The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear a bombshell voting rights case Tuesday, likely putting a case that existentially threatens the Voting Rights Act on track to the Supreme Court.
So lower Court’s get to overrule Supreme Court precedent now too?
I’d love to hear how Alito or Thomas justifies that reasoning.
…likely putting a case that existentially threatens the Voting Rights Act on track to the Supreme Court.
I’m a bit confused here. Wouldn’t a case like this probably end up before SCOTUS eventually anyway? How does the 8th circuit not hearing it change the eventual outcome in any way?
The Supreme Court can’t hear every case they get a request for each year, so they have to pick and choose which ones. If they decline to hear the case, then the Circuit Court’s ruling becomes the de-facto precedent.
The implication here is that Roberts and Co might decline to take up the case if the 8th Circuit Court ruling (i.e. no private right to sue for VRA violations) is the outcome they want. It’s the sneaky way Court conservatives are using to get their desired policies without the negative headlines for further killing the VRA.
A lot of tepid words that are meaningless in action.
We go to the guillotine on a float of farts billowing from their robes.
Judge-driven mistakes seem to be a calling card of treason party-appointed judges.
“The Roberts Court has been legendarily hostile to the VRA, and, over the last decade, has dealt enormous damage to the statute…”
I wonder if ol’ Balls-and-Strikes will deliver the verdict in blackface.
An 8th Circuit panel had ruled in November that, despite years of precedent, individual voters could not actually bring Section 2 claims under the VRA, the primary method of bringing racial gerrymandering cases at the federal level. Instead, the majority wrote, only the United States attorney general could bring the cases.
… … … …
I believe the court forgot something…
"We the people of the United States, i order to form a more perfect union…
–snip–…
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
… … … …
According to this preamble it seems to me that “the people” out rank any Senator, representative or judge or AG. Consequently a person who is not the United States AG should be able to bring a voting case to any court they please. Of course the United States AG can as well.
You forget that the original preamble, before it got mangled in the copier, said “We the white rich people…”
At least at present, SCOTUS could now just decline to hear it and leave the lower court ruling(s) in place and/or slow-walk it into oblivion and make sure the 8th Circuit panel’s decision is the law of the land through the 2024 election.
And so it goes precedent, we don’t need no stinkin’ precedent. The courts are all politics all of the time.
But wouldn’t that ruling only apply to the eight circuit?
Well, I was going to read the ruling - but this is what I see. Yes, I know they are working on things.
OK, what part of “to petition the Government for redress of grievances” states “except for voting rights. 'Cause for that, we won’t let you.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ETA: Oh, wait, it says Congress shall make no law. Doesn’t say the Judiciary can’t do that. Duh!
Whew. Good one…
For now, yes, but expect Republicans to raise such challenges in all Circuit courts if the SCOTUS declines to review. The problem with this approach is that it can lead to conflicting decisions between Circuit Courts, which is why the SCOTUS usually intervenes.
It’s more work on the Republican litigator side if Roberts’ kicks the can down the road, but if they have de-facto won in one Circuit Court, they’re likely to do so in others (looking at you, 5th Circuit). In the meantime, the states in those Circuit Court jurisdictions can openly violate the VRA with impunity, with the hopes of gaining enough federal power (i.e. Republican seats in Congress) to make their violations legal.
“The panel’s error is evident, but the court regrettably misses an opportunity to reaffirm its role as a dispassionate arbiter of issues that are properly presented by the parties.”
That’s a GOP-appointed judge, saying, politely, that his GOP-appointed colleagues are corrupting the judiciary.
Justification? We don’t need no stinking justification.
Radicalized right wing judges next will ignore the Constitution and strip women of the right to vote.
“There’s no mistake. I meant to do that.”
