[marktwain]

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

That is different than deciding a case.

[bigbob]

The details are important:

“Kansas had been the only state to require people to show a physical document such as a birth certificate or passport when applying to register to vote. The issue is distinct from state laws that call for people to produce driver licenses or other photo IDs to cast a vote in person.”

Maybe some commenters should re-read this.

[Diogenesis]

Reconcile this:

When MALTA called - or Epstein called -
the Chief Justice RAN fast as he could
because THAT did matter (the USA, not so much).

[Pearls Before Swine]

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. That is different than deciding a case.

In principle, yes. In effect here, no.

They are splitting legalistic hairs while voting integrity is being trashed.

[Southnsoul]

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

That is different than deciding a case.

---

Thank you for your post, because I was about to freak out.

There is a big difference in deciding a case and not hearing it, and if they’re not going to hear the Texas lawsuit, then they’re not going to pick this up on the basis of it being a state issue.

[itsahoot]

That is different than deciding a case.

It is just the chicken $}{it way to approve without approving.

[skimbell]

No, the SC upheld the appeals court decision by vote.
The article then goes on to talk about the SC refusal to hear the Texas case last week.
Bottom line, the SC agreed with the appeals court and rejected the Kansas identification laws.
It's as F’dU as the headline makes it sound.