Discussion: SCOTUS Conservatives Show Little Issue With Texas' Delay Tactics In Voting Rights Case


Sounds like voters’ rights and democracy are likely to take a back seat to procedure.


What is it about “Justice delayed is justice denied” that SCOTUS fails to understand?


Nominating and confirming these fuckers will have literally changed the history of our country.


I can’t wait for them to get’on the matter of ‘whether boiled eggs should be opened at the big or the little end’! Calling Jonathan Swift.


A little reordering to make my point:

The Supreme Court, at Texas’ request, constrained just how much of the map the district court could redraw. At the time, the district court warned that it was not done working through the claims against the 2011 maps. Texas’ Republican legislature, in turn, adopted the interim map statutorily in 2013.

Roberts questioned why the state shouldn’t be able to trust a court to draw a map that isn’t discriminatory. “If you’re the Attorney General or — or the — the legislature in Texas and you want to take your best shot at a plan that will be accepted by the district court, wouldn’t you take the plan that the district court drafted?” Roberts asked.

In other words, we’re witnessing the standard Republican tactic of sandbagging government, then pointing to the lackluster effects of the thing they just sandbagged as “proof” that government can’t do anything right. And this, coming straight out of SCOTUS.


Reads to me that both sides were arguing for Kennedy, who kept silent.

Conservatives for the merits of the GOP’s case, liberals for the very idea of hearing such a case.

Kennedy has to get past the liberal argument before he can even consider the conservative one. As a man of conservative principles (in the best possible way) I don’t think he will.

I think the liberals were also using the conservatives’ arguments to argue against Kennedy’s retirement.


Never forget: John Roberts was groomed to erode voting rights:

"John Glover Roberts, a 25-year-old graduate of Harvard Law School, arrived in Washington in early 1980. Harvard Law professor Morton Horwitz described Roberts as “a conservative looking for a conservative ideology in American history,” and he found that ideology in the nation’s capital, first as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist and then as an influential aide in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department.

At the time, Rehnquist and the Reagan administration were at the vanguard of a new conservative counterrevolution in the law—a legal backlash against the historic and liberal-leaning civil rights laws of the 1960s. Just months before Roberts came to Washington, the Supreme Court had significantly limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. As a young lawyer, Roberts eagerly took up the conservative cause, becoming a key foot soldier in the effort to preserve that decision and weaken the VRA.

It was a fight Roberts would continue decades later, when he replaced Rehnquist as chief justice and authored the majority opinion in a landmark case gutting the VRA in 2013. Fifty years after the passage of the landmark civil rights law, and 35 years after he first worked so hard to dismantle it, Roberts remains at the center of an impassioned debate about voting rights in America, one that shows no signs of ending anytime soon…



There are a myriad of issues that can be of importance when casting a vote. For me, it will always be, how will my vote effect who will get to place names in nomination/confirm for the SCOTUS…from the Senate to the WH. I don’t care what others need to motivate them, this is my PRIMARY motivation.


Texas reaffirms what we already knew from Littke Rock. Short of deploying the National Guard, there is no way to make a state obey the Constitution when it does not want to obey the Constitution. What’s really novel is the makeup of SCOTUS now, which doesn’t much feel like obeying it either.


Us white guys have to stay number one


In other words, Southern Strategy continues to work.


While the conservatives on the court engaged with this question a bit, they seemed eager to drill down on to the deeper questions in Texas’ request.

Isn’t this how we got the expanded definitions and flood of illicit money from Citizens United?

“Texas is not insane,” Hicks said

While you say that in all good conscience based on the Texans you know, Mr. Hicks, the evidence strongly points to the conclusion that a majority of its citizens certainly are.


Well it worked when white were the mass majority, but it’s obviously losing traction as so gerrymandering and the EC are the only reliable way now.

This is a good article too


Gosruch must be unseated as illegitimate and Thomas impeached under the next Dem controlled government. There’s a first time for everything.


If they has an existential fear in 2016 I can’t wait to see how they feel in 2021.

1 Like

Taxation without representation – Make America (King) George’s Again!

1 Like

They will probably feel the same. I’m hoping the rest of us will just be motivated to get off our asses and put democrats or at least progressive thinking, relatively honest politicians back into power across all branches so we can get headed in a positive direction.

edit: I think Obama lulled a lot of progressive to thinking things were going well finally and scared a lot of conserative to realize whites would not always be in charge.


They understand quite clearly that is what they are doing.


I can’t let this pass without noting that Tierney Sneed’s article on this is absolutely first rate.