As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments today (going more than double their alloted time) about a South Carolina case which attempts to grant the state legislature (without the oversight of either Governor or state courts) supreme power over everything to do with the running of elections -- including, of course, often quite egregious gerrymandering.
Originalism, which the most conservative Justices seem to treat as something almost sacred, suggests that they will vote with the text of the Constitution, which mentioins state legislatures, but not courts. On the other hand, the Constitution itself was very careful to build in the "checks and balances" that include pitting legislative, administrative and judicial power against one another. But the words -- just 22 of them -- in the Constitution don't support those sorts of checks and balances in this one narrow instance. These words are from Article 1, Section 4 - "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;"
Conservatives seem to me to cling to the past like a safety net -- somehow assuming that ancients (or not-so-ancients) were wise enough to establish rules that would hold and satisfy no matter changes or conditions may prevail, throughout all of time. That's what religious adherence to Scripture is all about, and it is what (religious) slavish adherence to Constitutional "originalism" seems to be about, too.
I note, by the way, that those 22 words in the Constitution are followed by several more, which seem to indicate that the intent of the Framers really was to hold even state legislatures under some external governance. "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators"
Originalism, which the most conservative Justices seem to treat as something almost sacred, suggests that they will vote with the text of the Constitution, which mentioins state legislatures, but not courts. On the other hand, the Constitution itself was very careful to build in the "checks and balances" that include pitting legislative, administrative and judicial power against one another. But the words -- just 22 of them -- in the Constitution don't support those sorts of checks and balances in this one narrow instance. These words are from Article 1, Section 4 - "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;"
Conservatives seem to me to cling to the past like a safety net -- somehow assuming that ancients (or not-so-ancients) were wise enough to establish rules that would hold and satisfy no matter changes or conditions may prevail, throughout all of time. That's what religious adherence to Scripture is all about, and it is what (religious) slavish adherence to Constitutional "originalism" seems to be about, too.
I note, by the way, that those 22 words in the Constitution are followed by several more, which seem to indicate that the intent of the Framers really was to hold even state legislatures under some external governance. "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators"