Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
- Bob Juch
- Posts: 26470
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
- Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
- Contact:
Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.
Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.
Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.
- tlynn78
- Posts: 8664
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
- Location: Montana
Re: Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
- jarnon
- Posts: 6293
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
- Location: Merion, Pa.
Re: Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
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.
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.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי
עם ישראל חי
- mrkelley23
- Posts: 6268
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
- Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair
Re: Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
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.jarnon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:35 pmSupreme 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.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21647
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
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.mrkelley23 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:18 pmSpeaking 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.jarnon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:35 pmSupreme 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.
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
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- mrkelley23
- Posts: 6268
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
- Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair
Re: Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
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 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:28 pmI'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.mrkelley23 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:18 pmSpeaking 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.jarnon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:35 pmSupreme 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.
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
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21647
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Arizona voting data taken to so-called 'lab' in remote Montana
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. --Bobmrkelley23 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:52 pmSo 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 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:28 pmI'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.mrkelley23 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:18 pmSpeaking 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.
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
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson