DOJ: White Rules.
The new DoJ leadership will be in favor of voter ID laws, but that doesn’t stop individuals from suing over them, and the courts so far have found a lot of problems with the laws and the motives behind passing them. So, no matter what, this case should end up continuing, and it’s unlikely they succeed because the intent was already found to be wrong.
Going forward, it will be up to ethics groups to handle challenging the laws, because the DoJ won’t take these cases on, especially with Sessions in charge.
On the bright side …
It doesn’t appear that we will have to wait long before we know the full extent of the shit show — they’re not wasting any time —
I’ve already got my protection on …
What power will DOJ have in a decision sent back to district court? Did they argue in that court to begin with? What is likelihood judge will grant delay?
I guess Sessions needs to maintain his bona fides with the good ole white boys and welcome them to the new Jim Crow days. .
I Obama’s DOJ filed a brief.
You know it would save everyone a lot of time, effort,and money if they simply came out and said only whites over 25 can vote
Technically, DoJ can dismiss the appeal and the lawsuit, or at least withdraw and leave it to the private parties. It would find it awkward to try to reverse sides, though I doubt the tiny-head of Grand Dragon Sessions would be troubled by it. Because, after all, some lawyer he doesn’t know would have to endure the humiliation.
But my understanding is it’s not quite that cut and dried. The government’s obligation to defend and enforce federal laws can’t really just we waved away by fiat and the career attorneys have considerable ability to resist political interference, at least until Congress eliminates the entire Civil Rights Division’s budget. You might recall when several lawsuits defending DOMA continued to go forward despite the change of policy in the White House . . .
No. The Appellate Court found the ID law to be discriminatory in its effect and then remanded the case to determine whether the legislative intent was also discriminatory. I think Texas would face some pretty harsh penalties (preclearance maybe?) if the court finds intent.
I’m looking forward to 44 arguing one of these cases in front of SCOTUS, perhaps with Holder carrying his bag.
Apartheid S. Africa Part II. Johannesburg on the Potomac.
I’m looking forward to President L’Orange doing the perp walk with a few of his selected “good friends.” You want to dress, talk and act like a Don you’re going to end up where the Dons end up.
We’ve got strict Constitutionalists running the show now, so it’s time to go with what the Founding Fathers really intended:
Are you white? Male? A landowner? Then you may vote.
New administration twist: Not one of the above? Then you may vote by placing $100 in cash into the invisible hand of the free market.
KOBACH!!! right out of the gate… wondered where he was hiding, apparently very close to the Trump top.
Gotta wonder if there’s lip prints on The Orange Pretenders ass?
Voting will become a country club event if these vote supressionists aren’t hobbled somehow.
White males, that is.
The chief assistant to the new director is James Crow.
…passed with an discriminatory intent–
No way! That’s unpossible! Of course it was passed with “discriminatory intent”; the trick is going to be proving it.
They’re just getting warmed up. But I expect there will be daily steps taken that build quite a high pile of rights and protections taken away by around the 100 day mark, with maybe a really big event then to celebrate the complete takeover and show of power.
Speaking of “signals”, everyone in the world knows Mr. Let’s Not Give Away Our Plans is resting all weekend…In NYC would be my guess.