives. Now the country is doomed and the court is illegitimate if a power plant opens in Ohio or a tourist carries a handgun into Manhattan.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One can, in fact, draw a direct line between Jim Crow and current Republican attempts to restrict voting. Both are aimed at depressing black turnout and both are pitched as solutions to problems that in fact don't exist (1950's: black inferiority; 2020's: "voter fraud").

[Bob from Ohio]

There are no "Republican attempts to restrict voting". ID and limits on drop boxes or early voting don't "restrict voting", they regulate access in minor ways and do not stop anyone from voting.

This is a form of "election denial" too. Results are not accurate because of "Republican attempts to restrict voting".

[apedad]

Let's see BfO go apeshit when someone suggests, "they regulate access to weapons in minor ways (which does) not stop anyone from owning a weapon."

[Bob from Ohio]

Getting a gun legally is harder than voting. ID needed, background checks, nationwide lifetime ban on ownership for certain people, waiting period. Many states have license requirements to carry as discussed many time here.

Other than that, good comparison!

[Dan Schiavetta]

So why are Republicans trying to restrict voting? There is no reason for any of these restrictions except to make it harder for people in minority districts to vote, for example by restricting drop boxes to one per county (Texas) or, where after making long lines are inevitable, making it illegal to give an old person waiting on line a drink of water (Georgia).

[Bob from Ohio]

"why are Republicans trying to restrict voting? "

They aren't. Neither of your examples stops anyone from voting.

"give an old person waiting on line a drink of water"

LOL Plague of dead elderly in November from heat stroke?

I think that provision is dumb because it lets demagogues like you bleat about it. It stops zero people from voting though.

[David Nieporent]

"why are Republicans trying to restrict voting? "

They aren't. Neither of your examples stops anyone from voting.

The howls of outrage from the left are almost all misplaced; virtually nothing they label "voter suppression" actually suppresses votes. But at the same time, the only discernible explanation for most of those GOP proposals is to try to restrict voting.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Sleepy Joe's former Slave State of Delaware? or Colorado, both of which have more "restrictive" laws and less early voting than Race-ist Georgia

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" There are no "Republican attempts to restrict voting". "

No informed person would advance that assertion, especially not anyone familiar with the evidence underlying the consent decree that restrained Republican Party voter suppression for decades.

Vote-suppressing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties. Not enough bad things can happen to them. The next consent decree should be a beautiful thing.

(Billy Preston -- sometime Stone, fifth Beatle -- wrote that one, with Bruce Fisher.)

[defaultdotxbe]

I find all the criticisms that the court is out of step with popular opinion amusing, since most civil rights cases (and even the much venerated Roe v. Wade) were out of step with popular opinion as well.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The problem is the direction. The Court is not enforcing unpopular rights that later got popular. This Court is, after the fact, going to the past and enforcing views that once were popular but no longer are.

[defaultdotxbe]

The fundamental flaw is that you assume the court is supposed to make decisions based on popularity, rather than based on the constitution. Its the job of Congress (or, more specifically, of the House) to do its job based on popularity, and if the court finds something unconstitutional then the constitution can be amended, but that requires a higher threshold of popularity than most ideas today receive, so the constitution remains as-is and the court does its just as required.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Dobbs decision was based on the idea of popularity. The Court held that it should be up to the popular will of each state to decide on whether abortion would be restricted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow. For a smart guy you certainly say some stupid shit.

[John F. Carr]

The name _Roe v. Wade_ is popular. The legal doctrine it announced is not. Most Americans think a woman should have a meaningful chance to choose abortion. Most Americans do not support elective abortion up to viability.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Dobbs is based on the idea that the fetus is a human being with legal rights. (Otherwise why allow restrictions on abortions at all? It should be strictly the woman's right.) This is not the majority view.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably because a "Majority" of aborted feti are(were? would be?) members of otherwise protected "Minority" Groups. It's not a bug that Amurica has 50 million fewer Afro-Amuricans due to readily available abortions for the last half century, it's a feature!