Florida judge drops the ban hammer on racist voting laws

fooferdoggie said:
in these cases it only matters what the supreme court says since it will go there.
Click to expand...

Well but it was a District Court (Northern Florida, Tallahassee) ruling, and the next stop is likely to be an appeal to the the 11th Circuit Court, which leans conservative.

But yeah I can see it landing in SCOTUS at some point, or a case like it. One can still hope that the high court will realize it took a wrong turn awhile back in weakening the VRA.

The racist laws being passed by some states, including Florida --which states the Roberts Court has wrongly excused from federal scrutiny via a critical part of VRA regarding proposed election-law changes-- are not going to stand up to close scrutiny, not while there are still citizens who remember the long laundry list of racist voting laws those states had put up in the past and have immediately reverted to trying to pass again with slightly different language.

There will be lawsuit after lawsuit brought to challenge new efforts to suppress the black vote in the USA. But meanwhile the current SCOTUS chief justice Roberts was working to try to further dismantle the Voting Rights Act even before he was named to the high court.

www.politico.com

Inside John Roberts’ Decades-Long Crusade Against the Voting Rights Act

Roberts remains at the center of an impassioned debate about voting rights in America.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

And so it should come as no surprise (at least to Roberts) that a district court judge in Florida has blasted not only a Florida law but SCOTUS itself for having winked at or even furthered the gutting the intent of the original Voting Rights Act.

Those measures have been under attack from the moment the act was passed back in 1965, and it's clear now that vigilance will always be required to maintain (hell, to put back!) the teeth in that law and to see that it is properly enforced.
 
lizkat said:
Well but it was a District Court (Northern Florida, Tallahassee) ruling, and the next stop is likely to be an appeal to the the 11th Circuit Court, which leans conservative.

But yeah I can see it landing in SCOTUS at some point, or a case like it. One can still hope that the high court will realize it took a wrong turn awhile back in weakening the VRA.

The racist laws being passed by some states, including Florida --which states the Roberts Court has wrongly excused from federal scrutiny via a critical part of VRA regarding proposed election-law changes-- are not going to stand up to close scrutiny, not while there are still citizens who remember the long laundry list of racist voting laws those states had put up in the past and have immediately reverted to trying to pass again with slightly different language.

There will be lawsuit after lawsuit brought to challenge new efforts to suppress the black vote in the USA. But meanwhile the current SCOTUS chief justice Roberts was working to try to further dismantle the Voting Rights Act even before he was named to the high court.

www.politico.com

Inside John Roberts’ Decades-Long Crusade Against the Voting Rights Act

Roberts remains at the center of an impassioned debate about voting rights in America.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

And so it should come as no surprise (at least to Roberts) that a district court judge in Florida has blasted not only a Florida law but SCOTUS itself for having winked at or even furthered the gutting the intent of the original Voting Rights Act.

Those measures have been under attack from the moment the act was passed back in 1965, and it's clear now that vigilance will always be required to maintain (hell, to put back!) the teeth in that law and to see that it is properly enforced.
Click to expand...
Seems likely that any appeal wouldn’t be resolved until after the election, so for now this stands.
 
Cmaier said:
Seems likely that any appeal wouldn’t be resolved until after the election, so for now this stands.
Click to expand...

Let's hope you're right. These guys have a way of trying to get emergency responses from courts where they think they stand a chance of winning,
 
To me this is very simple. FIRST you prove massive voter fraud. THEN you can change the rules in response. Period.

If anything, they should find people who didn’t vote and find out why. If it’s a logistics issue then you do something to fix that.
 
lizkat said:
Let's hope you're right. These guys have a way of trying to get emergency responses from courts where they think they stand a chance of winning,
Click to expand...

The case where the lady in florida sued me for $500 million went to the 11th circuit. Took forever for them to rule on it. Let’s hope they’re consistent :-)
 
Back
Top