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

[joko104]

How is Georgia's law worse than Delaware?

You'll never get a real answer. President Biden should explain, since he called Georgia's law "Jim Crow."

 

[eohrnberger]

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.

Seems pretty sure that it will.

The DOJ’s Lame Lawsuit Against Georgia’s New Voting Law Is DOA​

There is no empirical or statistical evidence whatsoever that shows GA's law is discriminatory. Saying so doesn’t make it so.
BY GREGG JARRETT, JULY 4, 2021

Garland recently sued the state of Georgia alleging that its new voting law depresses the rights of Black voters. Simply put, this is an anemic lawsuit. The arguments are weak. The reasoning is tortured. It’s 46 pages, but most of it is irrelevant historical filler. It reminds me of a junior high school paper that is short on substance and long on B.S. I’d give Garland an F grade, and that’s being generous. He should be embarrassed that he put his name behind such a farce.

Garland and the DOJ claim that Georgia’s new law restricts the rights of Black voters. In truth, it actually expands voter access in many meaningful ways, which Garland completely ignores. Instead, he focuses on new rules affecting absentee ballots and voter ID.


No longer will election workers be able to hand out absentee ballots like cotton candy at the state fair. So, in Georgia, voters will have to do what people in most states do –ask for an absentee ballot. Gee…what a concept! It’s hard to see how that is unreasonable, and there is no empirical or statistical evidence whatsoever that it’s discriminatory. Saying so doesn’t make it so.

The DOJ also claims that it’s racially discriminatory to ask absentee voters to prove who they are by providing some form of ID. But, again, this is a fairly common practice nationwide. 36 states require some form of voter identification, including many blue states. Moreover, Georgia’s new law is less restrictive than other states because any form of ID is accepted (driver’s license, SS numbers, or just a simple utility bill.) So how does that negatively impact black voters? Garland skips that part.

A new Monmouth University poll found that 81% of Americans approve of voter ID, including 62% of Democrats. Why? Because it makes sense and it’s a deterrent to voter fraud. In Georgia, polls show that a vast majority of black residents also approve of it. And a recent study in Georgia found no evidence that voter identification –that has long been used in the state for in-person voting– suppressed votes or disenfranchised anyone.


But Garland’s next argument is the most obtuse of all. He claims that Georgia’s new law unfairly limits the number of ballot drop boxes that Black voters rely on the most. But wait, without the new law there would be no drop boxes at all! Georgia never allowed drop boxes until the pandemic hit. The state temporarily approved them, but that order has now expired. So, drop boxes were outlawed altogether until the legislature passed the new law making them a permanent fixture.
It is readily apparent that Merrick Garland is no great thinker. You may have noticed it during his confirmation hearing to be the next attorney general. Some of his responses to questions were just plain dopey. He will not be missed on the Supreme Court.
​

 

[eohrnberger]

You'll never get a real answer. President Biden should explain, since he called Georgia's law "Jim Crow."

He can't because it isn't.
Biden, and his minions, just pushing their preferred political narrative doesn't make it so (unless you are as seriously weak minded as he appears to be).

 

[Fletch]

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."

Explain why this ruling makes it harder to vote, especially for minorities. Thanks.

 

[Fletch]

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

Why should people here do what you have not? You cannot argue against what Alito wrote so you are left with insulting people who know more than you do.

 

[Fletch]

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.

And your legal education consists of what again? Oh thats right. You didnt take so much as a single class. You just like to play legal genius on the internet.

 

[maxparrish]

Just google 'Alito decision and big lie'.

Since I've read the opinion and the dissent, and you apparently have not, I am not interested in googling to provide your own arguments for your that you should know by now. Either you can cite what parts of Alito's opinion you find so offensive and why, or you can't.

And if you can't, why are you in this thread?

 

[maxparrish]

You'll never get a real answer. President Biden should explain, since he called Georgia's law "Jim Crow."

Biden remembered a two word pejorative. For heavens sake, don't torment the man by asking him to explain it. Under his DOJ that's elder abuse.

 

[eohrnberger]

Biden remembered a two word pejorative. For heavens sake, don't torment the man by asking him to explain it. Under his DOJ that's elder abuse.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

There are no Trump administration people who did any kind of investigation into election fraud in the 2020 election...not even Barr.

There are no investigations by anybody else...not even at the state level.

The AZ audit is the ONLY forensic audit of ALL the ballots in Maricopa County and ALL the machines (except the routers that the MCBOS refuses to turn over to the auditors)

 

[maxparrish]

Seems pretty sure that it will.

​

​

The DOJ’s Lame Lawsuit Against Georgia’s New Voting Law Is DOA​

There is no empirical or statistical evidence whatsoever that shows GA's law is discriminatory. Saying so doesn’t make it so.​

BY GREGG JARRETT, JULY 4, 2021​

​

Garland recently sued the state of Georgia alleging that its new voting law depresses the rights of Black voters. Simply put, this is an anemic lawsuit. The arguments are weak. The reasoning is tortured. It’s 46 pages, but most of it is irrelevant historical filler. It reminds me of a junior high school paper that is short on substance and long on B.S. I’d give Garland an F grade, and that’s being generous. He should be embarrassed that he put his name behind such a farce.​

​

Garland and the DOJ claim that Georgia’s new law restricts the rights of Black voters. In truth, it actually expands voter access in many meaningful ways, which Garland completely ignores. Instead, he focuses on new rules affecting absentee ballots and voter ID.​

​

No longer will election workers be able to hand out absentee ballots like cotton candy at the state fair. So, in Georgia, voters will have to do what people in most states do –ask for an absentee ballot. Gee…what a concept! It’s hard to see how that is unreasonable, and there is no empirical or statistical evidence whatsoever that it’s discriminatory. Saying so doesn’t make it so.​

​

The DOJ also claims that it’s racially discriminatory to ask absentee voters to prove who they are by providing some form of ID. But, again, this is a fairly common practice nationwide. 36 states require some form of voter identification, including many blue states. Moreover, Georgia’s new law is less restrictive than other states because any form of ID is accepted (driver’s license, SS numbers, or just a simple utility bill.) So how does that negatively impact black voters? Garland skips that part.​

​

A new Monmouth University poll found that 81% of Americans approve of voter ID, including 62% of Democrats. Why? Because it makes sense and it’s a deterrent to voter fraud. In Georgia, polls show that a vast majority of black residents also approve of it. And a recent study in Georgia found no evidence that voter identification –that has long been used in the state for in-person voting– suppressed votes or disenfranchised anyone.​

​

​

But Garland’s next argument is the most obtuse of all. He claims that Georgia’s new law unfairly limits the number of ballot drop boxes that Black voters rely on the most. But wait, without the new law there would be no drop boxes at all! Georgia never allowed drop boxes until the pandemic hit. The state temporarily approved them, but that order has now expired. So, drop boxes were outlawed altogether until the legislature passed the new law making them a permanent fixture.​

It is readily apparent that Merrick Garland is no great thinker. You may have noticed it during his confirmation hearing to be the next attorney general. Some of his responses to questions were just plain dopey. He will not be missed on the Supreme Court.​

​

Unlike the prior articles submitted by the OP, G. Jarrett's own angry exasperation is supported by his factual points on the law's provisions. No need to go over them again, but anyone knowledgeable of the law should note that for the most part it expands voting opportunities - certainty far more than here in "blue California" for most of its history. (There was a time, not so long ago where "normal" was to either show up on election day or vote absentee with a good excuse. Period. No drop boxes, no early voting, no provisional or late ballots. And no hanging chad nonsense. If you were too lazy to show up or vote absentee under the rules, too bad).

However, most observers concede this is a political move to keep the Democratic "woke" wing of the party happy. Garland has been under great pressure to use lawfare for naked partisan purposes, no matter how embarrassingly specious and self-serving it is. And as Biden is just a marionette of others, Garland doesn't have an avenue of appeal...and that's assuming he even wants one.

A deeper insight is provided here:

Georgia On My Mind: The Biden Administration Doubles Down on New Challenge Despite Victory of Arizona In Voting Case

Below is my column in USA Today on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the challenge to the Arizona’s new election rules. The 6-3 decision undermines the claims raised in the new challenge…

jonathanturley.org

 

[rahl]

There are no Trump administration people who did any kind of investigation into election fraud in the 2020 election...not even Barr.

It’s must be fun detaching yourself from reality. You get believe all kinds of batshit crazy things.

There are no investigations by anybody else...not even at the state level.

The AZ audit is the ONLY forensic audit of ALL the ballots in Maricopa County and ALL the machines (except the routers that the MCBOS refuses to turn over to the auditors)

Lol

 

[VanceMack]

"The decision promotes white supremacy and is a throwback to the days where black Americans were lynched and Jim Crow laws were passed to further oppress black voters."

Oh....thats not an argument for or against the Supreme Courts most recent decision...thats just a standard canned democrat response to ending mask mandates, the confirmation of Brett Cavanaigh, the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, voter ID, any law that requires confirmation of the validity of votes, the promotion of the Keystone Pipeline, energy independence through use of domestic oil production, opposition to a 7 trillion dollar infratsructure bil with 5 billion having **** all to do with infrastructure, permanent government handouts, opposition to illegal immigration, or any of the ongoing commie rat issues the democrats are pushing for.

 

[ModG23]

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.

Actually if you follow the DOJ they are stepping up to guard against voter supression after the fraudulent actions Trump and others pulled in pressuring GA SOS and Gov.
Az Republicans actually took away the power of the Democratic SOS for the next election so they can control the results. They plan To appoint who wins no matter what the voters do.

 

[ModG23]

"The decision promotes white supremacy and is a throwback to the days where black Americans were lynched and Jim Crow laws were passed to further oppress black voters."

Oh....thats not an argument for or against the Supreme Courts most recent decision...thats just a standard canned democrat response to ending mask mandates, the confirmation of Brett Cavanaigh, the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, voter ID, any law that requires confirmation of the validity of votes, the promotion of the Keystone Pipeline, energy independence through use of domestic oil production, opposition to a 7 trillion dollar infratsructure bil with 5 billion having **** all to do with infrastructure, permanent government handouts, opposition to illegal immigration, or any of the ongoing commie rat issues the democrats are pushing for.

How about those permanent handouts to the .01% Trump gave so they would support him?

 

[highroller]

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

This is the goal for the last 50 years

 

[eohrnberger]

Unlike the prior articles submitted by the OP, G. Jarrett's own angry exasperation is supported by his factual points on the law's provisions. No need to go over them again, but anyone knowledgeable of the law should note that for the most part it expands voting opportunities - certainty far more than here in "blue California" for most of its history. (There was a time, not so long ago where "normal" was to either show up on election day or vote absentee with a good excuse. Period. No drop boxes, no early voting, no provisional or late ballots. And no hanging chad nonsense. If you were too lazy to show up or vote absentee under the rules, too bad).

However, most observers concede this is a political move to keep the Democratic "woke" wing of the party happy. Garland has been under great pressure to use lawfare for naked partisan purposes, no matter how embarrassingly specious and self-serving it is. And as Biden is just a marionette of others, Garland doesn't have an avenue of appeal...and that's assuming he even wants one.

A deeper insight is provided here:

Georgia On My Mind: The Biden Administration Doubles Down on New Challenge Despite Victory of Arizona In Voting Case

Below is my column in USA Today on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the challenge to the Arizona’s new election rules. The 6-3 decision undermines the claims raised in the new challenge…

jonathanturley.org

"most observers concede this is a political move to keep the Democratic "woke" wing of the party happy. Garland has been under great pressure to use lawfare for naked partisan purposes, no matter how embarrassingly specious and self-serving it is. And as Biden is just a marionette of others, Garland doesn't have an avenue of appeal...and that's assuming he even wants one."

Agreed. Continuing the politicization of, and use of, federal agencies wielded as political weapons.

 

[mrjurrs]

Since I've read the opinion and the dissent, and you apparently have not, I am not interested in googling to provide your own arguments for your that you should know by now. Either you can cite what parts of Alito's opinion you find so offensive and why, or you can't.

And if you can't, why are you in this thread?

I've already posted those comments. You're boring replies offer nothing.

 

[VanceMack]

How about those permanent handouts to the .01% Trump gave so they would support him?

Your TDS aside.........

When you give people something they didnt earn, thats a 'handout'. When you let people keep more of their own money, its 'not'. When you whine about people keeping more of their own money, its 'pathetic'.

 

[ModG23]

Your TDS aside.........

When you give people something they didnt earn, thats a 'handout'. When you let people keep more of their own money, its 'not'. When you whine about people keeping more of their own money, its 'pathetic'.

You do realize they pay the same rate as workers? Over the years they are contributing much less to the country that made them wealthy. Cutting revenue is more burden on workers. I guess that’s okay with you. if you don’t make over 400,000 you are voting against your best interests. Republicans don’t tax they fee us to death.

Why do you think Republicans are against higher wages? Put their money where their mouth is. Police Reform, Education, Environment, immigation reform? They would rather complain.

 

[VanceMack]

You do realize they pay the same rate as workers? Over the years they are contributing much less to the country that made them wealthy. Cutting revenue is more burden on workers. I guess that’s okay with you. if you don’t make over 400,000 you are voting against your best interests. Republicans don’t tax they fee us to death.

Why do you think Republicans are against higher wages? Put their money where their mouth is. Police Reform, Education, Environment, immigation reform? They would rather complain.

Your whining is pathetic. Look...no one is begrudging you the fact that you get handouts and others have to carry you through life, but the least you could do every once in a while is say thank you.

 

[ModG23]

Your whining is pathetic. Look...no one is begrudging you the fact that you get handouts and others have to carry you through life, but the least you could do every once in a while is say thank you.

No one has ever carried me through life. You are way off base.
I’d say the coddled are the .01% wealthy who have benefitted at the expense of their workforce and tax loopholes. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk are examples.

FYI some facts outside your bubble.

IRS records show wealthiest Americans, including Bezos and Musk, paid little in income taxes, report says

The wealthiest Americans — including Warren Buffett, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos — paid relatively little in federal income taxes at times in recent years, despite soaring fortunes, according to Internal Revenue Service data obtained by ProPublica.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[VanceMack]

No one has ever carried me through life. You are way off base.
I’d say the coddled are the .01% wealthy who have benefitted at the expense of their workforce and tax loopholes. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk are examples.

FYI some facts outside your bubble.

IRS records show wealthiest Americans, including Bezos and Musk, paid little in income taxes, report says

The wealthiest Americans — including Warren Buffett, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos — paid relatively little in federal income taxes at times in recent years, despite soaring fortunes, according to Internal Revenue Service data obtained by ProPublica.

www.seattletimes.com

Its that 'relatively' part that gets you.