The Supreme Court just gave the Republicans the Country

[edhopper]

The Roberts Courts will uphold all the anti-voting laws that are being passed. These laws will enable Republicans to take any election they choose. If they were in place Arizona and Georgia would have gone to Trump, and they can now just stop large Democratic and minority communities from voting, or just cancelled out the ones cast.

[DURHAM D]

1. and everyone thought Roberts was such a nice guy because

he is not physically ugly

[babylonsister]

2. That's not what I read.

I don't think this is about 'all' the anti-voting laws. I read 'a pair'.



The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a pair of Republican-backed Arizona voting restrictions do not run afoul of federal law, rejecting a Democratic challenge and dealing a blow to voting rights advocates.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/561092-supreme-court-leaves-arizona-voting-restrictions-in-place

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. And I heard a lot of opposition here to ballot harvesting during the primaries last year

When Republicans were doing it in California.
I'm also not sure how the provisional ballot one will work as Arizona doesn't have precincts anymore, unless they do away with voting centers (which certainly could be in the works).

[edhopper]

4. It points to the Court upholding

all the recent laws that have been passed. With those in place, the GOP can steal any election where they hold the legislature.

[mvd]

5. To people saying this is limited

Do they really expect this Court not to go further? They went against voting rights in 2013 and again now.

[kysrsoze]

6. We can all raise the white flag, or GOTV and flip enough legislatures and remove these laws.

If nothing else, I recognize Republicans are good at one thing - the long game. They start at grassroots (and astroturf) and NEVER quit, which is why this country is how it is right now. We can say Repubs are going to take over, or do what's necessary to ensure people are allowed to vote. These crappy laws are a hindrance, but determined people can work together to get around them. The most difficult thing to fight is the purging of voter rolls, and I don't know that even the SC would allow much of that.

[lagomorph777]

7. And we can expand SCROTUS NOW.

[kysrsoze]

9. I think it's justified. Unfortunately, I don't see happening. I doubt Biden/Dems will do it.

[lagomorph777]

10. It's infuriating. We need to make them do it.

We are still nominally a democracy.

[edhopper]

11. You can't GOTV

if they stop people from voting. And they have gerrymandered the States in a way to ensure they keep the legislature.
They pass these anti-voting law3s, the SCOTUS allows them to stand, and we don't have enough votes in the Senate to stop them.

[qazplm135]

14. Ffs

Stop. You are effectively saying don't bother voting everyone which quite frankly is bull.

[edhopper]

19. I am saying prepare to have our country

taken from us. If you don't think is is becoming more and more a possibility, you aren't paying attention.

[qazplm135]

22. wtf does that even mean?

prepare how? Should I invest in beets? Buy a bunker?

Certainly if the country is "taken" you'd agree voting is meaningless right?

The hyperbolic BS doesn't help us win the next election, it just depresses turnout which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So again, stop the BS, and get to work.

[CrackityJones75]

23. Please stop.

You are not helping anything.

Please stop what you are doing and delete your post.

[edhopper]

25. Please stop ignoring

what is happening.

[StarfishSaver]

35. It helps something ...

[zuul]

8. Response from Marc Elias re: SCOTUS ruling

Marc E. Elias @marceelias (Founder, @DemocracyDocket)

Reporters--Not every legal challenge to a voting law depends on section 2. Far more state laws are challenged under the Constitution. Today's decision sucks, but it does not affect constitutional claims. It narrows section 2 and mostly "effects" claims under that provision.

To naysayers who say all is lost, I remind you that the effects test was narrowed, but not eliminated. Purpose claims remains. To the GOP legislatures who cheers the narrowing of protections for minority voters, we are not done fighting your suppressive laws.

10:01 AM · Jul 1, 2021

Link to tweet

[edhopper]

12. The Roberts Court

has shown since it's Voting Rights Act decision that they do not see any anti-voting law as unConstitutional.

[StarfishSaver]

32. If only Marc Elias understood that

[edhopper]

33. Elias is saying they did not decide today on the constitutionality

But in other anti voting decisions, Roberts has refused to defend the Right to vote. Or says it is up to the same State legislatures that passed them to undo them.
He iscwrong if he thinks this Court will over turn all the new laws.

[StarfishSaver]

34. As I said, if only Marc Elias understood what was going on

Or at least understood it as well as some folks here believe they do ...

[edhopper]

36. He is being optimistic

that the Court is only narrowing the effect test. But Roberts has not upheld the effects test in any decisions. I don't know why he thinks this Court will not ignore it in all future decisions, as they always have.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. The future of the SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016

Anyone who voted for Jill Stein or who did not vote for Hillary Clinton should be held responsible for today's rulings

[ChrisF1961]

17. Agreed!

[oasis]

18. Nina Turner, Susan Sarandon, "Prof"Corny West influenced 2016 GE.

They are partially to blame for Hillary's loss.

They must never be let off the hook for their actions.

[Buckeyeblue]

15. Why wouldn't the restrictions impact Republicans and Democratic voters equally?

Honestly, most Democratic voters I know have a better understanding of issues and voting than the Republican voters I know. It seems like our GOTV efforts need to be very specific about where to go and how to turn in absentee ballots.

We need to flip this around so that the laws hurt the people who wrote them.

[edhopper]

21. Because when the GOP runs toe elections

they can decide, whose registration is questioned and where to make voting harder.

Look at Texas.

[Demovictory9]

28. They examine the viting habits if black people and design laws to thwart them

Example..its become a cultural habit for Blacks to vote after church. One state introduced law "no voting on sunday before 2pm" so now when church ends a 11am, church goers have a big gap of time..will go home.. Law impacts all but impacts Blacks much more

[ChrisF1961]

16. Be sure to send a thank you note to all your friends

who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton because she was "the lesser of two evils".

[edhopper]

20. I don't have any friends

how did that.
But we certainly have progressives who did.

[StarfishSaver]

24. No, it didn't

This is a bad decision. But it's not the end of the world.

[edhopper]

26. It points to them

Upholding all the anti voting laws that have been passed since the election.
Those will hand the country to the Republicans.

[StarfishSaver]

27. OK. Whatever

But some of us have work to do and don't have the luxury or privilege of giving up - and know that such attitudes dishonor John Lewis and Amelia Boynton and Fannie Lou Hamer and the countless others who faced oppression and suppression exponentially greater than any of us do today, yet never gave up - so if you really feel that way, please just stay out of our way so we can do what we have to do.

[edhopper]

29. OK Whatever

[WarGamer]

30. Don't forget... even IF S1 had passed... SCOTUS would have trashed it.

[edhopper]

31. Probably

Roberts doesn't accept the right to vote.

[oasis]

37. Dems need to get busy on adding justices to SCOTUS. nt

[Mad_Machine76]

38. Do we know for a fact that the new laws would have meant Trump would have won last year?

It's a counterfactual with no hard evidence (but I'm open to listening to an argument). Biden didn't even technically need either state to win. Had Trump won Arizona and Georgia, he STILL would've lost. Also, there was simply no way that any public official was going to literally decide that Trump had won and suddenly declared him the winner. And I may be naive but I don't foresee any public official in the future putting their cushy jobs and reputations on the line to overturn an election because the backlash against both themselves personally and against their party would be severe and because they know (or should) that it would only be a short-term gain bc when the shoe is on the other foot- which would happen sooner or later- they know that the same laws will be used against them. Also, given all of the resources available to us to document such behavior and disseminate it to the masses (and some people's tendencies to talk), it would be nearly impossible to cover up such a drastic action. We face some real obstacles to ensuring access to the ballot box but lets stay focused on overcoming them, winning majorities in state legislatures, and fighting these laws there. The more Governorships we hold, the more chambers in the State Legislatures that we hold, the less likely it will be that these laws keep getting enacted and more likely gotten rid of.

[edhopper]

39. This is exactly what many of the States have done

they have given the Republican State legislatures the power to take all the decisions away from the Board of Elections or Secretary of State and decide the outcomes themselves. They can now do this in any race from Congress rep to the President.
They have also ensured they can keep power in the State legislatures through grerrymandering and suppression.

There is a big problem with not enough voters giving a shit about this. Even when it is out in the open, they still support these anti-democratic assholes.