Supreme Court faces landmark challenge on voting rights

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court faces landmark challenge on voting rights
By John Kruzel - 03/01/21 06:22 PM EST

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday over a set of Arizona voting restrictions alleged to be racially discriminatory in a dispute that could set the most important voting rights precedent in nearly a decade.

A potentially landmark ruling in the coming months may determine whether a suite of voting curbs working their way through GOP state legislatures across the country will survive legal scrutiny before the pivotal 2022 midterms and the next race for the White House.

For the 6-3 conservative-majority court, the case marks a first chance to define the sweep of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That provision, Section 2, makes it illegal to enact laws that place an unequal burden on the franchise of racial minorities.


Civil rights groups say it’s crucial that the justices use the Arizona case to give a robust reading to Section 2 in light of a past Supreme Court ruling that narrowed safeguards for minority voters.

“It is imperative that this Court continue to construe Section 2 expansively, as Congress intended,” the NAACP Legal Defense Fund wrote in an amicus brief.

Such a ruling, the group said, is the only way to fulfill the law’s “original purpose of ridding the political process of racial discrimination.”

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/541107-supreme-court-faces-landmark-challenge-on-voting-rights

[Smokin Joe]

Supreme Court faces landmark challenge on voting rights
By John Kruzel - 03/01/21 06:22 PM EST



For the 6-3 conservative-majority court...

Lost me right there. Seven cowards and two justices.

[Bigun]

Lost me right there. Seven cowards and two justices.

Yep!  I didn't even bother reading the article.

[Wingnut]

They will not do the right thing.  Bank on it.

[Sled Dog]

Outside of very broad Constitutional constraints...no racial discrimination, females get to interfere in elections, children 18 years old can vote...the courts don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on.

The Constitution grants the state LEGISLATURES, and only the state legislatures, the power to decide how the state will select their presidential electors, and that must mean the states have sole authority over their elections.

Oh, and the states must have a republican form of government, which neither the United States nor California has any more.

[Sled Dog]

So, let's see...

...The Ninth Circus Court of Rotten Apples (Green Acres...) tossed out Arizona's rule that ballots cast at the wrong precinct be discarded in their entirety....the Rodents from the Ninth Circus of Hell want to retain the potential for voter fraud on the national level...

...and they want to preserve ballot harvesting, a process so rife with fraud that the Senate elections from AZ in the last two cycles are most distinctly redolent of five-day old bottom feeding fish.


The bottom line on the Ninth Court's ruling?   That minorities are not as smart as white people can thus find it more difficult to figure out AZ's voting rules, or something.  More condescension and pandering from the Rodents to keep their ability to defraud elections intact.

America will only be stepping onto the road to healing when the minorities start getting angry at how the Rodents insult them.

[skeeter]

America will only be stepping onto the road to healing when the minorities start getting angry at how the Rodents insult them.

Which will never happen to a big enough extent to make a difference because the rats' implied insults are always gaily decorated with overt attacks on the white man.

[Smokin Joe]

Which will never happen to a big enough extent to make a difference because the rats' implied insults are always gaily decorated with overt attacks on the white man.

That "rich white man" thingy has been going on for a long time. Three decades ago, I was having coffee with a lady who was ranting about the "rich white man", the root of the "white privilege"/"social justice"/1% and other rants against whites today. I finally asked her "Just who in the F*** is this rich white man anyway? I'm white and I'm for d@mned sure not rich, and most white people I know are nowhere close." That hauled her rhetoric up short. Aside from her being native (not a deal breaker, by any means, my wife is Chippewa, and never spouted any of that), the only place I can think of her being fed a lot of that stuff was at her work in Social Services or in the courses she took to get the job. Needless to say, that was our last date...