Alabama’s election chief is fighting in court to implement a prohibition on curbside voting during the pandemic, despite there being no explicit ban on the practice in state law.
Yes.
a “manufactured need”
Oh, you mean like “voter fraud”?
This is still just like after the Civil War and the dreamed up restrictions to vote. Red states are afraid of all voters; unless they are white land/business owners.
Expand the courts. Only way to get voted supression thrown out. More people vote, less power to GOP
So has anyone asked how the now 8 members of the Supreme Court vote? Or has anyone asked how AL SoS state Merrill votes? Has anyone in AL requested to look at where Merrill is registered to vote?
And just how in the fuck is it against the law to prevent curb side voting for those with disabilities? Is this going to be the next argument these groups use, the ADA?
Exactly.
And if Biden and / or Harris can hold on to the Presidency / Senate for the next 8 to 12 years, Alito and Thomas will likely have gone to hell in the interim, freeing up two more SCOTUS seats.
I just want to know - do any of the justices who gutted the Voting Rights Act ever feel a twinge? just a moment of doubt? As they see this parade of cases that have sprung up where the good old southern states (and we actually have to change that to red states) have jumped straight away into the voter suppression that the law was working to stop before their decision, do they ever stop and think, “We are sure getting a lot of voting suppression cases.” Does it ever bother Thomas? Roberts?
Shame on them.
(Merrill is not requiring masks for voting and had compared such a mandate to a poll tax.)
So requiring a mask is a poll tax, but requiring a photo ID, or a certified copy of a birth certificate, or any other proof of identity that entails a cost is not a poll tax. Got it.
Republicans seem to treat voter suppression like one of the basic food groups, which they dutifully feed their young in large doses. ‘Don’t let ‘them’ vote if you want to keep your unearned power and privilege.’
Answer: Yes.
Then when the democrats pass legislation to expand SCOTUS, include language requiring the nomination of a new chief justice. Roberts can then stick that humiliation up his ass!!
He will appropriatley be relegated to post-chief justice in the same way that the US is a “post-racial” society. And, btw, Mr. Harvard College and Harvard Law, the term you used to advance your b.s. in Shelby is incorrect. It is “post-racist.” Which the US is not. Nor is it post-racial . Americans recognize racial characteristics a-hole.
A pox on both their houses…
THIS is ‘voter supression’. The lying fks try and deflect and berate and smear but it is THEM that are the ‘enemy’.
I’m interested in the pretzel logic the SCOTUS will use to allow the de facto ban to go into effect.
So far, they’ve used the thin gruel excuse that its inappropriate for the Courts to change the rules so “close to the election” (ignoring that these are many of the same things that came up in the primaries that they’ve been slow in addressing). Since AL law doesn’t prohibit curbside voting, they’ll need to come up with another rationale for voter suppression.
“It’s not advertised because it’s not a need. I mean if there’s only been the few examples that I’ve given you, then it’s obviously not a need,” Merrill claimed.
When did ‘only a few people were disenfranchised’ become a legal standard. Oh, right, when Roberts, in his infinite wisdom, declared that racism didn’t exist and that states should have the right to conduct unfair and unfree elections because reason.
But the law does prohibit preventing or even obstructing a citizen from exercising the franchise, the right of every citizen to vote.
Voter suppression is kind of like bible thumping: pick and choose rules consistent with your beliefs and then apply them to others but not necessarily yourself. Perish the thought that asshats like the governor of Alabama should feel obliged to price his priors to market and delete his account.
Prick.
The Republican majority will always find a creative way of reading the law to benefit the Republicans – with the South Carolina decision, Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas even wanted to throw out thousands of legally cast unwitnessed ballots that didn’t match their reversal of the earlier standard. They are the kernel of an anti-Democratic majority on the court, and Amy Covid Barrett would just strengthen their shamelessness.
My only disagreement with this article is that it perpetuates a lie that the current Supreme Court is “conservative”. In fact there is nothing conservative about the current Supreme Court.
The truth is the current Supreme Court is “Republican” and not conservative. That is the only consistency in the current Supreme Courts actions and decisions, to include what cases it expedites and which ones it slow rolls, is what will help the Republican Party hold power.
The current Supreme Court does not apply nor care about “Conservative” principles like keeping Government hands out of the womb, but makes every decision based on what will help the Republican Party and news outlets to include TPM ought to say it.
It blows my mind that the racists on the court don’t blink an eye as they uphold states efforts to suppress the vote…a clear violation of the Constitution. After eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, they boldly and without remorse, continue their onslaught of the the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Good grief, Charlie Brown.
Their actions should be highlighted by the press above the fold every day and thru the media…the Justices that try to disenfranchise the vote need to be exposed. And the Dems should consider highlighting their horrid behavior by asking, “Why does this Court condone voter suppression?”