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.
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.
I think this must have happened before my time.
April 14th, 1865
deleted by creator
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.
Again?!? What haven’t they destroyed from the voting rights act?!?
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
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.
deleted by creator
Liberals in blue states are frothing at the mouth to remove their own 2A rights, while fascists in red states are busy expanding theirs. Don’t expect Jon Stewart to save you with his wit when some fascist has you on your knees in front of a ditch.
deleted by creator
guillotines
Have you considered judging yourself by your own standards?
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?
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
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.
I mean, this is coming out of the 8th Circuit. Look at the territory they cover. I’m not even remotely surprised
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…
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.
deleted by creator
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.
All previous rulings would be open to challenge. It would absolutely gut all progress that’s been made in the last forty years.
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.
deleted by creator
“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.
This is probably a terrible example, but in Texas private parties can sue anyone involved in providing an abortion.
Gettin’ real dictatory around these parts.
