Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana

[Bob Juch]

Video: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... -politics/

[tlynn78]

[jarnon]

Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions in 6-3

This decision isn’t about the 2020 Presidential election in particular. It weakens the Voting Rights Act in the face of ongoing GOP efforts to restrict the right to vote, especially for groups that usually support Democrats.

[mrkelley23]

Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions in 6-3

This decision isn’t about the 2020 Presidential election in particular. It weakens the Voting Rights Act in the face of ongoing GOP efforts to restrict the right to vote, especially for groups that usually support Democrats.

Speaking as someone who usually supports Democrats, I don't think this decision "weakens" the Voting Rights Act. It does take an unusually (for the SCOTUS) strong stand in interpreting the wording of the Act, but to say it weakens it is to editorialize, in my opinion. And if Democrats don't like it, they have about 15 more months to try to fix it.

[Bob78164]

Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions in 6-3This decision isn’t about the 2020 Presidential election in particular. It weakens the Voting Rights Act in the face of ongoing GOP efforts to restrict the right to vote, especially for groups that usually support Democrats.

Speaking as someone who usually supports Democrats, I don't think this decision "weakens" the Voting Rights Act. It does take an unusually (for the SCOTUS) strong stand in interpreting the wording of the Act, but to say it weakens it is to editorialize, in my opinion. And if Democrats don't like it, they have about 15 more months to try to fix it.

I've read the opinion. It's pretty clearly a weakening of the Act. The Act's language calls for a disparate-impact analysis to be applied. The Court's Republican caucus pretty much read that language right out of the Act, as Justice Kagan's dissent demonstrates quite clearly.

One other thing is pretty remarkable about the two decisions handed down yesterday. In the California decision, the Court's Republican caucus reversed a disclosure regulation, holding that catching fraud was not a sufficient justification for the law. It reached this conclusion even though significant fraud has unquestionably happened in the past, and there was no evidentiary record that the regulation deterred anyone from making charitable contributions. In the Arizona decision, though, the Court's Republican caucus affirmed a restriction on voting, holding that preventing fraud was a sufficient justification for the law, even though there was no evidence that significant fraud had ever occurred and there was evidence that the laws in fact prevented eligible voters from having their votes counted. One might almost suspect that the Court's Republican caucus was tailoring its analysis in both cases to reach its preferred political result, and consistency be damned. --Bob

[mrkelley23]

Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions in 6-3This decision isn’t about the 2020 Presidential election in particular. It weakens the Voting Rights Act in the face of ongoing GOP efforts to restrict the right to vote, especially for groups that usually support Democrats.

Speaking as someone who usually supports Democrats, I don't think this decision "weakens" the Voting Rights Act. It does take an unusually (for the SCOTUS) strong stand in interpreting the wording of the Act, but to say it weakens it is to editorialize, in my opinion. And if Democrats don't like it, they have about 15 more months to try to fix it.

I've read the opinion. It's pretty clearly a weakening of the Act. The Act's language calls for a disparate-impact analysis to be applied. The Court's Republican caucus pretty much read that language right out of the Act, as Justice Kagan's dissent demonstrates quite clearly.

One other thing is pretty remarkable about the two decisions handed down yesterday. In the California decision, the Court's Republican caucus reversed a disclosure regulation, holding that catching fraud was not a sufficient justification for the law. It reached this conclusion even though significant fraud has unquestionably happened in the past, and there was no evidentiary record that the regulation deterred anyone from making charitable contributions. In the Arizona decision, though, the Court's Republican caucus affirmed a restriction on voting, holding that preventing fraud was a sufficient justification for the law, even though there was no evidence that significant fraud had ever occurred and there was evidence that the laws in fact prevented eligible voters from having their votes counted. One might almost suspect that the Court's Republican caucus was tailoring its analysis in both cases to reach its preferred political result, and consistency be damned. --Bob

So the Court has a Republican caucus now? What are your criteria for defining such? Was Justice Stevens a member of the Republican caucus? How about Souter?

[Bob78164]

Speaking as someone who usually supports Democrats, I don't think this decision "weakens" the Voting Rights Act. It does take an unusually (for the SCOTUS) strong stand in interpreting the wording of the Act, but to say it weakens it is to editorialize, in my opinion. And if Democrats don't like it, they have about 15 more months to try to fix it.

I've read the opinion. It's pretty clearly a weakening of the Act. The Act's language calls for a disparate-impact analysis to be applied. The Court's Republican caucus pretty much read that language right out of the Act, as Justice Kagan's dissent demonstrates quite clearly.

One other thing is pretty remarkable about the two decisions handed down yesterday. In the California decision, the Court's Republican caucus reversed a disclosure regulation, holding that catching fraud was not a sufficient justification for the law. It reached this conclusion even though significant fraud has unquestionably happened in the past, and there was no evidentiary record that the regulation deterred anyone from making charitable contributions. In the Arizona decision, though, the Court's Republican caucus affirmed a restriction on voting, holding that preventing fraud was a sufficient justification for the law, even though there was no evidence that significant fraud had ever occurred and there was evidence that the laws in fact prevented eligible voters from having their votes counted. One might almost suspect that the Court's Republican caucus was tailoring its analysis in both cases to reach its preferred political result, and consistency be damned. --Bob

So the Court has a Republican caucus now? What are your criteria for defining such? Was Justice Stevens a member of the Republican caucus? How about Souter?

My crtierion for referring to them as the Republican caucus is their obvious willingness to abandon any pretense of intellectual consistency in service of their preferred political results. And I predict with considerable confidence that we'll see a lot more of that next Term. --Bob