the former president, barack obama, celebrating this decision from this ur barack obama wrote this. he said, they rejected the fringe indepennt state legislature theory that threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances by gig state legislatures near total control of federal election laws. this is a resounding election of the far right theory that has been peddled by election deniers here. in this opinion, the chief justice in writing it did say that state courts don t have, quote, free reign, putting some information in there about maybe federal courts reviewing state court decisions. so while this does sort of put the kabosh on free reign for state legislatures, there could be some litigation in the future depending on how state courts step in when it comes to elections. there will be further litigation. at least for the 2024 election,
gerrymandering, to partisan legislatures saying they alone have the right to certify an election or decide who electors should be. and that s why people like me and dahlia are saying that democracy itself is on the line. accepting north carolina s argument which is supported by other republican-led states, it would endanger hundreds of state constitutional provisions and state court decisions and more than a thousand delegations and authority to official commissions and others, it gets rid of checks and balances. that s exactly right. and that s exactly what justice kagan said today, when she got to the end of the soliloquy, this is effectively getting rid of checks and balances and something that justice kavanaugh was struggling today, effectively you are asking us to take away the power of the state supreme courts to decide what their state constitutions say. what am i supposed to do about that? and what is working against the republicans as well, if you have a state like new y
one of the questions i asked him about the dober case. some say dober from bu i m from louisiana. that s like marburg versus madison. exceptions to when a federal court will review state court decisions and carved out certain things, as did pullman. i get why you were asking the questions. i was just shocked at the answers. frankly, i was, too. it s something you learn in law school. is it true that the president contacted you? he did. what did he say? he called me friday. he said, look, kennedy, you know, do your job, man. i m mot upsenot upset. do your job. he said what do you think we ought to do? i said mr. president, i would ask mr. peterson to step down. i don t want to see him suffer any more. and he said i think that s what we ll do. and he said just keep doing your
first let me say as a prosecutor you never have evidence this good this probative. this is actually our crime going down on videotape. and the defense attorney is going to try to say you can t believe your eyes ladies and gentlemen, you can believe what you see. the officer had no justification for shooting this man eight times in the back while he s running away. and paul what does the police officer have in terms of legal recourse when he gets into a struggle with somebody over the taser? is it the fact that mr. scott was running away and posed absolutely no harm to him whatsoever that is the damning fact here? yes. that is the factor. under federal law and indeed under state court decisions, assuming that you re chasing somebody who has even committed a crime and here the crime would be if he fought with the cop and tried to hit him or take his taser, you still don t have the right to shoot him. you only have the right to shoot him if he s endangering you at