Race riots incoming.
I can deal with conservatives that are guided by a true understanding of the Constitution and the core values of the country…
On the other hand, the Trumpistas will always be in the minority and on the wrong side of any judicial argument…
They’re waiting for Trump to nominate Judge Judy, According to Trump she’s very, very smart.
Once the demagogue appoints Cruz it will go to the top of the calendar.
Translation: Not enough votes on SCOTUS to back Texas.
SCOTUS: We will wait for the Trump nominee to join us and then we will screw America. Amerika wins.
That’s quite a photograph. Roberts in a state of adoration, Kennedy skeptical, Ginsburg nauseated.
Who will have the honor of penning the majority opinion? Roberts, Alito, or Pryor?
Pryor is an automatic filibuster by the Dems.
Mitch did say he was thinking about nuking the filibuster for SCotUS…but that’s probably bluster. He’d never give up one of his precious obstruction tools so easily.
Proving “intent” when the whole concept of voter ID is cast with the intent of assuring votes are valid is more difficult. This was the plan all along – provide lawmakers with an alternative motive that would disguise their true intent.
So, as with just about all human activities, the observer – in the case a federal judge – will have to discern the true motives. It should be pretty clear, but bias and other human weaknesses may cloud judgment. But on the preponderance of the evidence standard for civil cases, or even the more stringent “clear and convincing” standard, the purported motive of insuring voter validity via a restrictive requirement to provide a photo ID, should not withstand analysis and cross-examination. Voter impersonation is already a crime, so additional measures designed to prevent a crime that they can’t even show happens would necessarily make an unbias judge skeptical.
…re-examine the discriminatory intent finding under a new set of facts.
Are “new facts” like “alternative facts”?
Do you remember the Dover school board decision years ago that struck down Intelligent Design teaching? I noticed Judge Kitzmiller used a “reasonable community member would know”* standard for intent. I wonder if that could apply here? After all, we’ve had ALEC and others crafting these laws. We’ve had Republicans publicly gloat. Any lawyers here with insight?
*As a reasonable observer, whether adult or child, would be aware of this social context in which the ID Policy arose, and such context will help to reveal the meaning of Defendants’ actions
Judge: You claim your motive in enacting this legislation was to ensure the integrity of elections by reducing fraudulent voter impersonation. What evidence do you have that fraudulent voter impersonation has been a threat to the integrity of elections?
Republicans: Umm, none, your honor.
Judge: Then your stated motive cannot be your true motive, can it?
Did she rule in the Orange Moron’s favor on a TV show?
I have to laugh at the notion that anyone has any genuine doubt as to the intent.