259

The Supreme Court May Be Poised to Kill the Voting Rights Act Once and for All (truthout.org)

submitted 11 months ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Truthout.org

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 101 points 11 months ago

I never try to be too hopeful with the current Supreme Court, but if they struck down the Private Right of Action, that would mean that if you brought a Private Right of Action case to the Supreme Court, they would refuse to even hear your case, because you don't have standing to bring the case.

However, the Supreme Court has recently heard cases that were brought as Private Right of Action cases. So, ruling against Private Right of Action would be going against the precedent of this exact Supreme Court with the exact Justices who are currently seated. If they were going to strike down the Private Right of Action in the future, then they should not have heard those recent cases in the past.

So, there might be reason to be hopeful.

However, if I have my numbers right, all of the conservative Justices except one swore, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe v Wade to be precedent. And despite that, all of them struck down Roe v Wade, which means they were lying under oath in their confirmation hearings. So, these conservative Justices are obviously not afraid to be lying hypocrites.

I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position, especially if the position is that of a judge. You were confirmed under false pretenses.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago

I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position

Man, in a functioning system, there would be no "should," but "MUST," and with criminal charges.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 22 points 11 months ago

You expect Chief Justice Robert's Supreme Court to follow set rules precedents and ethics? LoL! They'd vote for A on Tuesday and against A on Wednesday if it meant getting a fatter paycheck!

[-] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Is that possible tho? Is there a scenario where it would be possible to throw the justices that did in fact lie under oat?

[-] mars296@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago

They didn't actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.

And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.

I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn't have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Under oat

Lol

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Came here to point all of this out, thank you for saving me the time! Updooted!

[-] Syo@kbin.social 26 points 11 months ago

It always bothered me when in law class they said court "opinion" matters and can set "precedence". Then we go over case from 100 years ago saying they are still valid today.

I'm like ... is everything just loosely "understood" with final "constitutional" decision being made on the spot every time it's challenged? That's just asking for abuse of the system, try until you get what you want... Prof at that time convinced me there's more to that so don't worry.

Long behold, look at what extremists are doing at the SC today, and absolutely no rails to guard it.

[-] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Lo-and-behold, but otherwise 100% with you

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Just in case anyone thought they still had credibility to lose.

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

Good thing we have the Second Amendment!

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 17 points 11 months ago

Thousands of dead school children agree!

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago

Thousands? Have there actually been that many from school shootings?

[-] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 months ago

680 fatalities and 1,926 injuries, but the damage from school shootings is much more than physical. Thousands of children and parents have been mentally traumatized and that’s a much bigger issue.

[-] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

Number of times it's been used to oppose tyranny: 0

[-] Kase@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Supporters of the Confederacy might disagree.

'Course, they're idiots, and they lost despite the 2nd amendment shocked pikachu

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

How would people even expect that to work? Do they believe there will be somebody in charge that everyone believes is a tyrant?

Let’s say Trump did not leave office in 2021. Would there be a sufficient mass of people in favour of a violent uprising? First, half the country already supported him. Second, the first time somebody uses violence they will be called terrorists and the vast majority will be in favour of stricter anti-terror measures instead of supporting the rebellion. Examples across the world of democracies that devolved into tyrannies, and never has a violent uprising been successful. Most people will always prefer authoritarian order over violent chaos.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

It's not just for one bad instance, it also forces the government to consider armed resistance to their actions. You also have a private right to defend yourself.

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Harumpf

this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023

259 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19107 readers

2016 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

• 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