Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.

[Adam Jensen]

Just think: We wouldn't be in the situation we are now if Hillary had campaigned harder in the Rust Belt.

Hillary wasn't a great candidate, but she was INFINITELY better than Trump.

Yeah but she had some emails.

[gondrin]

Yeah but she had some emails.

Nope, she had Buttery Males. Huge Buttery Males.

[Forogil]

Because immigrants that live here aren't affected by local, state, and federal law the same way someone born here is right?

Just to be clear - in some local elections non-citizens can legally vote; both in the US and other countries.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitt..._United_States

Furthermore immigrants, even non-citizens, are part of the basis for the number of EC-votes a state has.

Earlier it was even legal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in some states in the US, but anti-immigration feelings have a long history - similarly as the limited female suffrage was removed in the 1800s in some places (including some states in the US).

[Othraerir]

who do you think will be the first King of america?

[zEmini]

who do you think will be the first King of america?

Whoever it may be I hope the king is slain the moment he puts on the crown.

[Belize]

Whoever it may be I hope the king is slain the moment he puts on the crown.

How long did Caesar last? 5~ish years?

The parallels between late Republican Rome and the U.S. are getting to be pretty disconcerting.

[Azadina]

How long did Caesar last? 5~ish years?

The parallels between late Republican Rome and the U.S. are getting to be pretty disconcerting.

I wouldn't go that far back in time with the comparisons. I'd compare to another state in the european continent, and certainly within the last 100 year time period.

[Forogil]

How long did Caesar last? 5~ish years?

The parallels between late Republican Rome and the U.S. are getting to be pretty disconcerting.

Hey that comparison isn't fair!

Julius Caesar was a good author, and excellent military leader in terms of (repeatedly) conquering France (or Gaul as it was known).
In contrast to some other politicians he didn't divorce his first (?) wife to keep his privileges, but divorced his second since Caesar' wife must be above suspicion.

And I doubt that the senators will have the guts to repeat the back-stabbing on Ides of March.

[tehdang]

No commentary? I mean, clearly this is utterly batshit insane (and thanks for the link, but it doesn't in any way shine a more favorable light on it)

You're welcome for the link.

It's an important question unsettled from previous decisions (See note on Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Alito). The powers of state courts and state legislatures are obviously in conflict, and the state constitution does state that “[a]ll elections shall be free." Read more of the dissent to see why "omg voting rights might be destroyed" is just over the top. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a455_5if6.pdf I really can't write better than Alito on what's concerned and the nuances involved.

[Shadowferal]

I wouldn't go that far back in time with the comparisons. I'd compare to another state in the european continent, and certainly within the last 100 year time period.

I was thinking Marie Antoinette.

[Kronik85]

You're welcome for the link.

It's an important question unsettled from previous decisions (See note on Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Alito). The powers of state courts and state legislatures are obviously in conflict, and the state constitution does state that “[a]ll elections shall be free." Read more of the dissent to see why "omg voting rights might be destroyed" is just over the top. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a455_5if6.pdf I really can't write better than Alito on what's concerned and the nuances involved.

Holy fucking shit balls. Alito's interpretation is "hyper partisan gerrymandering is fine because "free and fair" means without interference from the federal gov". And you think that's a good take tehdang? Wowzers man.

[Veggie50]

Democrats are usually against voter ID, to which republicans throw the “sO yUo wAnT frAuD?!”.

The truth is voter ID makes sense and most democrats are well aware. The problem is that getting an ID is a cumbersome and often expensive thing, turning the right to vote into an elite privilege.

Solution: do what Europe does, and create a standardized national issue ID card, that you can easily obtain at low cost with very few (if any) hoops to go through. Once that is in place, let’s have the voter ID debate.

[Adam Jensen]

who do you think will be the first King of america?

King Ron of House DeSantis, first of his name, long may he reign*

*I think I vomited a little typing that

[uuuhname]

Holy fucking shit balls. Alito's interpretation is "hyper partisan gerrymandering is fine because "free and fair" means without interference from the federal gov". And you think that's a good take tehdang? Wowzers man.

it is for someone who thinks they want to live under the articles of confederation.


this is the SCOTUS that will rule that the federal government has no authority over anything and therefore shouldn't exist.

[Kronik85]

it is for someone who thinks they want to live under the articles of confederation.


this is the SCOTUS that will rule that the federal government has no authority over anything and therefore shouldn't exist.

"Originalist" is legit brain rot.

Just to expand on this though. Originalists are Christian fundies right? Who think that judgements made by your founding fathers are akin to immutable mandates from God and the constitution is a religious document and must be interpreted through their lens?

But Christianity is a religion based on reforming an existing older religion (Judaism). Jesus' whole mission was to reform a pre-existing religious document and update it so that it worked better for people in the time that he lived rather than benefitting existing power structures.

I type that and I see why that doesn't occur to "grass roots" but Jesus Christ anyone on the SCOTUS has to be smarter than me. How is LARPING as a founding father even considered to be a reasonable take lol.

[Gestopft]

You're welcome for the link.

It's an important question unsettled from previous decisions (See note on Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Alito). The powers of state courts and state legislatures are obviously in conflict, and the state constitution does state that “[a]ll elections shall be free." Read more of the dissent to see why "omg voting rights might be destroyed" is just over the top. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a455_5if6.pdf I really can't write better than Alito on what's concerned and the nuances involved.

It's legalese mumbo jumbo for "we don't want to be subject to the separation of powers"

[unfilteredJW]

"I like when minorities don't vote" is all you said there.

You might have missed his dog whistling in the gun thread.

[tehdang]

Holy fucking shit balls. Alito's interpretation is "hyper partisan gerrymandering is fine because "free and fair" means without interference from the federal gov". And you think that's a good take tehdang? Wowzers man.

What a summary! The first paragraph's first sentence of "the [b]extent of a state court's authority to reject rules" is a little too hard and nuanced for you, so you're gonna go with declaring hyper partisan gerrymandering to be fine. You do you.

It's legalese mumbo jumbo for "we don't want to be subject to the separation of powers"

You guys are really batting 1000 with these summaries. Forget weighing the different judicial and legislative intersection of powers, let's pop out a bumper sticker "separation of powers" and let our prejudices guide the rest.

He certainly went through a lot of wasted effort discussing the two party's claims of power for you to waltz up and declare that separating powers never involves judging their intersection.

[Gestopft]

so you're gonna go with declaring hyper partisan gerrymandering to be fine.

Alito's logic was basically "the State constitution doesn't say anything specifically about partisan gerrymandering, so the State court is probably overstepping its boundaries." And SCOTUS already said federal courts couldn't interfere with partisan gerrymandering either, so....um. Yeah. This is exactly what's at stake.

He certainly went through a lot of wasted effort discussing the two party's claims of power for you to waltz up and declare that separating powers never involves judging their intersection.

Things no-one said. This particular case, however, makes it clear that under Alito's opinion, the only recourse the People would have to address partisan gerrymandering is...the legislature that is gerrymandered. So essentially no recourse.

And the "judging the intersection of powers..." yeah...The elections clause in the Constitution is really short. "Judging the intersection" is basically going to be Alito/Roberts/whoever making shit up. They are ruling on what has for over a century been a fringe theory (rejected by the SCOTUS as recently as 2015) that is now being pushed by the GOP and GOP-aligned groups to enshrine minority rule.

[Tentim]

That's literally the history of Republican efforts to pass voter-ID laws. The totality of it. And they've largely all been tossed out by the courts for being fairly explicitly racist in their intent to disenfranchise poor voters, primarily poor voters of color.

I don't see the idea of having Id to be an onerous task but I get we won't agree.