U.S. Supreme Court Allows Texas to Enforce New Voter ID Law for November Election

[Hissyspit]

Last edited Sat Oct 18, 2014, 02:45 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: Associated Press / USA Today

@AP: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce new voter ID law for November election

Supreme Court rules Texas can enforce voter ID law

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court allowed Texas on Saturday to enforce its photo identification law at the polls in the upcoming elections, reaching the opposite conclusion from a similar Wisconsin case a week earlier.

The order, coming two days before early voting is set to begin, completes a series of voting rights challenges that had come before the court on an emergency basis. The justices also upheld new restrictions on voting in North Carolina and Ohio that did not include photo ID requirements.

The order was not signed, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a six-page dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg said.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/18/texas-voter-id-law-supreme-court/17494191/

[christx30]

1. Can we sue the Supreme Court

for whiplash?

[Prophet 451]

17. In theory, yes

In practice, sadly not.

[Gothmog]

67. Not even in theory

The SCOTUS is protected by govt. immunity

[kickysnana]

91. Shhh. Pelican Brief

[Gothmog]

92. Okay but this is an unsecured method of communication

You are not following proper protocols

[kickysnana]

112. Sorry.

[Live and Learn]

2. Damn nt

[jtuck004]

3. The easy solution is to sign people up for gun permits, yes? They take

those things anywhere, and a lot easier to get than driver's licenses for many. At least it was in Oklahoma.

Then they could all get holsters and "open carry" their voter registration card out for all to see.

That's what the system is for, isn't it? To be used? <G>

[aquart]

11. I was thinking of that, too.

Thousands of blacks and Hispanics getting gun licenses. And women. Millions of women.

Do you have to have a gun?

[jtuck004]

13. You do for the training class. After that, no. So they could buy one gun, pass

it around.


"Thousands of blacks and Hispanics getting gun licenses. And women. Millions of women. "

And one gun.

Be careful bullies. Some of us still have the words of Malcom X in our hearts.

[Nay]

105. I went to and passed a concealed carry class and didn't have to have my own gun.

It was provided to me at the range.

[vlyons]

18. I have a pistol

Bought it 30 years ago when I lived in Calif. Now I'm in Texas. It's a 38mm 5-shot revolver. Small and fits in my hand perfectly. I support sensible gun laws. No guns sold to people convicted of violent crimes, or to people with mental problems. One national database. Stiff jail time for selling illegal guns. STG should be repealed everywhere. First off, unless it's your home and property, it's not "your ground." If someone verbally insults or threatens you, flee if possible. Better to depart than to escalate. Escalation has uncertain outcomes, frequently bad.

[NutmegYankee]

22. Do you believe in Castle Doctrine?

It's the centuries old common law principle that you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if likewise threatened in your own home by a non-invited person (i.e., unauthorized entry)? I've encountered DUers who believe that a person must flee or die rather than fight back in their home.

[Anansi1171]

52. I think those DUers are in the minority and the Castle Doctrine as mentioned by you...

...a bit of a Straw Man. SYG is not the Castle Doctrine; it is an ALEC-sponsored legal scheme allowing private citizens to murder and get away with it ip post facto, just as law enforcement has to blacks, Latinos and other lower caste Americans for decades and which we are finally having a conversation about.

Everyone should have a right to defend their home, family and person from threats that a jury of peers would reasonably determine.

And even then, get this Man - EVEN THEN YOU STILL ARE RESPONSIBLE TO USE THAT FORCE THAT IS NECESSARY AND NO MORE - perhaps not legally responsible, but certainly as a "progressive" and a "democrat" you may have a higher sense of social responsibility than to declare it hunting season should a burglar come through the window.

Of course, and as always, Libertarians raison d'être is to deny or preclude any responsibility beyond the individual.

[NutmegYankee]

54. What Straw man?

People on DU have been mixing up SYG and CD for several years now. They are two very different concepts.

I used the word "likewise" because the uninvited person must "reasonably" be a deadly threat to you. A burglar would be unarmed and deadly force would not be authorized.

As for social responsibility, please explain to me what social responsibility a woman has to a rapist who has broken into her home with the intent to rape and possibly murder her. And when you say "reasonable to a jury" do you mean that you want that woman to be charged with murder and have to defend herself in court?

[vlyons]

58. yes I do

because if someone inimical gets into your home, they don't mean to make you happy. When I said flee, I meant more like walking away from a bully in a bar, or just handing over your wallet in a strong arm theft, not aggravating someone in a road rage situation. Discretion is the better part of valor.

[Jamastiene]

80. SYG and Castle Doctrine aren't the same thing.

Castle Doctrine gives you a right to protect your home from intruders, which is reasonable. SYG gives a blank license to go hunt people, and usually the ones who do that are hunting black people to harass and murder and get away with it.

[NutmegYankee]

81. I know. I was curious if the other DUer knew that.

I've been dismayed to find some don't.

[A Round Tuit]

26. Ummm...might want to edit that.

It's a 38mm 5-shot revolver.

That's one hell of a big handgun.

I suspect you mean .38 caliber.

[Duckhunter935]

27. about 1 1/2 inches

That is a big bore.

[AndyTiedye]

56. Small Cannon

[S_B_Jackson]

14. You're aware that doing so will also entail a criminal background check

as well as the requirement to spend about $100 to complete the concealed carry Certification class - as well as the fact that Texas does not allow "open carry".

[jtuck004]

38. Concealed carry. You may not have learned about those.

Read a little more.

And still easier to get for some than a driver's license to vote with.

bye.

[Duckhunter935]

42. Lets see some proof

of what type of permit you can get with just 25 dollars and a signature and no background check.

I do believe you are pushing some serious misinformation and would like to see the proof please.

[Duckhunter935]

43. I went through the process for concealed carry

You are flat out wrong. Fees, picture costs, fingerprinting, local and federal background checks. 90 plus day wait for approval.

[S_B_Jackson]

100. In Texas at least

there is no such thing as a "gun permit". The only thing that that comes close is a Concealed Handgun License...

Cost for a new license is $140 to the State ($70 for a renewal), discounts are offered for senior citizens or the indigent ($70 / $35), & those in active duty with the US military (free).

In addition, one must also take the state approved course of instruction which costs, roughly, $100.

You claim that it's easier to get than a DL? Pure unadulterated bunk.

[Duckhunter935]

106. It's the same in Oklahoma

I agree pure bullpucky

[Duckhunter935]

23. Easier in Oklahoma?

100 minimum cost, two passport photos, Firearms safety class that is mandatory and costs money. Fingerprints and background checks by the county sheriff are also required.

I do think you are quite wrong about that, it is not that easy and costs a lot of money. Please do not spread misinformation as fact.

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/Handgun_Licensing/How_to_apply_as_a_first_time_license_holder_or_expired_renewal.html

[jtuck004]

37. Got mine, all it took was a signature and $25. I know you are wrong,

and presumptuous.

And gone. Waste of time.

[Duckhunter935]

40. So just what card did you get for that please?

I would really like to know. Since I live in Oklahoma and went through the entire process to get my permit. I opted for the 10 year $200 fee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Oklahoma

[Duckhunter935]

49. Bump, did not think I would get an answer

[NutmegYankee]

55. I highly suspect that this is false.

The background check and fingerprinting alone would cost more than $25 and takes several days to complete the search.

[Duckhunter935]

64. I think the lack of any response

proves the fact it is in fact not true and this person was caught in this untruth and can not defend the satement.

[Gothmog]

69. It has to be CHL from Texas

An out of state CHL will not help

[Duckhunter935]

73. jtuck004 mentioned it being easier in Oklahoma

I proved him wrong and I suspect the same process is in place in Texas to get a CHL.

[Gothmog]

74. All of the required forms of ID in Texas require a birth certificate

The easiest form to get is an election identification certificate from the Texas Department of Public Safety. I am volunteering with the Texas Democratic Party and the DNC Voter Expansion Project on a project called the voter id assistant program where the TDP is training people to help voters obtain the needed voter id to vote. You can volunteer for this project at this address http://act.txdemocrats.org/page/s/texas-voter-expansion-project If you know anyone who needs help getting an id, call the Texas Democratic Party Hotline 1-844-TXVOTES (1-844-898-6837) or e-mail [e-mail]

[Duckhunter935]

75. I fully understand but I was answering this post

jtuck004 wrote

The easy solution is to sign people up for gun permits, yes? They take

those things anywhere, and a lot easier to get than driver's licenses for many. At least it was in Oklahoma.

Then they could all get holsters and "open carry" their voter registration card out for all to see.

That's what the system is for, isn't it? To be used? <G>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=921781

[Gothmog]

96. No problem

My main concern is trying to help people get some form of acceptable id to vote for the upcoming election

[Duckhunter935]

99. that is great work, thanks

From the very red state of Oklahoma.
The last thing you need is for someone on DU posting false information that would be confusing and might lose some votes.

[Gothmog]

68. You need a birth certificate for a CHL

The Texas Democratic Party and others are encouraging as many people as possible to vote by mail. Vote by Mail is exempted from voter id. There is a disability exemption that allows one to vote by mail if they certify that they have a disability and the term disability is not defined in that statute.

The voter id law disability exemption requires paperwork from the VA or the Social Security Admin. showing a 50% or great disability

[LawnKorn]

4. The fix is in

Wendy Davis has the Republicans running so scared they are having to call in favors from SCOTUS.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Not that the Republicans Will Ever Run Out of Favors from the SCOTUS

not in our lifetimes, anyway.

[christx30]

50. They're not favors.

They paid good money for that ruling.

[LeftInTX]

5. Not good for Texas or other states........

[ashling]

6. SCOTUS blog

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/court-wont-interrupt-texas-voter-id-law/

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Thanks for pointing to the SCOTUS blog analysis

It actually provides a tiny bit of hope by indicating that this early a.m. decision is not addressing the law's constitutionality (which is apparently still in review by the 5th Circuit). I.e., technically, the Supreme Court is supposed to only really handle violations of the Constitution and what came up to them to review so far did not meet that test. The dissents by Ginsberg, et. al., appear to bring up suggestions for how the law could be considered unconstitutional- i.e., the 24th Amendment "poll tax".

[aquart]

12. So this is solely to appoint Greg Abbott Governor Kochwhore?

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Could be

but I guess we'll need to stay tuned in case the constitutionality case gets decided favorably just in time.

[ReRe]

10. What about AG Holder?

Can't HE step in and put a stop to this right now?

[S_B_Jackson]

15. In a perfect world, yes....

unfortunately we do not live is such a world since the Supreme Court, in 2013's Shelby v. Holder, gutted Section 5 of the voting rights act and eliminated the pre-clearance requirements against southern states.

The DOJ is currently adopting a scheme to bail-in those states once again to the pre-clearance requirement, and Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos' decision in this case may very well be a means of doing so, but it's going to take years for that case to fully wend itself through the federal courts.

[ReRe]

21. Thank you for that info...

Wasn't CJ Roberts responsible for that?

[Gothmog]

70. The DOJ was one of the plaintiffs in the Texas voter id case

AG Holder and the DOJ were filing briefs on the Texas voter id law up to the very end. AG Holder and the DOJ did an amazing job in this litigation. Many of the key expert witnesses were from the DOJ and the DOJ did a great job in this case

[ReRe]

82. And thanks to you too, Gothmog

It's impossible to keep up with all the ins and outs of our right to vote.

[Gothmog]

83. I have been volunteering in this area for a while

I am helping on the Texas Democratic Party voter id assistant program. My kids accuse me of being somewhat fanatic on this issue

[ReRe]

84. Let me see...

... how many hugs will you allow me to give to you? Someday, when your kids grow up into a blue state Texas world, they will brag on you for what you did!

[Gothmog]

85. Two of the kids are working on the election

The third may yet work on the election

[ReRe]

86. You've raised 'em right!!! ;-)

[heaven05]

16. and...........

the racists best friend in amerikkkan politics, SCOTUS.

[Prophet 451]

19. *sigh*

Let's be honest, the conservative's have won, for the time being at least. They've got themselves a minority veto in Congress (which they'll do away with the very second they're in the majority), a compliant media to frame everything in their terms and an obedient SCOTUS majority to rule "unconstitutional" any law they don't like. They've won, for the time being. All you can do is try and limit the damage. Until the demographics shift completely kills the GOP in about fifteen years anyway.

[tjl148]

24. Explain please.

I'm not sure what you mean by the minority veto in Congress and how they would do away with it. Thanks. I understand the rest.

[Paulie]

25. Filibuster in senate

[Prophet 451]

29. Yep, that's exactly what I meant

The very second teh Repubs are in the majority, they'll ban filibusters entirely. I wouldn't put it past them to ban filibusters when Dems are in the minority, only to re-introduce them when Repubs are in the minority.

[former9thward]

32. The filibuster rule has been eliminated for Presidential appointments.

Which is the only thing that it was being used for since the House is controlled by Republicans.

[Prophet 451]

35. but not for judges

1) It still exists for judges, there's a massive shortage of judges in much of the country and Obama's nominees are all stalled.

2) That's only the case since R's took teh Senate. Before that, they were filibustering every tiny little thing the Democrats raised.

[former9thward]

44. No, the rule was changed for judges and other Presidential appointments.

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html


The only thing that can be filibustered now, regarding appointments, are Supreme Court nominees. If Obama's nominees are stalled it is because Reid will not call them to a vote. BTW the Republicans have not taken the Senate.

[Gothmog]

66. The only judges that the filibuster rule apply to are SCOTUS nominations

Right now the issue is the blue slip process where a home state senator can kill or delay a nomination for a judge for their state.

[EEO]

28. The Supreme Court is pretty disgusting. Where is the oversight of justice with clear conflicts of...

interest?

[Kablooie]

30. I really think the country is on the verge of a huge swing to the right.

The GOP has locked up the house and the Supreme Court and they are about to win the Senate.
It doesn't look like they will win the presidency soon but it's going to be harder and harder for liberals to win when the right constantly chianges the rules so the system is rigged to favor themselves.

By the time people realize their lives are being destroyed, the game will be so heavily rigged that they won't be able too do anything about it.

Better get ready. Liberal politics will disappear soon.

[Prophet 451]

36. See my post upthread

All that can be done now is mitigate the worst excesses of it.

[AndyTiedye]

59. Even Demographic Changes Cannot Save Us

They can gerrymander and re-gerrrymander as much and as often as they like (thanks to the Supreme Court).

There really isn't anything stopping them from gerrymandering the Electoral College as well.
If they do that, they get a lock on the White House.

Not clear what, if anything, we can do about it.

[Kablooie]

77. And if they get the White House they will be able to lock in SCOTUS.

Even if Obama gets to choose a replacement for Ginsberg in the next two years, with a Republican House and Senate he would be forced into picking a conservative.

We're screwed.

[AndyTiedye]

78. Even if We Hold The Senate, the Rapeuglicans Will Block Anyone Obama Nominates

[Hestia]

107. I vehemently disagree. We are seeing the death throws of their party, well mostly since they seem

to have infiltrated the Democratic party and we have to find another one. Unfortunately, things work slower on the macro, rather than the micro, hence the years of lawsuits wending its way through the court system. We are all living through some kinda sorta karmic event and its going to be a bit to get there, especially their side not giving an inch on inches.

I know you younger folks get tired of us older ones waxing nostalgic about how "things used to be," but I will tell you one thing - I never saw an adult rag and bitch and moan about politics until I was 30. I never really knew if it was because people agree with Reagan's policies or for some reason to scared to voice them. I sure didn't, Everybody knew I detested him fiercely. Both most likely.

But there was some level of respect and actually being heard on topics. You used to could walk up to them in public and actually have more than a hi, nice to meet cha. Now, it is the T word just for coughing at the wrong time when they have a "town hall" meeting.

There are too many of us out here rumbling and shaking and talking about we do know what is going on and what are we going to do about it? An absolute non-violent leadership with more structure than Occupy. Great idea wrong execution on the leaderless voicing of manifesto's (or whatever), simply due to timing. A natural leader would/should have grown organically out of the group and would have body count to stand up behind them. Somebody the grandma's and grandpa's would be proud to support because they remind them of young Sally or Billy, but again, media (corporate control) controlled the message the entire time.

Wrest back control of the Democratic Party, because unfortunately in this paradigm today, we need them for a bit longer. When that structure dies so will the dying breath of the GOP. They need party structure and we only have to play along longer and then fuck 'em. Age parameters alone will ensure that most of them have passed or are passing. Nobodies feelings to get hurt.

[True Blue Door]

31. We need to have a strict census of who ends up being blocked from voting.

And wherever a Republican wins with a smaller official margin than the number of voters they stopped from voting, the whole Democratic Party needs to declare those "victors" illegitimate and make their criminality symbolic of the entire GOP.

[Gothmog]

93. That is the plan

The Texas Democratic Party, the DNC Voter Expansion Project and Battleground Texas are all using an incident tracker system this election to keep track of complaints and to compile data for later use. Every voter will be encouraged to cast a provisional ballot and if such ballot is rejected due to Id issues, then where will be a clear record of the number of some of the voters disenfranchised by SB14. The provisional ballot report will understate the number of disenfranchised voters because a large number of voters will not want to go through the hassle of casting a provisional ballot.

Finally, Congressman Castro has asked the the Government Accounting Office to study turnout in Texas due to voter id. Last week the GAO releases an amazing study that showed that voter turn out in Kansas and Tennessee declined 2 to 3% due to voter id law. I suspect that the data gathered by the Texas Democratic Party will be shared with the GAO.

It is important to document the number of voters who are disenfranchised due to this law.

[True Blue Door]

102. More than that, though, the #s have to lead to action.

Like if/when a Republican tries to take office after an illegitimate result, their Democratic colleagues should deny them all recognition and make a spectacle of doing so.

[Gothmog]

103. I am predicting massive problems with this election due to voter id

There are no deliberative protests planned to my knowledge but I expect to see reports of problems at voting sites in Texas. This is going to be a messy and nasty election. All of the different county voter protection operations will be connected through a DNC electronic incident tracker to keep track of and document these issues

I will be in my county's war room for the election and will be in contact with war rooms in other counties and the main war room in Fort Worth being manned by Battleground Texas and the TDP's outside counsel, Chad Dunn (who did a tremendous job in the voter id lawsuit).

[Reter]

33. 6-3 decision too

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas voted for with the majority.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/court-wont-interrupt-texas-voter-id-law/

[Hissyspit]

48. Sick. The new Jim Crow.

[Gothmog]

94. This was not a decision on the merits

This was an unsigned opinion solely on the issue of the 5th Circuit stay of the law for this election cycle and not a decision on the merit. We actually do not know how Breyer voted because it only takes 5 votes to let the 5th Circuit ruling stay in effect. This is not a ruling on the merits of the case and that will happen later. The 5th Cir. has only ruled on the stay and not the merits of the Texas District Court opinion.

This is sad but funny. The same RWNJ who is responsible for the New Black Panther silliness is taking the position that this is the last hurrah for the Texas voter id law http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67084

And an interesting take from Christian Adams, predicting that the trial court’s finding of intentional discrimination will likely hold when the law is revisited after the election.

Adams is an idiot but he may be right this one time

[KeepItReal]

34. The Voting Rights Act is dead to the Roberts Court.

Shameful.

But the right-wing extremists have no shame.

[Gothmog]

95. Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act back in 2013

Roberts has been gunning for the voting rights act since the time when he was a baby attorney in the Reagan DOJ. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/john-roberts-long-war-against-voting-rights-act

[valerief]

39. Vote thieves. nt

[lancer78]

41. The only way to stop this

is for Dems instead of running ads use that money to go out and make sure people have the proper id.

[Redford]

45. Yes

This^^^^^^

[santamargarita]

46. Get out and vote and perhaps we will have the ability to impeach these traitors.

It's always Texas!

[csziggy]

47. So the Supreme Court STOPS a recount in 2000 on the off chance it will

"threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush" (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore/Certiorari/Concurrence), a decision that irreparably eliminated the votes of many legal voters.

Now they allow the state of Texas to block legal voters despite the fact that this law has been declared unconstitutional by the lower courts.

It is very clear that the Roberts SCOTUS is not in favor of people voting!

[jwirr]

51. Is it even possible to get a license with a pic on it between now and November 4?

[NutmegYankee]

53. You can get one same day at the DMV.

What may be a hold up is people may not have the other documents required, like certified birth certificates handy.

[jwirr]

57. Very few have that certificate. Hopefully there are people who are helping those who need help.

[Gothmog]

71. Yes

My future SIL is getting an election identification Certificate this week. He has a birth certificate and two supporting forms of identification that are on the list.

The Texas Democratic Party and DNC Voter Expansion Project are looking for volunteers for Voter Id Assistant Program to help people get ids. http://act.txdemocrats.org/page/s/texas-voter-expansion-project I am volunteering with the voter id assistant program.

[jwirr]

72. Good. In all the states that are obstructing voters I hope there are programs to help. We are back

in the 60s again. Hopefully this will be the last time we have to do this.

[Gothmog]

97. Agreed

The Texas Democratic Party and Battleground Texas has been assuming that the voter id law would be in effect for this election and has been planning to do what they can to help voters get the required id. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/107821409

[RussBLib]

60. Over 14 million now registered to vote in Texas

...which is a record high...allegedly outpacing the rate of actual population growth.

But will that record number of registered Texas voters bring the right kind of ID to the polls?

This could get messy.

And I am very disappointed to see Breyer voting with the majority. Kennedy I can see, but Breyer? WTF?

[Gothmog]

98. Battleground did a good job

This is a mid term election and voter participation usually declines heavily in non-presidential years in Texas. Battleground and the TDP did a great job of registering votes

[summerschild]

61. Don't you wonder how the pricing on Supreme Court Justices runs?

Bound to be pretty pricey, but I'm sure the Koch Brothers can afford it. And since it's Bush/oil country in the State of Texas, there's plenty more oil boys kicking in for the desired decision. The Republican Supremes probably secured their lifetimes financially with the Citizens United case, but of course they have to boost their assets for all the little grandbaby supremes, too, if they choose to.

They really should be seeing to that, since they are leaving such a hateful historical legacy. Ever wonder how this crop of Republicans will justify their undemocratic, discriminating asses to the next generation? Talk about rewriting history. I sure hope the historians nail Roberts with the truth.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. I think we can know for certain why SCOTUS enhanced security to block commoners from the Court.

They knew in advance the shit they were going to do as a rightwing activist court would be "extremely polarizing."

[blkmusclmachine]

63. Pic URL http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/remembering/images/dangermain.jpg

Comments are my own

[Gothmog]

65. John Roberts new name needs to be "Jim Crow" Roberts

Roberts is a racist who has been trying to gut the Voting Rights Act for a long time and steal elections for the GOP

[SunSeeker]

76. An all-female dissent. Hey Breyer--WTF?!

[Gothmog]

87. We actually do not know how Breyer voted

This was a per curium opinion which mean that all you know for sure is who joined in the dissent and that there were five votes for this holding

[SunSeeker]

88. Why wouldn't Breyer join in the dissent? nt

[Gothmog]

89. He may have disagreed with a couple of the comments

We will never know.

[SunSeeker]

90. What could he possibly disagree with in RBG's dissent?

We may never know what he found objectionable in RBG's dissent, but we do know (certainly in this instance) he is not a progestive ally 100% of the time.

[Gothmog]

104. It may have been matter of timing and religion

The dissent was drafted late into the night and was not released until early Saturday morning. I am not sure if Justice Breyer observes the Sabbath and so could not comment on the Ginsberg draft. I have many friends who are somewhat strict about the observation of the Sabbath.

Again, this is pure speculation on my part.

[SunSeeker]

108. Oy. nt

[Gothmog]

109. I have an associate who is orthodox and took off two days this week for Simchat Torah

I was in a mediation on Tuesday and the lawyer on the other side told us that he was losing two days this week for religious holiday. Being Reformed, it took me a minute to realize which holiday.

[Gothmog]

110. Explaining Justice Breyer’s Surprising (Non-)Vote in the Texas Voter ID Case

Prof Hasen has some possible explanations as to why Breyer did not join RBP's dissent http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67111&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+electionlawblog/uqCP+(Election+Law)

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent was joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor but not Justice Breyer, the other liberal on the Court. Why not?

We don’t know for sure, but here are the possibilities, put in order of what I think is most to least likely:

1. Justice Breyer still dissented, but did not want to publicly state (Justices do not always state their votes in these orders), perhaps because he disagreed with one or more aspects of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.

2. Justice Breyer still dissented, but was not available until 5 am to review to see if he agreed with Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.

3. Justice Breyer agreed with the majority, because he believes more strongly in the Purcell principle (or he agrees Texas should win on the merits—which seems less likely).

4. Justice Breyer disagreed with the majority, but either he did not publicly dissent or voted with the majority for strategic reasons, as could have happened before in the North Carolina case. This seems less likely–in the North Carolina case, the Justices knew the Wisconsin case was in the wings. There’s nothing else now on this same Purcell issue coming up, nor any reason to think that the next set of Purcell cases in future elections will be those that will help to protect voting rights.

[SunSeeker]

111. I'll go with #2 so I don't begin hating the guy. nt

[Reter]

113. He's a mirror image of Kennedy

The right mostly likes him, but sometimes he bites them in the ass. Same with Breyer to us.

[Jamastiene]

79. How long before certain people the local elections workers don't like have to

count the bubbles in a bar of soap too. To say I disagree with forcing these nasty new racist Voter ID laws on people is an understatement.

[still_one]

101. as bad as this is what needs to be done is to do everything possible to get t

To see that people get an id