[EL] Well, now we know there are at least four Justices (w/Barrett not yet opining)

[Samuel S. Wang]

I was once told by my betters that rights were not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, but that stronger protections could be conferred by the states. Also, that state courts are arbiters of those additional rights. But ymmv.

Sam Wang

>>>
Sent by handheld. Excuse brevity please!

On Oct 28, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:

To me that reads as supporting the notion that state courts are bound by state constitutions and aren’t free-ranging “justice” commissions with limitless power to rewrite legislation, but I guess ymmv.

Ilya Shapiro
Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
Publisher, Cato Supreme Court Review
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC  20001
cel. (202) 577-1134
Skype: ishapiro99
Bio/clips: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023

Buy my new book: Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court<https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Disorder-Judicial-Nominations-Politics/dp/1684510562/>

Cato Supreme Court Review:  http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review
Watch our 19th Annual Constitution Day Conference, Sept. 17, 2020:
https://www.cato.org/events/19th-annual-constitution-day

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:29 PM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: [EL] Well, now we know there are at least four Justices (w/Barrett not yet opining)

*CAUTION: External Email*

for the notion that legislatures can't be bound by their own state constitutions:

"[T]here is a strong likelihood that the [PA] State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2."

The dripping contempt for courts' very common, ordinary constitutional adjudication, is palpable:  "simply by claiming"; "make whatever rules it thought appropriate."
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201028/36a7bef7/attachment.html>