Discussion for article #228828
Edith Brown Clement is a first class right wing nut job. Her rulings are often ridiculous. The 3 judge panels are notorious.
6 Likes
Wait. Is that the smell of the right-wing trying to keep the disfranchised and minorities from voting?
8 Likes
There it is. Donât expect SCOTUS to reverse this either. Step 1 was to say that discriminatory intent must be proven. Step 2 will be to say that discriminatory intent is impossible to prove.
[Edit: I was too quick on the draw. The case hasnât been heard on its merits yet. But my prediction for the future still stands.]
Interesting that the risk of actually disenfranchising voters is less of a concern than the risk of disrupting the abstract notion of a status quo.
8 Likes
Step 3. Per Justice Roberts, there is no racism.
7 Likes
[quote=âhora_del_cafe, post:5, topic:11656, full:trueâ]
Step 3. Per Justice Roberts, there is no discrimination.
[/quote] Iirc Roberts said that there is no âracismâ.
Of course it can go forward. Itâs Texas and the good old boys rule in the courts and in the statehouse.
1 Like
My apologies. Thatâs what I meant. It happens when you type too fast. 
Wow, their reasoning is basically that SCOTUS would have granted the stay, so they might as well save time and play surrogate SCOTUS.
2 Likes
APPOINTED BY DUBYA.
Born Alabama in 1948, went to U of Alabama and then Tulane for her JD, clerked in Louisiana.
We get it lady. President Darky and his rising hordes of the Brown gives you a scared.
8 Likes
âThus, the value of preserving the status quo here is much higher than in most other contexts,â
Most ridiculous piece of âlegal reasoningâ Iâve ever seen. ONE DAY before election is not too late to protect the most sacred right of a democratic people as set forth in our Constitution. The lower court decision found blatant discriminatory intent, discriminatory effect and a whole host of other things that are anathema to our elections processes and there could not possibly be a showing of irreparable or excessive harm to the stateâs interests if it were forced to hold an election this year in the same manner it has been holding them all along. Sheâs so utterly full of shit I could scream. Check her fucking bank accounts.
10 Likes
âThe judgment below substantially disturbs the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins. Thus, the value of preserving the status quo here is much higher than in most other contexts,â
How is enacting a bunch of new laws âpreserving the status quoâ.
The âsubstantially disturbsâ = makes it harder for republicans to stop people from voting.
5 Likes
A fable by Edith Brown Clement:
âTexas League of Young Voters v. State of Texasâ or âHow I Ensured Wendy Davis Would Never Be Governor.â
4 Likes
Translation: âTHE PLAN MUST GO FORWARD AT ALL COSTS!!!â
5 Likes
Hereâs why I think that excuse â the imminent election as reason for maintaining the status quo â is obvious bullât: The lower courtâs decision wouldnât have made the work of administering the elections significantly harder.
Their excuse would make sense if a court ruling resulted in increased voter qualification requirements just before an election. But this ruling removed voter qualification requirements, and doesnât add any extra steps to either the voting or qualifying processes. Heck, I would imagine the lower courtâs decision would make election workersâ jobs easier at polling places.
But â since the Supreme Court doesnât believe racism is much of a biggie anymore, this shoddy, flimsy excuse should work just fine. So, you know, whatevs. The only people who are gonna be affected are the Poors and you know whos.
4 Likes
Three (3) âteabagsâ = tres âmotherfuckersâ !!!
1 Like
Yup. Unmistakable odor. And not just a subtle whiff but blasting reek.
Thank you!
Yeah. Somehow everyoneâs supposed to buy the explanation that the lower courtâs decision created a burden so cumbersome (doesnât really f**king matter how close it is to the election because the qualification standard was reduced, not increased) that they can set it aside without even hearing the case and considering its merits.
2 Likes
Wait â preventing the VoterID law from going into effect and allowing the status quo ante to remain in place through the election âsubstantially disturbs the election process,â but allowing a new VoterID law to go into effect 9 days before early voting starts does not???
Post hoc: Oh, OK, I see that the law is not all that new, and that the requirements have been in place since January 1 of 2012. I guess that makes a little more sense. Still â this will make the fourth election since the implementation of that law where large numbers of people have been disenfranchised by it.
If I had been of voting age in the 1960s, then I would have run like hell away from the Democratic Party, because back then it was just a racist piece of crap trying to deprive certain people of the right to vote. I am of voting age now, and I am running like hell away from the Republican Party, because itâs just a racist piece of crap trying to deprive certain people of the right to vote. BTW, that comes from someone who previously voted for a Republican presidential candidate. That, of course, was before seeing the racist republican response to the very idea of a black president. The Republican Party has worked hard to earn my disdain, and theyâve got it.
2 Likes