Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

THE NEW 6-3


Hibi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last week The Economist (June 26th)  had an article called  The 3-3-3 court.    It covers rulings since Justice Barrett joined.     While there where many 6-3 outcomes there are two types of 6-3, outcomes,   where the 3 "in the middle" vote with those on the edges.

Breyer,  Kagan and Sotomayor almost always vote in unison.      Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas almost always vote in unison  (and typically the opposite of the those other 3).

Barrett,  Kavanaugh and Roberts often vote in unison,  but in unison with either the liberals or the conservatives.      

Of  course this is only early in the term of the current court.     As for: where this is headed:    The article ends with:

"Instead of split 6-3, the court is  more like 3-3-3.  Will these coalitions hold next year when justices craft potentially landmark decisions on guns, abortion and maybe affirmative action?   We'll know quite a lot more about the new conservative majority,  this time next year".

 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time will tell. I'm not optimistic (at least with voting rights issues). Kavanaugh and Barrett do seem a bit more fluid. It's too early to say if this will hold up over time. Robert is conservative on most issues, but not always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Six Republican justices for voting suppression measures that will help Republican candidates.

NSS. QED. 

 

 The US Supreme Count doesn't vote on the merits of state legislation but on Constitutionals grounds.    E.g. does the state have the legal authority to enforce said legislation.  Does the power as defined by the Constitution give the state the power over this area of government.     

I believe the 6 justices ruled correctly on the AZ voting legislation;  I.e.   the state had the authority to pass and enforce such legislation.   

I would never vote for any state level politician that supported such legislation but again,  that isn't what the court was asked to decide.

I'm sure you know all of this.    Yea,  so why I'm I wasting my time???   (because it is too hot for hiking right now,  so I'm waiting for it too cool off).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

 The US Supreme Count doesn't vote on the merits of state legislation but on Constitutionals grounds.    E.g. does the state have the legal authority to enforce said legislation.  Does the power as defined by the Constitution give the state the power over this area of government.     

I believe the 6 justices ruled correctly on the AZ voting legislation;  I.e.   the state had the authority to pass and enforce such legislation.   

I would never vote for any state level politician that supported such legislation but again,  that isn't what the court was asked to decide.

I'm sure you know all of this.    Yea,  so why I'm I wasting my time???   (because it is too hot for hiking right now,  so I'm waiting for it too cool off).

 

Get rid of pre-clearance. Check. Let Arizona pass voter suppression laws. Check. Make it easier for other

voter suppression laws. Check. The fact that the six Republican justices are making it easier to suppress

Democratic votes is purely coincidental. Alito doesn't mind voter disparity, just as long as it's a small

disparity. I feel sorry for folks out west and in the northeast. Our weather has been mild and pleasant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are these "voter suppression" laws?  I know that is MSM's latest rad talking point, but think for yourselves for a minute. Isn't it racist to think minorities can't figure out how to vote under the same rules as everybody else?  There are no poll taxes, no literacy test where black people are given the test in French and white people have to read a first grade elementary text. And yes they used to do that.  And ballot harvesting is just an easy route to cheating - I like this ballot, I like this ballot not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

How are these "voter suppression" laws?  I know that is MSM's latest rad talking point, but think for yourselves for a minute. Isn't it racist to think minorities can't figure out how to vote under the same rules as everybody else?  There are no poll taxes, no literacy test where black people are given the test in French and white people have to read a first grade elementary text. And yes they used to do that.  And ballot harvesting is just an easy route to cheating - I like this ballot, I like this ballot not.

Nice to see someone that is asking the right questions.    Some states do have voting practices that discriminate against minorities;  E.g.   the placement of drop-off ballot boxes - in minority's areas (e.g.  a county or district)   there will be less of them,  than in the white dominated areas,  and they are placed "in the sticks";  i.e. farther away from where most of the minority voters live verses where the boxes are placed in white areas.     The Feds (E.g.  DOJ),   should sue the state in such cases.

But in most cases it is very difficult to prove if a voting law\practice\rule is harming one group more so than others.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted the below on another thread that discussed this vote.   As I noted, these are not new laws in AZ, but already existing ones.

There are voter suppression laws and James identified a few.  It has to be demonstrably adverse to one group of people.  Number of precincts in black/Hispanic vs. white areas is another one.  Access to register to vote.  S.C. permits early voting, but only at the county registration office.  Did change it for COVID, but doubt it will last.  This adversely affects blacks and Hispanics as they generally have less access to transportation.

However, this vote does portend that there very well may be a new 6-3 voting scenario.  If the conservative Republican justices can find something to hang their hats on, they will do it.

I don't disagree with the Court's decision in the AZ case.  While it would be nice if others could collect mail-in ballots, I can also see where this might be a problem. As for as voting out of precinct, I guess this goes under Constitutional provisions that elections are up to states.  Although, I don't personally see the problem unless voting for candidates in a precinct election other than your own.  My small town has two precincts and if someone shows up at the wrong one, they are not allowed to vote but must go to the other one (one mile away).  So, it has probably been prohibited in a lot of places already.

Worth noting, that these are not new AZ laws, but rather ones that already existed.

To a great extent, we must hold the voters responsible for registering and voting in a proper and timely manner.  Waiting until election day to register should not be allowed.  I have no problem with an organization sending around buses or other vehicles on election day to transport voters.

What is really needed is commonsense rules.  Both sides are wanting too much.  Incidentally, I have been a Democrat for the last 50+ years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the two laws didn't hinder Democratic voters, there would have been no reason for

the AZ GOP legislature to pass them. That was their intent, whether it will work out that

way is another matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vautrin said:

If the two laws didn't hinder Democratic voters, there would have been no reason for

the AZ GOP legislature to pass them. That was their intent, whether it will work out that

way is another matter. 

You sound like Rudy and Trump when they mention CA voting laws.         That Dems created such laws to encourage illegal immigrant voting and whether it worked out that way is another matter;   those CA laws should be canceled.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

You sound like Rudy and Trump when they mention CA voting laws.         That Dems created such laws to encourage illegal immigrant voting and whether it worked out that way is another matter;   those CA laws should be canceled.

 

Both Rudy and Donny have credibility problems on just about every subject under the sun. I doubt that

is different when it comes to their claims about CA voting laws. Anyhow I'm discussing the two AZ

voter suppression laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ElCid said:

I posted the below on another thread that discussed this vote.   As I noted, these are not new laws in AZ, but already existing ones.

There are voter suppression laws and James identified a few.  It has to be demonstrably adverse to one group of people.  Number of precincts in black/Hispanic vs. white areas is another one.  Access to register to vote.  S.C. permits early voting, but only at the county registration office.  Did change it for COVID, but doubt it will last.  This adversely affects blacks and Hispanics as they generally have less access to transportation.

However, this vote does portend that there very well may be a new 6-3 voting scenario.  If the conservative Republican justices can find something to hang their hats on, they will do it.

I don't disagree with the Court's decision in the AZ case.  While it would be nice if others could collect mail-in ballots, I can also see where this might be a problem. As for as voting out of precinct, I guess this goes under Constitutional provisions that elections are up to states.  Although, I don't personally see the problem unless voting for candidates in a precinct election other than your own.  My small town has two precincts and if someone shows up at the wrong one, they are not allowed to vote but must go to the other one (one mile away).  So, it has probably been prohibited in a lot of places already.

Worth noting, that these are not new AZ laws, but rather ones that already existed.

To a great extent, we must hold the voters responsible for registering and voting in a proper and timely manner.  Waiting until election day to register should not be allowed.  I have no problem with an organization sending around buses or other vehicles on election day to transport voters.

What is really needed is commonsense rules.  Both sides are wanting too much.  Incidentally, I have been a Democrat for the last 50+ years.

 

It's different in every county in TX, but in mine, we haven't had precinct-based voting for at least 10 years.  Since all ballots are electronic, every polling place in the county is prepared to present you with the correct ballot, based on your address on the voter registration rolls and the precinct identified.  It makes it much more convenient. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Both Rudy and Donny have credibility problems on just about every subject under the sun. I doubt that

is different when it comes to their claims about CA voting laws. Anyhow I'm discussing the two AZ

voter suppression laws. 

Ok,  you're discussing the two AZ voter laws.    It appears you believe the SC ruled incorrectly based on your posts.

My point was that your reasoning for that belief is as bogus as the reasoning we have seen from Rudy and Donny on a host of issues.  

But hey,  I could be mistaken;   if you believe the SC ruled incorrectly,   can you explain where they went wrong?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Ok,  you're discussing the two AZ voter laws.    It appears you believe the SC ruled incorrectly based on your posts.

My point was that your reasoning for that belief is as bogus as the reasoning we have seen from Rudy and Donny on a host of issues.  

But hey,  I could be mistaken;   if you believe the SC ruled incorrectly,   can you explain where they went wrong?

 

For Republicans they didn't go wrong, at least in theory. Illegal aliens can't vote in CA, so who knows

what those two were talking about. But the SC decision could help Republicans as many American Indians

in Arizona (who tend to vote Democratic) live in large, rural geographic areas which make it harder to get

to post offices and more difficult to be sent to the right precinct.  That's likely why the AZ legislature

focused on those two facts and passed those two laws, and the Republicans on the SC were happy to go

along, just as they will likely to be happy to go along with voting restrictions from other red states. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...