North Carolina’s state motto is ‘First in Freedom,’ and conservatives in that state may be the first to save the Republic with moves by the newly cemented conservative state supreme court, which rose to power in the November midterm elections and immediately got to work trying to undo some of the damage done by the state’s out-of-control Marxist power grab.
Remember, if we can preserve it, we are a Republic.
Democrat activist lawmakers and Democrat usurpers, including Governor Roy Cooper, Attorney General Josh Stein, and Secretary of State Eliane Marshall, have been willing to perpetuate the condition in a perpetual state of impotence by imposing the WHO’s severe COVID limits on individual freedom.
The once-bravely Conservative’red’ state has been under siege by radical Marxist Community Organizers like Stacey Abrahams and attorney Marc Elias, who have collaborated with State Board of Elections-leftist Karen Binson Bell to demolish the 2020 election under “King” Roy Cooper’s COVID lockdown rules.
Now, a carefully watched election case with origins in North Carolina is before the United States Supreme Court, and it has the potential to upend the 2024 presidential election.
Prior to the conservative justices who currently preside over the North Carolina Supreme Court, there was a problem with leftists on the bench who threw the state into disarray with redistricting to assist Democrats gain more seats than they should have.
And now that nonsense ruling by unseated Democrats is in jeopardy. Here is how:
“Conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical about a state court’s decision to strike down Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina, but it seemed unlikely a majority would embrace a broad theory that could upend election law nationwide. Instead, the appeal brought by North Carolina Republicans asks the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to embrace a hitherto obscure legal argument called the ‘independent state legislature theory,’ which could strip state courts of the power to strike down certain election laws enacted by state legislatures,” the New Yorker reported, adding:
“The independent state legislature argument hinges on language in the Constitution that says election rules ‘shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.’ Supporters of the theory, which has never been endorsed by the Supreme Court, say the language supports the notion that, when it comes to federal election rules, legislatures have ultimate power under state law, potentially irrespective of potential constraints imposed by state constitutions.”
From the New Yorker article:
“Backed by Republican leaders at the N.C. General Assembly, the crux of the argument is that they and all other state legislators should have much broader power to write election laws, with courts mostly not allowed to stop them by ruling their actions unconstitutional. They’ve been tight-lipped about the case since filing it this spring, mostly preferring to avoid commenting on it to reporters and instead doing their talking through legal briefs. Beyond redistricting the case also has the potential to change how North Carolina and the 49 other states handle everything from early voting and mail-in ballots rules to voter ID, recounts, post-election audits, and anything else that could possibly affect an election.”
“However, there’s been another significant turn of events,” Martin Walsh from Conservative Brief reported more details, adding: The newly Republican-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court will rehear a significant redistricting case at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court decisions expected this year.
“The state court could render the case moot after the Supreme Court heard it in early December. The justices’ decision was expected this summer. The North Carolina legislature’s lawyers, representing the Republican majority, pushed the independent state legislature theory, the idea that the state legislature — to the exclusion of nearly all other organs of state government, including state constitutions and courts — gets to govern voting, election administration, and redistricting.”
“In one of the weakest points of their argument, the legislators say they support the gubernatorial veto being part of the process otherwise solely determined by the state legislature — a contradiction about which both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed intense skepticism during oral arguments.”
Democrats are out in full force pushing their usual talking points by claiming it could “end democracy.”
Kathay Feng, who leads the anti-gerrymandering group Common Cause, called the North Carolina case “the case of the century.”
“It is a case that asserts a bizarre and fabricated reading of the United States Constitution … to create a situation where elections are already rigged from the start,” she said.
Eric Holder, who has been obsessed with asserting his radical Marxist utopia in North Carolina since 2008, a Democrat and former U.S. attorney general under Barack Obama, said it “should keep every American up at night.”
Michael Luttig, a Republican and retired federal judge who George W. Bush considered nominating to the Supreme Court, recently called it “the single most important case on American democracy” of the last 250 years.