153
Federal court deals devastating blow to Voting Rights Act
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
153 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2019 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is an issue called "standing". In the American legal system, in order to bring a case to court, you must have proper legal standing to make whatever argument or claim you're trying to make.
For example, I can't sue someone that harms my neighbor. I don't have standing to do so. My neighbor has to be the one to do it.
The ruling in this case essentially says that only the federal government has standing to bring Section 2 complaints
It's a crappy ruling and will almost certainly be overturned because it makes no sense to have the federal government be the one responsible for enforcing local violations of the VRA
It's great that standing can be hypothetical when the courts rule in favor of bigoted wedding photographers, but can't even exist when Republicans disenfranchise the minorities they hate.
I mean, this is coming out of the 8th Circuit. Look at the territory they cover. I'm not even remotely surprised
You've more faith in the Supreme court than I...
I don't have faith in their ethics or logic. But I do have faith in their understanding that backing the 8th Circuit on this would be political suicide. It would catalyze their opponents in a way they are not interested in
That's the great thing about lifetime appointments: they don't have to care about their opponents at all (up until the point of violence).
They can't lose their jobs, but they can sabotage the outcomes they want to achieve. If they didn't care about achieving something through their work, they'd just go on vacation for the rest of their lives.
Unless youre the AG of Missouri suing to stop student loan forgiveness to protect the bottom line of a company, a company that didn't ask for help, upon standing that if company closes up shop then Missouri will lose tax revenue.
This is not what the law is supposed to be
Use of the law like this, ticky tacky application and enforcement, and wholesale non enforcement of the wealthy will lead to no one respecting the law. Because the actions of the judicial branch aren't respectable. Inequality is tracked for a reason. When it becomes too much? Historically, we see revolution. France removed their last monarchs head before it got as bad as it now. So wealth inequality is worse NOW than it was for the French Revolution.
I'm not saying we need to guillotine the 1% and their stooges, but I sure ain't gonna stop anyone who is, know what I mean?
Some people will fear the law, the same way people feared the mafia, but respect? Yea, nope. That's earned. Change the rules all you want, you can't make people respect a bunch of Grammer nazi bitches.