Posted on 07/01/2021 7:10:14 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
That’s what I’m thinking.
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined
If minorities have no ID’s, how do they cash welfare checks?
If direct deposit to their EBT cards, I suppose they don’t need ID. But there many other benefits besides EBT food stamps. And they are not cards like the EBT card.
“No ballot harvesting in Indian reservations is upheld.”
No ballot harvesting anywhere is upheld. The focus on reservations was the leftists’ tactic.
I can’t believe Roberts didn’t side with his fellow leftists.
"(4) Section 2(b) directs courts to consider “the totality of circumstances,” but the dissent would make §2 turn almost entirely on one circumstance: disparate impact. The dissent also would adopt a least-restrictive means requirement that would force a State to prove that the interest served by its voting rule could not be accomplished in any other less burdensome way. Such a requirement has no footing in the text of §2 or the Court’s precedent construing it and would have the potential to invalidate just about any voting rule a State adopts. Section 2 of the VRA provides vital protection against discriminatory voting rules, and no one suggests that discrimination in voting has been extirpated or that the threat has been eliminated. Even so, §2 does not transfer the States’ authority to set non-discriminatory voting rules to the federal courts. Pp. 21–25.The dissent, by contrast, would rewrite the text of §2 and make it turn almost entirely on just one circumstance—disparate impact. That is a radical project, and the dissent strains mightily to obscure its objective. To that end, it spends 20 pages discussing matters that have little bearing on the questions before us. The dissent provides historical background that all Americans should remember, see post, at 3–7 (opinion of KAGAN, J.), but that background does not tell us how to decide these cases. The dissent quarrels with the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. 529 (2013), see post, at 7– 9, which concerned §§4 and 5 of the VRA, not §2. It discusses all sorts of voting rules that are not at issue here. See post, at 9–12. And it dwells on points of law that nobody disputes: that §2 applies to a broad range of voting rules, practices, and procedures; that an “abridgement” of the right to vote under §2 does not require outright denial of the right; that §2 does not demand proof of discriminatory purpose; and that a “facially neutral” law or practice may violate that provision. See post, at 12–20. Only after this extended effort at misdirection is the dissent’s aim finally unveiled: to undo as much as possible the compromise that was reached between the House and Senate when §2 was amended in 1982."
And Roberts is the "white man" bedeviled by Kagan in the dissent, for that very reason.
"We know the 2020 election was STOLEN"
Alito wrote the opinion. Basically the line of argument is that all voting involves burdens and effort so you have to argue that this particular act imposes undue burdens that discriminates on the basis of race or color and that burden was not met.
It’s a reasonable decision, but the reason the majority is drowning in their own cess is their refusal to deal with the election fraud in the first place. Seven of the nine could not find the “shall have original jurisdiction” clause with both hands.
They’re making a choice to move around more often it should be their responsibility to do the things required when anyone else moves. Dems don’t care if you move fifty times your vote should count whether you’ve updated your registration or not, no matter how the ballot get returned and who signed, if or how it’s been signed.
Support for states blocking ballot harvesting is great. When Dems continue to dilute the security of the vote by letting anyone collect a ballot and turn it in and dismiss features designed to ensure that ballot was cast by a specific eligible voter, such as signature verification, it’s clear their goal is not greater access. Their aim is to create systemic advantage for themselves and invite cheating using the fig leaf of anti discrimination to hide their motive.
Hate to be a pain, but this probably means when crooked states do awful things with their election laws, the supremes will probably back them up, too. Up
That’s why everyone must pay attention to electing the right conservatives as Sec. of State, state AG, etc.
No worries, the directly indigenous folks in my immediate family are on board with Truehart.
p
Good point. The courts and state executives changed voting policies and procedures without participation of the legislature. Totally illegal.
Prefer that the states make these decisions rather than a centralized federal government that treats the states like administrative units, not as the creators of the federal government. The 10th Amendment is there for a reason. The Constitution defines/limits the federal government.
I guess you never read the US Constitution. The state legislatures are THE election authority PERIOD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.