153
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago

This is a textbook case on how to eliminate voting rights without actually repealing laws on voting rights. This allows them to say that "the courts have solved issues with partisan gerrymadering, which still remains illegal under this ruling" while making partisan gerrymandering de-facto legal by taking away anyone's right to actually enforce the law. I mean sure, it's still illegal. All you need to do is find someone with standing to actually sue.....oh, wait.

It's logic similar to what was used to rescind Trump's gag orders recently. Sure, witness intimidation and jury tampering are still illegal. But recent rulings have also said that doing anything about it violates the attacker's free speech rights, making the laws effectively meaningless if those rulings stand.

Same goes for the Colorado ruling. Sure, Trump engaged in insurrection. But because the Founding Fathers didn't specify "Office of the President", they clearly meant that those engaged in insurrection can never hold another public office again, except for the Presidency, because they clearly wanted traitors to still have a shot at leading the country, rendering Section 3 of the 14th amendment useless.

This is probably going to be the GOP MO going forward: Rescinding the laws would be too unpopular and cause too much backlash, so instead they'll just render the laws they don't like useless by making them impossible to enforce.

[-] conquer4@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Agreed, and the unfortunate result is going to be a complete lack of confidence in any federal government regardless of branch or politics. Which leads to the end of America.

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemdro.id 3 points 1 year ago

I think this must have happened before my time.

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

April 14th, 1865

[-] Acronymesis@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just our court system ruling for fascism, nothing to see here folks.

I mean, I’m no lawyer, but the idea that only the DOJ has standing when gerrymandering has an actual, tangible effect on individual voters seems absurd on its face.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago

Again?!? What haven't they destroyed from the voting rights act?!?

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 16 points 1 year ago

I had to look and see which Judges sit on the 8th Circuit Appellate Court and as expected this is the makeup of that court. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To save others a click:

5 appointed by George W Bush (including the chief), 4 by Donald Trump, 1 by George H W Bush, and 1 by Barack Obama.

GOP has been losing popular opinion for years, but they've been stacking the courts every chance they get, and now they are reaping their rewards. Fascism by judicial capture.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I'm confused on what this actually means, if it's not appealed. Sounds like private groups could no longer invoke the voting rights act?

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

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.

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.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, this is coming out of the 8th Circuit. Look at the territory they cover. I'm not even remotely surprised

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago

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

You've more faith in the Supreme court than I...

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

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).

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] nomecks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

All previous rulings would be open to challenge. It would absolutely gut all progress that's been made in the last forty years.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It means that any voter who is not white as snow needs to pay attention. This is a direct attack.

And any voter who is white as snow should get ready to fight for the rights of their brothers and sisters of color.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

“After reviewing the text, history, and structure of the Voting Rights Act, the district court concluded that private parties cannot enforce Section 2,” the judges wrote. “The enforcement power belonged solely to the Attorney General of the United States.”

Uh, I can't think of a single law that private parties can enforce. That's what "law enforcement" groups are for.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

This is probably a terrible example, but in Texas private parties can sue anyone involved in providing an abortion.

[-] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Gettin' real dictatory around these parts.

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:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS