Five conservatives allowed last-minute voting changes. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have allowed Arizona to enforce restrictions that clearly conflict with federal law.
I've been living out of the US for 10 years now, but am registered in and have always voted in my home state of North Carolina. I sent in my application for absentee voting as usual, but this is the first year I've ever been scared that I may simply be blocked from voting.
I grew up a Republican and a Christian, but I'm no longer either, as the purveyors of both have proven to me that now they care only about hatred of minorities and blocking civil and human rights. They're no longer Republicans or Christians to me, they're the Party and Cult of Trump. Trump didn't create Christian Nationalism, but he sure did put the "fascist" in "Christo-fascist."
Voting is a constitutional right that must be protected … or so it would seem. But what to do about a Supreme Court that no longer disguises its anti civil rights prejudices, or a reactionary feeder Fifth Circuit? Both are impenetrable to voters.
I wonder, has anyone recently asked the Court just why it apparently deems African-Americans to be less deserving of rights than rich white Christians? (And certainly no paid vacations.) Or why, if SCOTUS no longer observes precedence … it seems to have resurrected - in theory if not vocally acknowledged - the damaged rationale Plessy v. Ferguson?
Unfortunately, there’s no free-standing, affirmative constitutional right to vote; the Constitution only states reasons that the right to vote cannot be denied. States are free to set other conditions (which is why felons are disenfranchised in some states, for example).
We know that Republicans will not accept the results of any election on November 5th that they do not win; given everything that's led up to this point, it's impossible to see how they back down. Whether they fight it in the courts, the other branches of government, or in the streets, we're in for deep trouble. And that's in the GOOD outcome, where Kamala Harris wins the election. I don't know how this ultimately resolves itself, but it's going to be very damaging even in the best case scenarios. (Also, it should say Kris Mayes.)
My heart began to race as I read your article, Chris. The Supremes’ voting to not hold US Presidents responsible for their actions nearly knocked the legs out from under me. Now this.
If Harris wins the Presidential election, and the house and Senate go Democrat, can something be done to safeguard We The People from this putrid Court?
Those right wingers don't surprise me. Nor is it surprising that AZ's flat earth Speaker of the House and Senate president brought the suit. Despite having Dems in statewide positions our AZ legislature has been R majority for over 30 years.
Red states know that they have friends in the court willing to overturn precedent and make up rulings. As you stated, the cases of undocumented people voting is almost non-existent. They have no interest in outing themselves. This case should have been 9-0, and so should have the immunity case. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are past their 19th century expiration dates.
Of COURSE the conservative justices are going to support voter suppression. Their power will be diluted (and for some impeachment may loom) if Democrats prevail.
I am an example of how getting "proof of citizenship" can go wrong. I needed to either get a "real ID" or get my passport renewed for a trip into Canada. My family dates back to 1636 in America and needless to say I was born here. I wrote for a certified copy of my birth certificate, to get the Real ID. When it arrived after a long delay, my name and my father's name were misspelled. I KNOW this was a typo because I've seen my birth certificate--just didn't have a certified copy.
Luckily the Passport renewal folks came through--faster than the birth certificate folks--and I could go on my trip. But what if I lived a voter-purge state and needed the birth certificate to prove citizenship on discovering I'd been unregistered? SOL, that's what.
To overcome the Roberts-Kavanugh Choke Test will require overwhelming majorities of counted votes, both nationally and among sufficient states to reach an electoral majority. And the Kavanaugh Maxim, “What goes around comes around,” will probably keep him from ever siding with Harris.
Well, perhaps The Law Dork can shed some light on a question I have been unable to find an answer to the last 4 years.
So, what are the boundaries of SC rulings? I am guessing that if those 6 rule that Trump is the president and Biden must vacate the White House ASAP, it would be good enough to... What? Arrest them and? What if it's a little less obviously a treason looking action/ruling? Are SC going to be able to rule anything under a threat of a civil war? Couldn't they say that all elections must be in person, everyone must show a passport or a birth certificate, and Proud Boys will be checking those at the entrances?
There obviously are no decisions they cannot make, so 1) what's the gauge of acceptability, and 2) what's the mechanism, what does not accepting look like?
I hope I was clear, and that there can be some explanation.
I had seen that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of stories I see that I can't get into because of time limits. For me to write on that, I would need to get to the point that I felt I knew what was going on well enough to write on it. And, for something like this, that could be a lot of time. Particularly when they are stories that are already getting a lot of traction elsewhere, unless I think I have something unique to add to the coverage, I often have to just leave it to others.
"The best answer for addressing this court when it comes to election litigation is by avoiding it altogether or ensuring that the only arguments that Trump and the Republicans can make are ones that are so bad that even Roberts and Kavanaugh can’t buy them."
In response to a state law that discriminates against a class of voters, what does "avoiding" litigation even mean?
(I know that sounds snarky, but it's not. I didn't say things were good, and you obviously can't always avoid litigation. That's the whole point of the piece.)
It is time to ignore them. As corrupt and partisan hacks, the right wing kangaroos should not be given any credence whatsoever. They are destroying us, as we sit by and follow their nonsense (formerly called opinions). Time for big big big changes.
That will just raise a chorus of radical right that the left wing don’t like it when the court goes against them.
Better to get a filibuster proof senate and Harris and do the unfortunate and unprecedented job of impeaching Thomas and possibly Alito for documented grifting and ethical violations, and expanding the court to match the number of circuits. Overrule by legislation Dobbs and Citizens United and pass the two voting bills to undo the damage to the voting rights act
If the right to vote is a fundamental right then the majority violated the Principle of Legality i.e., if people were allowed to vote by declaration under penalty of perjury that they're US Citizen's and a statute was 'interpreted' to deprive them of that right then they are at minimum recklessly deprived - by five people (that happen to be USSCt judges) in reckless disregard of those citizens fundamental rights. The onus would be on the poll challenger. In my mind it raises the issue of whether these five deem the right to vote a fundamental right. All of this "show me your papers" bosh or like Rehnquist got his start "read this" which is what all of this is actually about has gone too far and the Jumping Jack Asses have done nothing to prevent it. In fact it all started when they and the ACLU supported the idea that a social security number is necessary to operate a motor vehicle. They added an eye test after it was pointed out to them that persons already entitled to re-registration without retaking a driver's test maybe have bad eyes since then. So if they actually thought this all of this was a Carl Schmitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt Emergency they could have compromised with John McCain and made everyone buy a passport and collected some cash for "The Party".
I've been living out of the US for 10 years now, but am registered in and have always voted in my home state of North Carolina. I sent in my application for absentee voting as usual, but this is the first year I've ever been scared that I may simply be blocked from voting.
I grew up a Republican and a Christian, but I'm no longer either, as the purveyors of both have proven to me that now they care only about hatred of minorities and blocking civil and human rights. They're no longer Republicans or Christians to me, they're the Party and Cult of Trump. Trump didn't create Christian Nationalism, but he sure did put the "fascist" in "Christo-fascist."
Voting is a constitutional right that must be protected … or so it would seem. But what to do about a Supreme Court that no longer disguises its anti civil rights prejudices, or a reactionary feeder Fifth Circuit? Both are impenetrable to voters.
I wonder, has anyone recently asked the Court just why it apparently deems African-Americans to be less deserving of rights than rich white Christians? (And certainly no paid vacations.) Or why, if SCOTUS no longer observes precedence … it seems to have resurrected - in theory if not vocally acknowledged - the damaged rationale Plessy v. Ferguson?
Unfortunately, there’s no free-standing, affirmative constitutional right to vote; the Constitution only states reasons that the right to vote cannot be denied. States are free to set other conditions (which is why felons are disenfranchised in some states, for example).
We know that Republicans will not accept the results of any election on November 5th that they do not win; given everything that's led up to this point, it's impossible to see how they back down. Whether they fight it in the courts, the other branches of government, or in the streets, we're in for deep trouble. And that's in the GOOD outcome, where Kamala Harris wins the election. I don't know how this ultimately resolves itself, but it's going to be very damaging even in the best case scenarios. (Also, it should say Kris Mayes.)
(Fixed Mayes.)
My heart began to race as I read your article, Chris. The Supremes’ voting to not hold US Presidents responsible for their actions nearly knocked the legs out from under me. Now this.
If Harris wins the Presidential election, and the house and Senate go Democrat, can something be done to safeguard We The People from this putrid Court?
Those right wingers don't surprise me. Nor is it surprising that AZ's flat earth Speaker of the House and Senate president brought the suit. Despite having Dems in statewide positions our AZ legislature has been R majority for over 30 years.
Red states know that they have friends in the court willing to overturn precedent and make up rulings. As you stated, the cases of undocumented people voting is almost non-existent. They have no interest in outing themselves. This case should have been 9-0, and so should have the immunity case. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are past their 19th century expiration dates.
Of COURSE the conservative justices are going to support voter suppression. Their power will be diluted (and for some impeachment may loom) if Democrats prevail.
I am an example of how getting "proof of citizenship" can go wrong. I needed to either get a "real ID" or get my passport renewed for a trip into Canada. My family dates back to 1636 in America and needless to say I was born here. I wrote for a certified copy of my birth certificate, to get the Real ID. When it arrived after a long delay, my name and my father's name were misspelled. I KNOW this was a typo because I've seen my birth certificate--just didn't have a certified copy.
Luckily the Passport renewal folks came through--faster than the birth certificate folks--and I could go on my trip. But what if I lived a voter-purge state and needed the birth certificate to prove citizenship on discovering I'd been unregistered? SOL, that's what.
To overcome the Roberts-Kavanugh Choke Test will require overwhelming majorities of counted votes, both nationally and among sufficient states to reach an electoral majority. And the Kavanaugh Maxim, “What goes around comes around,” will probably keep him from ever siding with Harris.
Well, perhaps The Law Dork can shed some light on a question I have been unable to find an answer to the last 4 years.
So, what are the boundaries of SC rulings? I am guessing that if those 6 rule that Trump is the president and Biden must vacate the White House ASAP, it would be good enough to... What? Arrest them and? What if it's a little less obviously a treason looking action/ruling? Are SC going to be able to rule anything under a threat of a civil war? Couldn't they say that all elections must be in person, everyone must show a passport or a birth certificate, and Proud Boys will be checking those at the entrances?
There obviously are no decisions they cannot make, so 1) what's the gauge of acceptability, and 2) what's the mechanism, what does not accepting look like?
I hope I was clear, and that there can be some explanation.
Thank you in advance!
Chris, different subject, but I’m upset about the woman who killed her trafficker and abuser and is getting 11 years for it. Do you know about this?
I had seen that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of stories I see that I can't get into because of time limits. For me to write on that, I would need to get to the point that I felt I knew what was going on well enough to write on it. And, for something like this, that could be a lot of time. Particularly when they are stories that are already getting a lot of traction elsewhere, unless I think I have something unique to add to the coverage, I often have to just leave it to others.
Thanks Chris. I understand. It just seems so unfair.
Can you please share story via link?
Thank you Marcy for getting that link. Just is so unfair when she has been abused: I think the abuser had it coming.
"The best answer for addressing this court when it comes to election litigation is by avoiding it altogether or ensuring that the only arguments that Trump and the Republicans can make are ones that are so bad that even Roberts and Kavanaugh can’t buy them."
In response to a state law that discriminates against a class of voters, what does "avoiding" litigation even mean?
Well, they couldn't here. That's what it means.
(I know that sounds snarky, but it's not. I didn't say things were good, and you obviously can't always avoid litigation. That's the whole point of the piece.)
It is time to ignore them. As corrupt and partisan hacks, the right wing kangaroos should not be given any credence whatsoever. They are destroying us, as we sit by and follow their nonsense (formerly called opinions). Time for big big big changes.
That will just raise a chorus of radical right that the left wing don’t like it when the court goes against them.
Better to get a filibuster proof senate and Harris and do the unfortunate and unprecedented job of impeaching Thomas and possibly Alito for documented grifting and ethical violations, and expanding the court to match the number of circuits. Overrule by legislation Dobbs and Citizens United and pass the two voting bills to undo the damage to the voting rights act
Sounds like a very solid plan.
Thanks for this analysis, Chris. I’m concerned about what this court may do in the next 2-3 months. It gives me anxiety.
Well, now I’m terrified. Vote vote vote vote vote.
If the right to vote is a fundamental right then the majority violated the Principle of Legality i.e., if people were allowed to vote by declaration under penalty of perjury that they're US Citizen's and a statute was 'interpreted' to deprive them of that right then they are at minimum recklessly deprived - by five people (that happen to be USSCt judges) in reckless disregard of those citizens fundamental rights. The onus would be on the poll challenger. In my mind it raises the issue of whether these five deem the right to vote a fundamental right. All of this "show me your papers" bosh or like Rehnquist got his start "read this" which is what all of this is actually about has gone too far and the Jumping Jack Asses have done nothing to prevent it. In fact it all started when they and the ACLU supported the idea that a social security number is necessary to operate a motor vehicle. They added an eye test after it was pointed out to them that persons already entitled to re-registration without retaking a driver's test maybe have bad eyes since then. So if they actually thought this all of this was a Carl Schmitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt Emergency they could have compromised with John McCain and made everyone buy a passport and collected some cash for "The Party".