+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions (/showthread.php?tid=257632)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - cbelt3 - 07-01-2021
mattkime wrote:
Voting restrictions can be enacted to solve imagined problems.
(The reasons are lies and excuses.)
Welp, Republicans have exactly what they want.
And that’s the real reason. It’s a seizure of power and the death of democracy.
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - Janit - 07-01-2021
vision63 wrote:
[quote=wave rider]
For the people and John Lewis voting acts are more important than ever now.
We need to prepare as if that isn't going to happen.
Give me a day to breathe deeply against the nausea and then I will move forward.
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - sekker - 07-02-2021
Elections have consequences.
We will be living with the negative impact of the 2016 vote for decades to come.
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - PeterB - 07-02-2021
sekker wrote:
Elections have consequences.
We will be living with the negative impact of the 2016 vote for decades to come.
This.
Though one could really argue that the 2016 election was the one that was "stolen", by-- among other things-- interference from a foreign power (which didn't come to light until years later), and so this is what the result SHOULD have been: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw3yidwGchk
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - pdq - 07-02-2021
Alito, writing for the majority:
“The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
I’ve read this a number of times, and I still can’t understand it. A law that disproportionately disenfranchises a group of voters (under the pretense of “solving” a non-existent problem) doesn’t affect their voting rights?
:S
PS - for just one example, isn’t Alito’s statement equally true of a poll tax?
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - vision63 - 07-02-2021
pdq wrote:
Alito, writing for the majority:
“The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
I’ve read this a number of times, and I still can’t understand it. A law that disproportionately disenfranchises a group of voters (under the pretense of “solving” a non-existent problem) doesn’t affect their voting rights?
:S
PS - for just one example, isn’t Alito’s statement equally true of a poll tax?
That's how they're able to nuance it. Technically, the hurdles impact everyone of any race. But states controlling County elections panels is a tremendous blow. Black and Latino people tend to live in the largest counties of course. Republicans "have" to control this in order to survive. You don't see any Republicans saying "hey, that's not cool." They all support the party's efforts. Democrats are too cool and too woke to be that focused.
We have distractions flowing through everyday. Look at how much energy they put into Brittany Spears' plight. Something that's literally none of our business.
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - Ted King - 07-03-2021
On her show, Deadline White House, Nicolle Wallace noted that in his majority opinion Alito said at one point that a difference of an "only one percent or so" disproportionate impact on black voters due to Arizona's new law wasn't significant enough to matter but later he said that this restriction was justified because of the state's interest in dealing with voter fraud - though voter fraud is essentially non-existent, even a near zero possibility of voter fraud was important enough for the state to address because even a few votes can change an election. :facepalm:
Re: Hoo boy. SCOTUS splits 6-3 to allow Arizona voting restrictions - Janit - 07-03-2021
Ted King wrote:
On her show, Deadline White House, Nicolle Wallace noted that in his majority opinion Alito said at one point that a difference of an "only one percent or so" disproportionate impact on black voters due to Arizona's new law wasn't significant enough to matter but later he said that this restriction was justified because of the state's interest in dealing with voter fraud - though voter fraud is essentially non-existent, even a near zero possibility of voter fraud was important enough for the state to address because even a few votes can change an election. :facepalm:
Sounds rather like it's better to execute ten innocent people rather than let one guilty person go free.