Voting rules, f-bombs, and Obamacare: Supreme Court term to wrap up with a bang

[mystery-ak]

Voting rules, f-bombs, and Obamacare: Supreme Court term to wrap up with a bang
by Nicholas Rowan, Staff Writer |
 | May 31, 2021 06:45 AM

As the Supreme Court wraps up its spring term, the justices are preparing to weigh in on a series of hot-button issues, including healthcare, voting laws, and college athlete compensation.

It has been a tumultuous year for the court. Just before the justices began hearing cases last fall, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, long the most prominent liberal on the bench, died after a long battle with cancer. And when former President Donald Trump tapped Justice Amy Coney Barrett to fill her vacant seat, Democrats reacted with dismay and called for court expansion. Once President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, Justice Stephen Breyer faced increased pressure from many liberals to retire and make way for a younger judge.

All the while, the court has been going about its business completely over the phone because of the coronavirus pandemic. In the past month, it has delivered a number of important decisions, most notably handing Google a massive victory over Oracle in a copyright case. But there’s much more to come from the court in June, the month in which it usually releases its most politically sensitive decisions. Here are five of the biggest cases still awaiting a decision before the court’s summer recess.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/voting-rules-f-bombs-obamacare-supreme-court-wrap-with-bang

[Cyber Liberty]

Item 1, FTA:

1. Voting rule laws

The Arizona Republican Party and the Democratic National Committee have been feuding over ballot laws since before the 2016 election. When the Supreme Court heard the case this year, though, it received renewed attention because of several attempts to challenge the 2020 election.

The laws in question require two things. The first is that a ballot is thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voter’s home address. The second is a ban on “ballot harvesting,” a practice in which third-party carriers collect absentee ballots and deliver them for counting.

Democrats claimed that the laws are racist because they disproportionately affect black, Latino, and Native American populations. Republicans disputed that accusation. During arguments, the court appeared divided on the case, with multiple justices saying that it was difficult to determine if a voter integrity law had discriminatory intent.

That last line doesn't bode well for AZ.  The Roberts Court can, with the stroke of a pen, turn Arizona into California.

[Hoodat]

One case they are considering is New Hampshire v. Massachusetts over state income taxes.  People living in New Hampshire but working in Massachusetts have been paying Massachusetts income taxes.  But because of the plandemic, many of those New Hampshire residents have been working from their NH homes.  Yet the Commonwealth of Massachusetts insists that they continue to pay Massachusetts income tax even though they no longer travel to Massachusetts to work.

New Hampshire is suing Massachusetts on behalf of its citizens, arguing that they are subject to New Hampshire tax laws since they technically work in New Hampshire.

If SCOTUS issues a ruling in this case, then it tosses out that whole BS line about Texas not having standing to sue Pennsylvania/Georgia/etc.

[Sled Dog]

It's not necessary to determine if those passing a law had a discriminatory intent.   All voting laws have discriminatory intent.

Good voting laws discriminate against those who are not allowed to vote, like illegal aliens and dead people and people who have already voted and people who don't exist.

What is necessary to do is to prove the law is discriminatory in application to the voters.

Demanding a voter present valid state issued ID to receive one (1) ballot and vote is only discriminatory if the state denies valid ID to persons systemically on the basis of race or ethnicity.  And THEN the problem is not with the voter ID law, but with the ID law itself.

And, frankly, claiming that the mere requirement of ID is discriminating against black, indians in America whose ancesters pre-dated Columbus and indians in America who are from that subcontinent, and other citizens is discriminatory because they might be too damn stupid to get ID to buy the beer they want or get a job is just insulting to people who are more than dumb enough to want to vote for the Rodents that insult them daily.

But if the EFFECT of the law is not discriminatory, it doesn't matter what the INTENT of the law is.