Biased Court...

HAT NOW?

The Supreme Court of the USA is biased and they have an agenda.  They were supposed to be in recess...but they are going to hear one more case...Berger vs North Carolina. 

I tried to read the whole case  history but it was so full of repetitive BS

I stopped.  What I got out of it is very scary...this is a law suit where in 2018 the NAACP sued the state for creating a law that says voters have to present a valid photo ID.  It ended up in 4th District Fed Court which ruled that Legislators can NOT be authorized to represent the challenge to the state law that only a fed court has that authority... and it went back n forth till now it's on the docket of the Supreme court.  This is completely scary because the main idea now after many rulings is that the Legislator entitled to participate in the civil proceedings, in other words can they act as the LAW here...

Gorsuch wrote the Reversed opinion...

 Through the General Assembly, the people of North Carolina have authorized the leaders of their legislature to defend duly enacted state statutes against constitutional challenge. Ordinarily, a federal court must respect that kind of sovereign choice, not assemble presumptions against it. Having satisfied the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), North Carolina’s legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in this litigation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is Reversed.

This means that illegal voting rules can be put into place, and the State Legislature would decide if it's constitutional or not!! Stand back for more States to do such BS and the Federal court WON'T hear any suit...and we all can kinda see where the vote will land!!

Justice Sotomayor dissented:

In short, the Court’s conclusion that state respondents inadequately represented petitioners’ interests is a fiction that the record does not support. In addition, the Court’s armchair hypothesizing improperly displaces the District Court’s firsthand experience in managing this litigation. * * * States are entitled to structure themselves as they wish and to decide who should represent their interests in federal litigation. State law may not, however, override the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring federal courts to allow intervention by multiple state representatives who all seek to represent the same state interest that an existing state party is already capably defending. Because the Court concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.