Former AG Eric Holder, Obama’s wing man on transforming America into a communist country, went on Face The Nation Sunday to prepare the country for more election theft and fraud by the Democrats. Holder states he is concerned about state legislatures having absolute power over all things election-wise. The upcoming Supreme Court case Moore v Harper is at the center of his concerns. As usual, Holder presents a narrative that is far from what is reality.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have a number of things I want to get to with you. But I want to start on something I know is immediate this week. An organization that you run that we mentioned here that focuses on redistricting is involved in a Supreme Court case, Moore v. Harper. It’s going to be heard on the seventh of this week. And it boils down as I understand it to the question of what the Constitution means when it assigns state legislatures the task of regulating elections. That sounds really wonky, but you phrased it as the future of democracy being at stake. What are you worried is actually going to happen here?
HOLDER: Yeah, this case is all about something called the independent state legislature (ISL) doctrine. It’s a fringe theory that North Carolina Republicans are trying to use to make sure that the North Carolina Republican legislature has the sole responsibility of doing redistricting in the state and excluding from that determination the state court system. It is something that if the Supreme Court goes along with it, would really upend our system of checks and balances. And it’s for that reason that I am extremely concerned. It is a fringe theory, this is something that if the Court I think does the right thing, you should have a nine to zero opinion by the court that rejects this notion of this independent state legislature doctrine that has been rejected by conservative scholars, by practicing Republican lawyers, by former Republican judges, and by this conference of state supreme court justices, as well. This is a very, very dangerous theory. It would put our system of checks and balances at risk.
Everything that Democrats have any objections to is “putting democracy at stake.” Electing Republicans to Congress was a dire threat to the existence of our country. We heard this over and over during the last election cycle. Somehow electing Republicans would devastate all freedoms in this country and the country would be transformed into a totalitarian state. Of course, this is just the Democrats doing what they always do. That is, they are projecting onto their opposition what they themselves are trying to do.
The first thing that Holder hopes to is smear the whole concept of ISL doctrine by calling it a fringe theory. This sets the stage for further denigration of the Supreme Court by implying they must be off their rockers if anything other than a unanimous decision is reached denying the idea of ISL.
However, it far from a fringe theory. It is in the Constitution. Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have all expressed some interest in the idea and of pursuing a case or two to see just what the limits on such a theory should be. Justice Thomas, a renowned constitutionalist, has not expressed any specific ideas in this area.
The Democrats would like to center all power over elections including re-districting into the hands of the federal government. This was the purpose of HR 1 when it was proposed at the beginning of the current Congress. If they succeeded in doing this, they would not have to fight in every state to put in place various measures that enable election fraud. They have succeeded in some states in incorporating measures like ballot harvesting (illegal in most states), mail-in ballots with no ID verification, illegal aliens added to the voting rolls and other measures that subvert the integrity of the process. But, this is a costly state-by-state process. The Democrats would like to end such costly activities.
The Constitution specifically gave the states the power to run elections. That is the ISL doctrine in a nutshell. Holder would like to avoid a Supreme Court precedent supporting the general idea of ISL as outlined in the Constitution. That is the reason for his opposition to the doctrine at this point in time even if such a ruling was narrowly tailored to redistricting. If the Supremes voted to support ISL, this would make a law like HR 1 much more difficult to be considered constitutional if it ever passed Congress.
Arguments in front of the Court are scheduled for Wednesday, December 7th. If such arguments portray the reasonable possibility that ISL will be upheld, will we see more threats against those justices who believe in the Constitution? Will the Democrats unleash the mobs as they did when the Dobbs decision was pending?