It appears likely that voter advocates will suffer at least some loss in their abilities to bring Voting Rights Act cases with the Arizona lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court Tuesday.
â Carvin justified the GOP presence in the case by saying that blocking the policies put Republicans at a âdisadvantageâ because it would help more people to vote, and those people would lean Democratic.â
Yes, and please continue to show us your Tepub hypocrisy.
âSure you can voteâŚjust tell me the number of grains of sand in this hourglass.â
The problem is the Republican Supreme Court led by Chief Injustice Roberts has in the past held that discriminating against Democrats is NOT against the voting rights act or the constitution as it is not racial discrimination.
Or to put another way, there should be no doubt that any ruling by the enforcement arm of the Republican Party will do whatever helps the Republican Party win and god damn the constitution, the law, the oath of office or anything other than what is helps Republicans maintain minority control of Government.
Carvin gave the Republicansâ game away with that statement. The Republican Party is injured by the VRA because more people voting legally puts Republicans at a disadvantage. Democracy hurts the anti-democracy GOP.
This is why HR1 needs to be promptly passed and enforced.
We donât have a supreme court anymore thatâs going to actually protect the right to vote.
Politics is a zero-sum game, and every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us,â he said.
Shame, such an old-fashioned concept.
And either they assume everybody agrees with them, or they have no shame at all.
Thatâs Ms. McMiniGoebbels to you!
OâDonnell has said that Voting Right is THE most important issue facing us.
Naturally
No equal vote, no Democratic RepublicâŚwe would be a society ruled, essentially, by pre-selected (by a set criteria) groups of adults.
More votes for Democrats = they must not be legal votes. Republicans want power anyway they can get it and that means any votes that favor Dems do not count.
Carvin justified the GOP presence in the case by saying that blocking the policies put Republicans at a âdisadvantageâ because it would help more people to vote, and those people would lean Democratic.
The fascistgop seems much better at unethically installing judges than at hiring competent lawyers. A fact that the unethically installed judges seem to notice.
I just came from CNN. Someone there thinks Supreme Court will OK voter suppression. Here, it looks more promising.
Believe CNN. The questioning may have been harder and broken the lawyers trying to defend the indefensible, but that doesnât mean that this wonât be a 5-4 or 6-3 victory for the Reich-wing.
The hearings are performance art, no demonstrable data that those have ever actually swayed a justice.
âI donât understand why you conceded, in your examples to Justice Kagan, that some of those time, place and manner restrictions â like time-place-and-manner âyou can only vote at a country club,â or time-place-and-manner âthis is the placement of the polls and theyâre going to be placed in areas that are burdensome to minoritiesâ â arenât those time, place and manner restrictions?â Coney Barrett asked
Shorter Coney Barrett: âI donât understand why you conceded time, place and manner restrictions are within the scope of Section 2. It makes it much harder for me to vote to restrict use of the Voting Rights Act.â
Because argle bargle, states rights, jiggery pokery, bibbedy bobbedy boo.
Asking a few tough questions and pointing out contradictions is just cosplay leading up to the decision that voter suppression is A-OK.
stunning admission. Did he even prep for the hearing?
Trying to overturn an election and attempts to institute and cement laws which result in voter suppression are âcancel cultureâ in the flesh. Why arenât we talking about the evils of âcancel culture?â Jim Jordan, please stand up!!!
Red States control voting unless congress passes legislation telling them theyâre not doing it right.