These (votes cast outside district being thrown out and limitation of ballot assistance to relatives and officials) seem like some of the least impactful voting changes to take up the ol scotus pole, not surprised, to argue disparate impact the impact has to be meaningful.

I want to see Gorsuch's view on the NC case, that is the one with the possibility for radically central seethe.

Augh, are you some kind of law-cel?

Graduated and assuming I am part of the 80% soon to be a real boy

Oh, God, another spawn of the law let loose on the world.

your law school education in twenty seconds:

everything is gay and terrible but also the best its ever been, shutup and listen to your lawyer before the system grinds you into paste

Your conjoined twin is also 🚂?

Based. Welcome to the club and good luck on the Bar!

The Voting Rights Act has been gutted!

Wow, that sounds pretty serious

Only a relative or caregiver can deliver your absentee ballot, and you must vote in your own precinct

Lol, classic NPR.

Is the Voting Rights Act the single most gutted piece of legislation we have on the books?

It's competing with the first few amendments to the Constitution, so no

Nah, that's obviously the 2A. It used to mean that you could just have anything.

Cannot wait for judgecels to just go full judicial activism

Conservative Supreme Court justices: “The courts are not the place to make laws, the onus is on Congress!”

Also Conservative Supreme Court justices: “we don’t need this law anymore because discriminatory voting practices no longer exist, let’s just get rid of it”

Thats literally how it works lmao. Court determines the legality/constitutionality of a law made by congress. Court cant even chime in until its passed, even if theyre asked to by congress because it would interfere with congress' independence in making laws.

If this was Roe v Wade I’d agree with you, as that was a precedent set by the courts and therefore can be repealed by the courts.

It’s not like this law is new, it’s been around since 1965 so courts have had plenty of time to “chime in” on constitutionality. Let me quote from the great Clarence Thomas

Justice Thomas recognized that, “by 1965, Congress had every reason to conclude that States with a history of disenfranchising voters based on race would continue to do all they could to evade the constitutional ban on voting discrimination.” At the same time, Justice Thomas understood that “[t]he extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold Section 5 as enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment no longer exists. Covered jurisdictions are not now engaged in a systematic campaign to deny black citizens access to the ballot through intimidation and violence.”

Which is freakin r-slurred. First of all Section 5 makes no reference to intimidation or violence I believe it was based on the percentage of the population that was registered, and it’s crazy to think that the success of a law was used as evidence to declare it unconstitutional. That’s like repealing laws that give the FAA punitive powers because there are so few plane crashes in the US.

[deleted]

Lmao, keep doin that buddy. They’re gonna track your ass down soon enough

[deleted]

[removed]

Linking to subreddits is not allowed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Cope