comment: >
  
  If the Supreme Court rules that a state legislature is the ultimate and only authority over elections, that their decisions cannot be challenged anywhere?
  Then what's to stop a state legislature from saying "The Democrat got 1,000,000 votes and the Republican got 900,000 - but we say the Republican won and are awarding the office to him."?
context: This ruling will make it easier for states to overturn the will of the people enshrining minority rule. No wonder the republicans are for it >
  
  They never seem to miss an opportunity seize power for a minority of supporters. >
  
  They don't have a choice. 
  Democrats fight to win elections, while Republicans are now in a fight for survival as a political party.  
  At least, that's the perspective of a wide window of conservatives, who can't fathom the party adapting and diversifying.  It's ironic, given that when you dive into polling, people don't seem to hate their economics, but their everything else.  
  The irony being that if they just went in a more libertarian direction, away from their controlling tendencies and religious morals their actual policies might be popular.  They wouldn't need to establish minority rule.  
  They're just IMO lazy and lack faith in their own ideology. >
  
  Eliminating the checks and balances the founders enacted to protect democracy. Clearly wrong and clearly inline with the court's current trajectory. >
  
  Every check and balance they remove creates an exploit Democrats can also use.  
  That should be the new outlook on this. >
  
  This whole “independent state legislature theory” is just that, a theory dreamed up by the far-right Federalist Society. Let’s hope a thought experiment doesn’t end up destroying the country. >
  
  The same Federalist Society that placed 6 of the SC Justices.  It is truly terrifying how close we might be to literally losing any semblance of democracy in this country. >
  
  SCOTUS votes for this and they vote themselves right out of a job. There won’t be any need for them in the resulting government >
  
  Pageantry will always be part of the process >
  
  Red states want Russian and North Korean style elections where the preferred candidate gets 99% of the votes and the 1% have accidents involving windows. >
  
  But unfortunately too brainwashed to realize it >
  
  Gotta support the team. s/ >
  
  Russiapublicans only want their friends to be able to vote >
  
  The SCOTUS agree to review this case because they are losing legitimacy to many Americans.
  Any first year law student can see the myriad of problems theoretical and practical that this will cause if they overturn the lower court ruling. 
  It will be 7-2 and  the mainstream media will tout the reasonableness of SCOTUS . Chief Justice will say in his own way “See ! We’re not a bunch of Republican flunkies..”The far right will work up some phony outrage and liberals will declare a great victory for democracy when it’s nothing of the sort. Its just SCOTUS wanting to make one ruling for the left in a supposedly notable case. 
  They should never have given credence to such a crackpot theory by reviewing it. >
  
  
  It will be 7-2 and the mainstream media will tout the reasonableness of SCOTUS.
  
  The fact that even one or two justices would vote for it is a little beyond the pale. Even 5-4 against would essentially mean our fears are recognized and the court can be led by extremists doing extreme things if they just make a slightly persuasive argument to one of the other justices (Lets say Barret or Kavanaugh in this case).
  I mean Roe V. Wade for all it's controversy at the time was 7-2. ISL theory needs to be 9-0 or we're still in big time trouble. >
  
  
  I mean Roe V. Wade for all it's controversy at the time was 7-2. ISL theory needs to be 9-0 or we're still in big time trouble.
  
  Roe v Wade really wasn't controversial until Jerry Falwell realized it could be used as a wedge issue to marry Christianity to the Republican Party.  Prior to Falwell, abortion was considered mostly a Catholic issue and others weren't that concerned about it. >
  
  Yep. And the primary reason Falwell and others chose abortion, is because they were really pissed about Civil Rights and bussing for people of color, but had to hide that behind something they thought was more palatable. These people have been utter garbage for decades. >
  
  The "Theory" almost certainly originated within the Sinister Six and was delivered to Republicans by Thomas' wife, when she was not too busy plotting a Coup. >
  
  Great article that covers many salient points. >
  
  If this happens, it’s time to seriously consider living in another country. I’m just not feeling living through a civil war, and that’s what it increasingly seems like the right wing zealots want, followed by martial law, an autocracy, and a new constitution that takes away most basic freedoms. >
  
  Feeling fortune to live near the Canadian border now. >
  
  Sorry to break it to you but Canada is not far enough out of the blast radius >
  
  I'm certain that republicans would like to control voting to the point where their candidate always wins.  That's the gist of their court case and their 'theory'.  They think that by removing the will of voters  from the election equation they will always win.  But there is only one guarantee in this scenario.  Ignoring the will of the voters only promotes the will of American freedom.  And you don't want to be on the wrong side of that equation. >
  
  Good to know the fate of American democracy rests on a bunch of regressive hacks. >
  
  States seceding would be a likely option if that ever happens >
  
  I think right now it's pretty much 50/50 whether or not this country makes it to 2030 as the United States. >
  
  Cool how 300 milly people will sit by and let like 5-6 weirdos ruin the entire country for everyone. >
  
  Funny how the guys who can’t win fair and square are always dreaming up new ways to cheat.