Think of it this way: it’s better for it to remain in effect so that the impetus is there for people to keep trying to get their IDs in the interim. If at any point it is upheld, we don’t want people having to scramble to comply, including the state doing whatever it is supposed to be doing to implement the law, like making the IDs available etc. I’m guessing that was part of the SCOTUS’s reasoning.
It would be great if this went to the Supreme Court. It would give us a chance to see if Justice Roberts is what he says he is. He ruled to eliminate VRA protections on a claim they were no longer needed. Well…they are and here is his chance to fix that. Or show himself to be a GOP operative in a robe.
They can work on making those ID’s available but that’s not going to stop that fact to get one you go through an interaction with government minions and folks don’t want to do that. You can put a DMV on every corner but a lot of folks won’t go…they hate that shit. The GOP knew that…and that’s why we are here.
The GOP is dedicated to stealing elections and the GOP Supreme Court is part of this effort. After all, the 2000 Presidential election was stolen by GOP Justices.
Will Roberts put an end to GOP election crime?
“Texas’ law, considered on (sic) of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, is being challenged by voting rights groups and the Department of Justice.”
The GOP wants to replace Scalia after the election, “to give the People a voice on the next nominee”.
Texas just wants to ensure it’s the right kind of People who get that voice.
Another reason for Jane Sanders to shut the f— up, right now. Does she think Trump is going to nominate someone who will make it easier for poor minorities, or better yet, Bernie & Jane groupies who are too lazy to register in the first place and get to the polls on elections day in the second place, vote?
Juts watch! Those TX republiscum weasels of judges will stall until the very last minute, even though the Supremes are onto their game.
All of this is true, but it would be far worse if the law was blocked right now and people, including the gov’t that’s supposed to be setting up these systems, went around assuming that they wouldn’t have to do any of this and then BLAM, they find out in August that it survived appeal and everyone…voters, county officials, state agencies, et al…has to rush about trying to get it done.
Is that a rhetorical question?
Roberts put the GOP election scheme into overdrive with his decision in Shelby County v Holder. Roberts would have to realize that his determination that “the Nation is no longer divided along [racial disparity] lines” and that “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that [racial discrimination] problem speaks to current conditions” are ludicrous in the extreme. I don’t hold out much hope for Roberts to reach that level of self assessment.
Or to admit to it if he did.
Great news. On a related front, I just read an uplifting article in the NYT about the SupCt arguments and posture of the Justices in Bob McDonnel’s case. It looks like it may soon be perfectly legal to bribe the politician of your choice. Apparently, according to the Justices, accepting lavish gifts, $$$, no interest loans, etc. and doing favors in return is part of the ordinary course of business for US pols. /s
Seriously. I was aghast when I read that article. It’s difficult to imagine what would still qualify as “bribery.”
Business as usual , but if you steal a six pack of beer from the seven eleven or smoke a joint in the parking lot
BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM …5 or 6 caps in your ass .
Equal justice indeed
In politics bribery has been rendered a useless concept. TGI Industries rolls into your office, legally, and hands over bundled campaign contributions totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars and says “Here, have this. Oh, on an entirely unrelated matter, we sure do hope those patent infringement legislation hearings go well next week.”
Have you been bribed? Nah, nothing to see here, move along…
I believe that the answer is “almost nothing.” As the article points out, you could still conceivably be prosecuted for bribery if you are TOTALLY explicit about the nature of the quid pro quo, but, as the SupCt Justices view the world from their ivoriest of ivory towers, the thinnest veneer of respectability will apparently whitewash just about anything.
Yet another reason the Republicans are trying to block Judge Garland’s nomination. If he gets on the Supreme Court any time soon, the liberal wing will be able to block all kinds of voter suppression attempts. Every day he doesn’t get a hearing is one fewer day to stop them.
Harumpff!
Is it “voter suppression” in Mexico as well?
They require a photo ID to vote, along with most other nations.