This piece in on the Roberts Court’s assault on voting rights is a must read:
A vital point in 's terrific piece today. The Supreme Court's conservatives have an overriding ideological commitment to disenfranchisement. They don't just uphold voter suppression—they inflict it. SCOTUS has become an enemy of equal suffrage.
Too many lines to quote in this tremendous piece from on court packing and democracy, but this one 👀: “Roberts knew which knife he wanted to use to gut the Voting Rights Act, but he had to wipe Taney’s fingerprints from the handle first.”
“The Republican political project has gone beyond shaping policy to rigging the electorate,” writes, adding that Democrats are left with only one option after Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to defend our rights and democracy: pack the court.
Just brilliant stuff from on the literally neoconfederate voting rights jurisprudence of the Roberts Court. Must-read:
Most Jim Crow era voting restrictions were technically "race neutral," a fraud enabled by a Supreme Court that was hostile to black rights. The Roberts Court is similarly content to let the GOP use mass disenfranchisement to maintain its grip on power.
"What McConnell and the Republicans did was cold, calculating, and constitutional," writes. "So is expanding the Supreme Court."
“In any democracy, there will be a fight over the rules... But disenfranchisement of rival constituencies is not the same as boxing out a primary challenger or arguing over the shape of a ballot; it is an attack on democracy itself.” Must-read
Today's soup reading was 's excellent piece in the Atlantic. It explains how the *essential project* of conservatives in the judiciary, including Amy Coney Barrett, is to restrict voting rights so Republicans can win elections.
The Supreme Court is helping Republicans rig elections, wrote last week. The Democratic Party has "only one option if it wishes to defend the most fundamental rights of its constituents and the vitality of American democracy: Pack the Court."
"Republicans appear committed to an agenda of dispossession and disenfranchisement, entrenching minoritarian rule without the consent of the electorate," writes
"Roberts knew which knife he wanted to use to gut the Voting Rights Act, but he had to wipe Taney’s fingerprints from the handle first." 🔥 from :
Terrific essay on the race-neutral legal justifications for vote suppression, from Reconstruction to the present day
Court packing, argues , isn’t justified by disputes over policy or legal interpretation—but efforts to rig electoral democracy by restricting the franchise are a different matter
.: “The Republican political project has gone beyond shaping policy to rigging the electorate.… The conservative justices [have chosen] to help the Republican Party … by inhibiting voters’ ability to make a different choice.” This is correct.
"Republicans appear committed to an agenda of dispossession and disenfranchisement, entrenching minoritarian rule without the consent of the electorate," writes
"Republicans appear committed to an agenda of dispossession and disenfranchisement, entrenching minoritarian rule without the consent of the electorate," writes
Great description before the non sequitur of a court-packing prescription. Human rights "should not be subject to a show of hands," he writes-as if putting more people on the Supreme Court did not leave it an institution doing whatever it wants by vote.
‘Every Republican effort to restrict the franchise, no matter how ephemeral its justification, is met by the Court’s conservatives with wilting modesty, while every effort to protect voting rights is struck down as tyrannical state overreach.’