Home | About | Donate

Supremes Give Stamp of Approval to Voter Suppression


#1

Supremes Give Stamp of Approval to Voter Suppression

Bill Blum

In a 5-4 decision released June 11, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Ohio law that provides for the removal of infrequent voters from the state’s election rolls.


#2

“As Alito and the court’s Republican majority view voting rights, there is no textual inconsistency between the Ohio law and the right to vote, as protected by various federal statutes and the Constitution. All that a resident need do to avoid disenfranchisement is return the postcard sent by the state or vote within an overall six-year period.”

Where in the law is it mandated that one read and respond to one’s mail? Where? Fucking where? Are such notices even sent via certified mail? Of course not. Jim Crow lives on in the bowels of SCOTUS.


#3

When the Dems allowed the repugs to block Obamas’ nominee and fill the open slot after Trump was elected…the fascist takeover of the un-supreme court was complete. Don’t expect just rulings from this corrupted institution again.


#4

This means there is work to do. I haven’t heard anything from the Democratic party, nor would I expect to, decrying this and even beginning to mobilize state parties to address this NOW. Silence


#5

Uh, have you heard what Obama’s former AG is doing? Through his efforts, Wisconsin just held an election that tipped a Senate seat from red to blue.

Why this need to reflexively blame Democrats for a decision that was inevitable once Gorsuch got seated? Why not blame third party voters who refuse to understand politics is about controlling institutions as much as protest and signaling? I mean, I was told by many in 2016 talking about the Court was pushing “fear voting.” Well, here’s what sellout phonies like me feared unlike the brave souls who, through sheer fortitude, virtue signaled their way through the voting booth.


#6

Oh please, all rumors have him running in 2020 for pres., could this be the reason for his big effort in Wisconsin, probably. Where was his effort when Wall Street banks trashed the economy and many had their pensions stolen, nowhere. Not one banker went to jail, and compared to the size of their crimes, small fines for a few. I’m sure he didn’t want to upset his future employers.


#7

So, basically, our former AG works for voting rights, wins a case, a seat is flipped, and you shit on it. Neoprogressivism at its finest: unless it’s our way, no way. Screw the voters.

Oh, and which laws would you like to prosecute bankers under? Did losing a case to Bear Sterns execs in 2009 have any impact on DOJ strategy? How long would prosecution take given that loss, versus the successful civil fines and settlements that the DOJ did achieve? Could it be things are more complicated than we would like to think?


#8

I’m sure he appreciates you pumping up his PR moment. As per you’re Dem apologist attitude, nothing but excuses. Do you actually believe there were no laws on the books to prosecute these criminals for their crimes ? Get real, all that was needed was an administration not beholden to Wall Street, and not expecting employment with these criminal entities in the future. Where did Holder go after his govt. non-service, oh that’s right WALL STREET.


#9

Which laws, player? Fake righteousness, another standard hallmark of neoprogressivism. Can’t even buy a nickle with it now.