The Supreme Court’s Latest Voting Rights Opinion Is Even Worse Than It Seems

[NWRatCon]

The Supreme Court’s Latest Voting Rights Opinion Is Even Worse Than It Seems (Slate)​

"It’s been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on voting rights in nearly a decade, and each time I read Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the angrier I become. I’m angry not only about what the court did but also about how much of the public does not realize what a hit American democracy has taken. In an opinion thick with irony, Justice Alito turned back the clock on voting rights to 1982. His decision for a six-justice conservative court majority reopens the door to a United States in which states can put up roadblocks to minority voting and engage in voter suppression with few legal consequences once a state has raised tenuous and unsupported concerns about the risk of voter fraud. It’s exactly the opposite of what Congress intended when it strengthened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and it turns on its head the “non-retrogression” principle that Congress wrote in Section 5 of the act and that the court essentially killed off eight years ago in Shelby County v. Holder."

This a article is well worth a read to understand how extreme it really is. It provides a clear history of the Act and how inconsistent it is with the Acts intent.

"Justice Alito and the other conservative justices are leading the United States back to a time when racial discrimination in voting was easy, voting lawsuits hard, and political activity conducted behind a veil of secrecy. That probably fills Justice Alito, who has long shown hostility to voting rights, with nostalgia. Those may have been the good old days for him, but they were days of continued discrimination against minority voters for much of the country."

 

[bluesmoke]

The decision codifies the legality of racism in America as proven by disproportionate outcomes of disparate impact so mentioned by Alito in his ruling as "mere inconvenience". The term "mere" does not mean "slight" in the context given but rather in conjunction with "inconvenience" as hi-lighting that inconveniences are, themselves, mere. Therefor, even if the impact is major, as long as that impact can be termed an inconvenience and not a result of overt racism, then it is an inconvenience and not illegal. This ruling makes racism protected by the law. Before, it was just "there".

 

[Mycroft]

The Supreme Court’s Latest Voting Rights Opinion Is Even Worse Than It Seems (Slate)​

"It’s been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on voting rights in nearly a decade, and each time I read Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the angrier I become. I’m angry not only about what the court did but also about how much of the public does not realize what a hit American democracy has taken. In an opinion thick with irony, Justice Alito turned back the clock on voting rights to 1982. His decision for a six-justice conservative court majority reopens the door to a United States in which states can put up roadblocks to minority voting and engage in voter suppression with few legal consequences once a state has raised tenuous and unsupported concerns about the risk of voter fraud. It’s exactly the opposite of what Congress intended when it strengthened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and it turns on its head the “non-retrogression” principle that Congress wrote in Section 5 of the act and that the court essentially killed off eight years ago in Shelby County v. Holder."

This a article is well worth a read to understand how extreme it really is. It provides a clear history of the Act and how inconsistent it is with the Acts intent.

"Justice Alito and the other conservative justices are leading the United States back to a time when racial discrimination in voting was easy, voting lawsuits hard, and political activity conducted behind a veil of secrecy. That probably fills Justice Alito, who has long shown hostility to voting rights, with nostalgia. Those may have been the good old days for him, but they were days of continued discrimination against minority voters for much of the country."

His decision has nothing to do with "minority voting", "voter suppression" or "racial discrimination". That is the spin and nonsense concocted by those who are upset that they won't be able to engage in the same kind of voter fraud that they criminally engaged in the 2020 election.

But hey...cry...gnash your teeth...whine and whimper while curled up in your safe space. Know that your corrupt betters won't stop looking for ways to succeed in future election fraud. When it comes to preventing Trump from winning in 2024, the ends justify any means...no matter how immoral, unethical or illegal.

 

[NWRatCon]

The decision codifies the legality of racism in America as proven by disproportionate outcomes of disparate impact so mentioned by Alito in his ruling as "mere inconvenience". The term "mere" does not mean "slight" in the context given but rather in conjunction with "inconvenience" as hi-lighting that inconveniences are, themselves, mere. Therefor, even if the impact is major, as long as that impact can be termed an inconvenience and not a result of overt racism, then it is an inconvenience and not illegal. This ruling makes racism protected by the law. Before, it was just "there".

The audacity of the Roberts court is breathtaking (and infuriating). It's exactly what McConnell envisioned, and what the faux "Federalist" society has been engineering for decades. Constitutional fidelity? Originalism? My ass. The Republican party is only interested in raw power - not governance, not fidelity to principle, and certainly not to the people's interests.

 

[Helix]

Pass HR1.

 

[NWRatCon]

Pass HR1.

I completely agree, but it's important to note that the 6-3 majority in Brnovich ignored both the express language of the statute and the obvious legislative intent in its passage. It literally harkens back to the Civil Rights cases of 1883, that codified Jim Crow, and the infamous Dred Scott decision that justified and expanded slavery before the Civil War. It's that bad.

 

[mrjurrs]

The Supreme Court’s Latest Voting Rights Opinion Is Even Worse Than It Seems (Slate)​

"It’s been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on voting rights in nearly a decade, and each time I read Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the angrier I become. I’m angry not only about what the court did but also about how much of the public does not realize what a hit American democracy has taken. In an opinion thick with irony, Justice Alito turned back the clock on voting rights to 1982. His decision for a six-justice conservative court majority reopens the door to a United States in which states can put up roadblocks to minority voting and engage in voter suppression with few legal consequences once a state has raised tenuous and unsupported concerns about the risk of voter fraud. It’s exactly the opposite of what Congress intended when it strengthened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and it turns on its head the “non-retrogression” principle that Congress wrote in Section 5 of the act and that the court essentially killed off eight years ago in Shelby County v. Holder."

This a article is well worth a read to understand how extreme it really is. It provides a clear history of the Act and how inconsistent it is with the Acts intent.

"Justice Alito and the other conservative justices are leading the United States back to a time when racial discrimination in voting was easy, voting lawsuits hard, and political activity conducted behind a veil of secrecy. That probably fills Justice Alito, who has long shown hostility to voting rights, with nostalgia. Those may have been the good old days for him, but they were days of continued discrimination against minority voters for much of the country."

The part of this decision that shows its true intent is Alito's inclusion of the big lie as a supporting reason for ruling this way.
"But in Brnovich, the court’s conservative bloc wanted to go big or go home. Look no further than Alito’s final guidepost, which suggests that unequal voting rules are “less likely” to violate Section 2 if they further an important state interest. “One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud,” Alito wrote. “Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight. Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”

Samuel Alito’s Boundless Contempt for Democracy

Fully unmoored from legal reasoning, the justice’s voting rights ruling is cynical and un-American.

newrepublic.com

Once again for the knuckleheads, including apparently 6 SCOTUS justices, there was no statistically significant voting fraud in the 2020 election. It's a lie.

 

[VanceMack]

The decision states you have to vote in the voting district you are registered to and bans ballot harvesting...a practice which has caused voter fraud. Beyond that the idiot left is fabricating race baiting lies in their impotent poutrage over the decision.

 

[NWRatCon]

The part of this decision that shows its true intent is Alito's inclusion of the big lie as a supporting reason for ruling this way.
"But in Brnovich, the court’s conservative bloc wanted to go big or go home. Look no further than Alito’s final guidepost, which suggests that unequal voting rules are “less likely” to violate Section 2 if they further an important state interest. “One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud,” Alito wrote. “Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight. Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”

Samuel Alito’s Boundless Contempt for Democracy

Fully unmoored from legal reasoning, the justice’s voting rights ruling is cynical and un-American.

newrepublic.com

Once again for the knuckleheads, including apparently 6 SCOTUS justices, there was no statistically significant voting fraud in the 2020 election. It's a lie.

Reality has no bearing on this. It was Alito, once again, providing an instruction manual on how to craft legislation that the right-wing majority can pretend is sufficient. He's done it in virtually every opinion he has authored. He doesn't even pretend to hide his utter partisanship or contempt for democratic values. From your citation: "In a nihilistic ruling by Justice Samuel Alito, the six-justice conservative majority did not so much interpret Section 2 as they rewrote it and gave future litigants a roadmap to circumvent what was left. The court’s approach has dire implications not just for voting rights cases under the current law but also for possible congressional efforts to strengthen America’s democratic system." The level of his contempt is breathtaking.

 

[maxparrish]

The part of this decision that shows its true intent is Alito's inclusion of the big lie as a supporting reason for ruling this way.
"But in Brnovich, the court’s conservative bloc wanted to go big or go home. Look no further than Alito’s final guidepost, which suggests that unequal voting rules are “less likely” to violate Section 2 if they further an important state interest. “One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud,” Alito wrote. “Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight. Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”

Samuel Alito’s Boundless Contempt for Democracy

Fully unmoored from legal reasoning, the justice’s voting rights ruling is cynical and un-American.

newrepublic.com

Once again for the knuckleheads, including apparently 6 SCOTUS justices, there was no statistically significant voting fraud in the 2020 election. It's a lie.

The Supreme Court’s Latest Voting Rights Opinion Is Even Worse Than It Seems (Slate)​

"It’s been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on voting rights in nearly a decade, and each time I read Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the angrier I become. I’m angry not only about what the court did but also about how much of the public does not realize what a hit American democracy has taken. In an opinion thick with irony, Justice Alito turned back the clock on voting rights to 1982. His decision for a six-justice conservative court majority reopens the door to a United States in which states can put up roadblocks to minority voting and engage in voter suppression with few legal consequences once a state has raised tenuous and unsupported concerns about the risk of voter fraud. It’s exactly the opposite of what Congress intended when it strengthened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and it turns on its head the “non-retrogression” principle that Congress wrote in Section 5 of the act ahypernd that the court essentially killed off eight years ago in Shelby County v. Holder."

This a article is well worth a read to understand how extreme it really is. It provides a clear history of the Act and how inconsistent it is with the Acts intent.

"Justice Alito and the other conservative justices are leading the United States back to a time when racial discrimination in voting was easy, voting lawsuits hard, and political activity conducted behind a veil of secrecy. That probably fills Justice Alito, who has long shown hostility to voting rights, with nostalgia. Those may have been the good old days for him, but they were days of continued discrimination against minority voters for much of the country."

What is common between your two's excerpts? How about the endless ranting rage, the bloated screeds of "the angrier I become yada yada" , the hyper-ventilation over conjectured consequences, and characterizations of Justice Alito's role as that of a Sauron suppering with his SCOTUS Dark Riders

One bit of commonsense is that when the "most important" parts selected for your excerpts are nothing more than wailing over hoary grand platitudes and fuzzy tenants, exposing soapbox alarmism to the (liberal) congregation it can be assumed that someone is covering for a less than robust legal argument and are going offer us more bad reasoning in the service of a noble cause…so to speak.

I see nothing in your two's article excerpts from Slate and New Republic that could be mistaken for a legal argument, not even a bad one.

Try again if you're up to the challenge. If not, do not bury us in more unsupported ranting.

 

[bomberfox]

The Supreme Court’s Latest Voting Rights Opinion Is Even Worse Than It Seems (Slate)​

"It’s been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued its most significant ruling on voting rights in nearly a decade, and each time I read Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the angrier I become. I’m angry not only about what the court did but also about how much of the public does not realize what a hit American democracy has taken. In an opinion thick with irony, Justice Alito turned back the clock on voting rights to 1982. His decision for a six-justice conservative court majority reopens the door to a United States in which states can put up roadblocks to minority voting and engage in voter suppression with few legal consequences once a state has raised tenuous and unsupported concerns about the risk of voter fraud. It’s exactly the opposite of what Congress intended when it strengthened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and it turns on its head the “non-retrogression” principle that Congress wrote in Section 5 of the act and that the court essentially killed off eight years ago in Shelby County v. Holder."

This a article is well worth a read to understand how extreme it really is. It provides a clear history of the Act and how inconsistent it is with the Acts intent.

"Justice Alito and the other conservative justices are leading the United States back to a time when racial discrimination in voting was easy, voting lawsuits hard, and political activity conducted behind a veil of secrecy. That probably fills Justice Alito, who has long shown hostility to voting rights, with nostalgia. Those may have been the good old days for him, but they were days of continued discrimination against minority voters for much of the country."

Gop mission to undo the civil rights act and thus the southern strategy is getting closer to completion.

 

[bomberfox]

The part of this decision that shows its true intent is Alito's inclusion of the big lie as a supporting reason for ruling this way.
"But in Brnovich, the court’s conservative bloc wanted to go big or go home. Look no further than Alito’s final guidepost, which suggests that unequal voting rules are “less likely” to violate Section 2 if they further an important state interest. “One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud,” Alito wrote. “Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight. Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”

Samuel Alito’s Boundless Contempt for Democracy

Fully unmoored from legal reasoning, the justice’s voting rights ruling is cynical and un-American.

newrepublic.com

Once again for the knuckleheads, including apparently 6 SCOTUS justices, there was no statistically significant voting fraud in the 2020 election. It's a lie.

Sheesh they got that shit going on in the supreme court…

 

[bluesmoke]

The audacity of the Roberts court is breathtaking (and infuriating). It's exactly what McConnell envisioned, and what the faux "Federalist" society has been engineering for decades. Constitutional fidelity? Originalism? My ass. The Republican party is only interested in raw power - not governance, not fidelity to principle, and certainly not to the people's interests.

And the Dems are certainly not interested over that time to the present in doing anything near commensurate about it. Dems have seven hands. Two to sit on. Two to cover their eyes. Two to cover their ears. One to cover their mouth. Some say the men have eight.

 

[NWRatCon]

I started a separate thread on this, but it has gotten no traction, so here's the substance:

The Supreme Court's recent Brnovich decision is the latest iteration of a pattern of the Supreme Court legitimating systemic racism in the law, and under the Constitution. In the antebellum period, this pattern was epitomized by the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857.

Taney's decision is widely regarded as the worst decision in Supreme Court history. It was an immediate precursor to the Civil War, and impetus for both the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13-15th Amendments.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, however, there was an intense and sustained effort to undo those amendments, which resulted in the Civil Rights cases

And Plessey v. Ferguson. That tradition of awfulness is carried forward by the Roberts Court in its Shelby and Brnovich decisions, and on similar bases.

 

[mrjurrs]

What is common between your two's excerpts? How about the endless ranting rage, the bloated screeds of "the angrier I become yada yada" , the hyper-ventilation over conjectured consequences, and characterizations of Justice Alito's role as that of a Sauron suppering with his SCOTUS Dark Riders

One bit of commonsense is that when the "most important" parts selected for your excerpts are nothing more than wailing over hoary grand platitudes and fuzzy tenants, exposing soapbox alarmism to the (liberal) congregation it can be assumed that someone is covering for a less than robust legal argument and are going offer us more bad reasoning in the service of a noble cause…so to speak.

I see nothing in your two's article excerpts from Slate and New Republic that could be mistaken for a legal argument, not even a bad one.

Try again if you're up to the challenge. If not, do not bury us in more unsupported ranting.

The words came from Alito's decision. If you want to read the whole thing here it is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf

 

[NWRatCon]

What is common between your two's excerpts? How about the endless ranting rage, the bloated screeds of "the angrier I become yada yada" , the hyper-ventilation over conjectured consequences, and characterizations of Justice Alito's role as that of a Sauron suppering with his SCOTUS Dark Riders

One bit of commonsense is that when the "most important" parts selected for your excerpts are nothing more than wailing over hoary grand platitudes and fuzzy tenants, exposing soapbox alarmism to the (liberal) congregation it can be assumed that someone is covering for a less than robust legal argument and are going offer us more bad reasoning in the service of a noble cause…so to speak.

I see nothing in your two's article excerpts from Slate and New Republic that could be mistaken for a legal argument, not even a bad one.

Try again if you're up to the challenge. If not, do not bury us in more unsupported ranting.

Hmm. I see the difference being providing substance, whereas all you present is "unsupported ranting." You wouldn't understand a legal argument if it bit you in the ass.

 

[NWRatCon]

The words came from Alito's decision. If you want to read the whole thing here it is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf

Asking to read and cogitate is a forlorn hope. You're talking to the poster child for "reactionary".

 

[maxparrish]

The words came from Alito's decision. If you want to read the whole thing here it is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf

Are you trying to gaslight us? The opening title and subtitle of the excerpt is a typical example of unhinged nonsense:

Samuel Alito’s Boundless Contempt for Democracy

Fully unmoored from legal reasoning, the justice’s voting rights ruling is cynical and un-American.

newrepublic.com

Granted, however, the short excerpt from the body of the article that you provided isn't over the top rage, its just a strange characterization and quote that does not have any bearing on proving the assertions in the article title.

 

[maxparrish]

I started a separate thread on this, but it has gotten no traction, so here's the substance:

You do know that in that excerpt and your original op in that thread, you don't manage to do anything more than express a few unsupported assertions of a nefarious use of prior cases, right?

Until you provide comparative citations, most of us must assume you are just spouting from someone else's talking point.

 

[mrjurrs]

Are you trying to gaslight us? The opening title and subtitle of the excerpt is a typical example of unhinged nonsense:

Samuel Alito’s Boundless Contempt for Democracy

Fully unmoored from legal reasoning, the justice’s voting rights ruling is cynical and un-American.

newrepublic.com

Granted, however, the short excerpt from the body of the article that you provided isn't over the top rage, its just a strange characterization and quote that does not have any bearing on proving the assertions in the article title.

Just google 'Alito decision and big lie'.

 

[rahl]

His decision has nothing to do with "minority voting", "voter suppression" or "racial discrimination". That is the spin and nonsense concocted by those who are upset that they won't be able to engage in the same kind of voter fraud that they criminally engaged in the 2020 election.

But hey...cry...gnash your teeth...whine and whimper while curled up in your safe space. Know that your corrupt betters won't stop looking for ways to succeed in future election fraud. When it comes to preventing Trump from winning in 2024, the ends justify any means...no matter how immoral, unethical or illegal.

We know from every single investigation to date, that there was no voter fraud in the 2020 election. The vast majority done by republicans, and many trump appointed federal department heads.

 

[eohrnberger]

The left blew their 'voter suppression' and 'Jim Crow 2.0' credibility.

Federal judge refuses to block Georgia’s new election integrity law
Court says it doesn’t want to impede summer elections, liberal plaintiff failed to show imminent constitutional harm warranting an injunction.
By John Solomon, July 7, 2021

Federal judge refuses to block Georgia’s new election integrity law

Court says it doesn’t want to impede summer elections, liberal plaintiff failed to show imminent constitutional harm warranting an injunction.

justthenews.com

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to block Georgia’s new election integrity law from taking effect, saying a liberal group’s request for a preliminary injunction failed to show imminent constitutional harm and would disrupt upcoming elections in the state.

“The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument for a bright line exception to Purcell because they have alleged First Amendment harm. Plaintiffs have not provided authority, nor is the Court aware of any, that would support this interpretation of the law,” U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee ruled in an 11-page ruling rejecting the challenge by the Coalition for Good Governance.

Boulee also wrote he was disinclined to “change the law in the ninth inning” when Georgia has runoff elections for seats in the Georgia state House planned for later this month.

“Election administrators have prepared to implement the challenged rules, have implemented them at least to some extent and now would have to grapple with a different set of rules in the middle of the election,” Boulee wrote in an 11-page order. “The risk of disrupting the administration of an ongoing election … outweigh the alleged harm to plaintiffs at this time.”

You can read the full ruling here.

File: show_temp.pdf
​

No sane person would take any more of the left's 'voter suppression' and 'Jim Crow 2.0' election non-sense seriously anymore.

 

[gbg3]

The left blew their 'voter suppression' and 'Jim Crow 2.0' credibility.

​

Federal judge refuses to block Georgia’s new election integrity law​

Court says it doesn’t want to impede summer elections, liberal plaintiff failed to show imminent constitutional harm warranting an injunction.​

By John Solomon, July 7, 2021​

Federal judge refuses to block Georgia’s new election integrity law

Court says it doesn’t want to impede summer elections, liberal plaintiff failed to show imminent constitutional harm warranting an injunction.

justthenews.com

​

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to block Georgia’s new election integrity law from taking effect, saying a liberal group’s request for a preliminary injunction failed to show imminent constitutional harm and would disrupt upcoming elections in the state.​

​

“The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument for a bright line exception to Purcell because they have alleged First Amendment harm. Plaintiffs have not provided authority, nor is the Court aware of any, that would support this interpretation of the law,” U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee ruled in an 11-page ruling rejecting the challenge by the Coalition for Good Governance.​

​

Boulee also wrote he was disinclined to “change the law in the ninth inning” when Georgia has runoff elections for seats in the Georgia state House planned for later this month.​

​

“Election administrators have prepared to implement the challenged rules, have implemented them at least to some extent and now would have to grapple with a different set of rules in the middle of the election,” Boulee wrote in an 11-page order. “The risk of disrupting the administration of an ongoing election … outweigh the alleged harm to plaintiffs at this time.”​

​

You can read the full ruling here.​

​

File: show_temp.pdf​

​

No sane person would take any more of the left's 'voter suppression' and 'Jim Crow 2.0' election non-sense seriously anymore.

Thanks for this info! I hadn't yet heard this news. Hopefully, this is the same way the case from the Justice Department will go.

 

[SarahSun]

Thanks for this info! I hadn't yet heard this news. Hopefully, this is the same way the case from the Justice Department will go.

How is Georgia's law worse than Delaware?

 

[joko104]

Of course corporate fascist and racist Democratic Party will rant at the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution.

Now we will hear and read the rant of the corrupt Democratic, corporate white fascists, their corporate media and racists!

They are outraged that the Supreme Court did not agree the Constitution must be erased because the Democratic Party's claim that:
1. Black people are too stupid to know how to get an ID,
2. that any election department personnel can destroy or create as many ballots as they want to as an inherent right,
3. and that billionaires can put of ballot drop boxes in selective voting precincts for which any of the millions of unrequested bulk rate ballots dropped in must be counted with no verification this by the actual voter.

Among others. The corporate fascists lost this one. In overall terms, now they usually win the battle - and will rage on with this one too. The Democratic corporate fascists in Congress will now try to pass laws outlawing the Constitution including on their racist theories of their claim of POC's extreme mental handicaps.