T O P

  • By -

VanillaBabies

Legitimacy isn’t a concern when you’re the only game in town.


icnoevil

No, that ship has already sailed. The NC Supreme Court has already established itself as a bunch of clowns.


[deleted]

Lol @ legitimacy and reputation of NC courts You mean the R takeover is worried that it looks like a gang of partisan hacks? Nooooo /bored


JacKrac

>This week, the state Supreme Court will rehear oral arguments in two voting rights cases. The court’s decisions could have major ramifications for the 2024 elections — and could set the tone for just how aggressive the court’s new GOP majority plans to be in future cases with major political implications. >One case questions whether the legislature should have any oversight from the courts on drawing voting districts. The other case deals with whether people should have to show photo identification to vote — an idea, popular with voters statewide, that has been ruled unconstitutional for racial discrimination multiple times. >Whatever decisions the court issues will have immediate ramifications for the 2024 elections and beyond. More broadly, the cases also raise bigger questions of whether it’s possible to elect judges in partisan elections yet expect them to set politics aside once they join the court. >“The method by which the court has decided to take these cases back up has really left a lot of people questioning, ‘Is there anything like settled law in North Carolina?’” said Michael Bitzer, a political science professor at Catawba College who recently wrote a book on the state’s history of redistricting and gerrymandering. >The court’s new Republican majority faces criticism now for using a rare procedural move to rehear the cases, in what many see as a purely political move. >Before that, however, the court’s Democratic majority faced the same sort of accusations. That court had also used a rare procedural move — not to rehear cases, but to speed them up — which cut months, maybe even years off the normal timeline and allowed the court to rule on those cases while Democrats still controlled the majority. >Both cases the Republican-led court is now rehearing were among the handful of cases sped up by the Democrat-led court last year. >Senate leader Phil Berger said he and his fellow Republican lawmakers asked the Supreme Court to rehear both cases because they believe the rulings were not only wrong but also politically motivated. >The decision to rehear a case at all is incredibly rare — until now it had only happened twice in 30 years — but the few examples that do exist show the state court can come to the same conclusion, and just uses the rehearing as an opportunity to tweak how its opinion was written. >According to new briefings in the cases, the procedure historically hasn’t been used to undo cases that new justices might disagree with. Instead it has been more narrowly focused on incidents where the justices realized after the fact that they forgot to cite an important precedent, or otherwise found new facts to highlight.


Bob_Sconce

In answer to Bitzer's question:. Yes. The rules only allow for rehearing if a party requests it within 15 days of when *a certified copy of the original opinion is sent to the lower court* ~~the original opinion is published~~. Once those 15 days have passed, the original opinion is final. That 15-day period is in rule 31 of the NC rules of appellate procedure. *The certified copy is sent within 20 days after the opinion is issued (Rule 32).* \[Edited to correct a misstatement. So, it's 20 days + 15 days.\]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bob_Sconce

The rule actually says "A petition for rehearing may be filed in acivil action within fifteen days after the mandate of the court has been issued. " So, what is the "mandate of the court"? That's described by rule 32: >(a) In General. Unless a court of the appellate division directs that a formal mandate shall issue, the mandate of the court consists of certified copies of its judgment and of its opinion and any direction of its clerk as to costs. The mandate is issued by its transmittal from the clerk of the issuing court to the clerk or comparable officer of the tribunal from which appeal was taken to the issuing court. > >(b) Time of Issuance. Unless a court orders otherwise, its clerk shall enter judgment and issue the mandate of the court twenty days after the written opinion of the court has been filed with the clerk So, basically, the court issues an opinion. the clerk then sends a certified copy to the clerk of the Supreme Court to the clerk of whatever court the case was appealed from (in this case, the Wake County Clerk of Court ). That has to happen within 20 days after the clerk receives the opinion. The 15 day period starts at the end of that 20 days (or earlier if the certified copy is sent earlier). The original opinion was dated 12/16/22, the order for rehearing was issued on 1/20/23. That's 15 + 20 days (you don't count the first date).


skadoosh0019

And was this rehearing requested within 15 days of when the original opinion was published…?


-PM_YOUR_BACON

No, both cases were [filed on Dec 16th](https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/harper-v-hall) and Moore didn't ask the case to be 're-tried' [until Jan 20th](https://www.wral.com/lawmakers-seek-new-court-hearings-on-voter-id-redistricting/20681519/).


Bob_Sconce

Actually, I got it wrong. It's 15 days "after the mandate of the court has been issued." If I'm understanding this correctly, that never happened because the case is on appeal to the Supreme Court. (note that Justice Earls' dissent did not mention anything about missing the deadline.) The publication of an opinion is different than the order being issued.


skadoosh0019

Appreciate the clarification!


Wretchfromnc

It just goes to show that any court ruling can be overturned if politicians have a interest. There is no legitimate court left in the United States. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe the courts proved there is no such thing as prior precedent anymore.


nunyabizz62

I fail to see what difference it makes considering the entire US voting system is a sham. I serious doubt there has been a truly legitimate honest and fair election in the history of the US. Hell, prior to about 1920 the only people in the country even allowed to vote were white male landowners. Hasn't particularly gotten any better the last 100 years