Thursday, October 01, 2015

PRESIDENT RUBIO'S SUPREME COURT PICKS COULD RUBBER-STAMP THIS WELL BEFORE 2020

This is outrageous, though it's not surprising:
The state of Alabama, which requires a photo ID to vote, announced this week that it would stop issuing driver’s licenses in counties where 75 percent of registered voters are black.

Due to budget cuts, Alabama Law Enforcement Agency said that 31 satellite DMV offices would no longer have access to driver’s licenses examiners, meaning that residents will need to travel to other counties to apply for licenses. The move comes just one year after the state’s voter photo ID law went into effect....

“Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every one,” [Birmingham News columnist John] Archibald explained. “But maybe it’s not racial at all, right? ...”
At AL.com, Kyle Whitmire writes:
... we're looking at a nightmare.

Or a trial lawyer's dream....

A civil rights lawsuit isn't a probability. It's a certainty.

It's only a matter of time before some lawyer takes the state ... back to the courthouse.
I think that's part of the plan. Republicans would like to do this in as many states of the union as possible, and a court case could help them achieve that goal.

The next president of the United States will probably have multiple vacancies on the Supreme Court during his or her term -- of the nine justices, four are 77 years old or older. So -- attention Sanders fans who wouldn't dream of voting Clinton in the general election, or vice versa -- if we have a Republican president and a Republican Senate, the High Court is going to shift very, very far to the right.

A legal challenge to this law could well wind up in the Supreme Court. If it does, and if President Rubio or Bush or Fiorina or Carson has stacked the bench sufficiently, what Alabama is doing will almost certainly be declared constitutional. That will be an open invitation to the states to pull the same stunt.

All well in advance of the 2020 elections, which will choose a president and the state legislators who'll draw congressional maps for the ensuing decade.

If this sort of disenfranchisement is lawful by 2020, especially in purple states (North Carolina? Ohio?), it will get us that much closer to near-permanent one-party rule in Washington.

So, sure, this will go to the courts -- and the outcome might not be justice.


4 comments:

theHatist said...

"attention Sanders fans who wouldn't dream of voting Clinton in the general election, or vice versa -- if we have a Republican president and a Republican Senate, the High Court is going to shift very, very far to the right."

Hillary won't appoint any judges that might decide against her donors any more than Obama appointed an AG who would meaningfully prosecute Wall Street.

Also, considering the way The Pandering Entitlement's numbers have been tanking, Bernie's looking more and more like the smart bet.

After all, what has HRC shown us, other than she's willing to doom thousands to die to advance her career?

Soccer Dad said...

nice post
also
perhaps you could consider a few columns on how clinton sanders people need to come together once we have a nominee ?
that no matter how much you like one or the other, sitting back and not voting and letting a gop person in is 100x as abad ?

Yastreblyansky said...

This is breathtaking. They're really taking off the masks, aren't they? Here's hoping it's out of terror induced by their internal polling.

Vaughn Bode said...

One step removed from a poll tax.

The federal law now says your workplace MUST give you time to vote.

The federal law does not say your workplace must give you time to get an ID.

"Say what? You want a day off to get an ID in the next county? No. You don't show for work, you are fired."