This litterally just happened at SCOTUS

[edhopper]

Link to tweet

This literally just happened at the Supreme Court
Downwards arrow

Justice Barrett: What is the interest of the GOP in keeping (laws that suppress minority voters) on the books?

Republican Lawyer: It puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game.

And the Roberts Court won't think they are denying people's rights.

[lagomorph777]

1. Well, that will make it more uncomfortable to vote in favor of the GQP position.

Sorry you asked, Conehead-Barrett?

[Hugin]

3. +1

This stuff leaves me sputtering.

[Bettie]

15. Nah, she'll come up with some "Originalist" interpretation

that indicates that non-white people have no right to vote because they weren't allowed to when the constitution was written.

Ever moving backward.

[Kablooie]

27. And only land holding whites could vote originally.

They can pick and choose which original rule to justify their prejudices.

[Bettie]

29. Exactly my thought

"originalist" means, I will pick and choose which of the original statements I want to use.

[bsiebs]

31. ...more precisely... only land holding MALE whites...

[momta]

33. Thank you. Must be remembered. n/t

[MuseRider]

34. Add Christian and we have it.

[xxqqqzme]

42. Then she will have to

resign her position on the court. Women holding positions on the Supreme Court were not part of the original plan.

[dlk]

47. Barrett should consider the originalist position of women in the Constitution

What would have the framers thought about women sitting on the Supreme Court, given women were technically chattel at that point in history.

[Hugin]

2. It's like the GrOPpers would like to level the playing field for themselves by...

going back to the 3/5ths vote for people who don't vote for them.

Seems fair.

The SCOTUS will probably go for it.

[edhopper]

5. Sure

strict originalists and all.

[brush]

11. Is this reality? SCOTUS is supposed to be the highest court in the land...

Last edited Tue Mar 2, 2021, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

so you'd think there would be the highest level of legal discourse.

Not so.

I forget sometimes that there are republican lawyers who somehow put forth blatant, gaslighting arguments to a rookie, originalist, woman justice. I guess he figures if a woman justice falls for originalism she might just go for such crap arguments too.

[ancianita]

13. +1

[Bettie]

16. Wonder how long it will be before one of the states

just flat writes a law saying explicitly that only white men can vote.

[machoneman]

20. ...white land-owning men! With black, cast iron, lawn jockeys out front.

[xxqqqzme]

44. That is the position of the Heritage Foundation.

n/t

[Pantagruel]

4. Thomas

will probably back the GOP, betraying his heritage and his country.That's particularly distasteful.

[edhopper]

6. He always has

and always will.

[Evolve Dammit]

17. And Ginny is worse. Anita Hill was right. Never should have taken up space on that bench.

[MarcA]

35. Thomas learned a lesson in the hard labor of his youth.

Not that you help the little people but that through enough kiss up and
kick down, you too, one day can be among the privileged very few and
get to rule over others.

[ananda]

7. Best reply:

Seriously!
The GQP literally admits that if EVERYONE votes they lose,
especially the minorities they've been trying so hard to disenfranchise.
OMG.

[qazplm135]

8. I'm a little curious about the brackets though

because I'm going to guess that Barrett doesn't view those laws as "laws that suppress minority voters" and the Republican lawyer doesn't either, so that conversation might not mean to them what Tyler Bishop is suggesting.

I'm not saying the laws don't suppress minority voters, of course they do, just that I don't think it's quite the bombshell without a little more context around why he put those brackets there.

[IndianaDave]

38. In fact, the bracketed information makes the GOP response the OPPOSITE of what it should be!

Keeping laws on the books which suppress votes does not DISADVANTAGE the GOP, it is to their advantage to keep those laws. Something about this entire proposition is messed up, and confusing.

[qazplm135]

40. the yahoo article provides a more neutral answer

she simply asked, why do you keep these laws about not counting the votes if it's in the wrong precinct around? Because it is the difference between winning and losing for us.

Cynical, but it wasn't an outright admission of racism by either party.

Again, I am NOT denying the racist elements to all of this.

[unblock]

9. Amazing argument to put before the Supreme Court. As if they are entitled

to not be at a competitive disadvantage.

Oh sure. The constitution talks about people voting and all, but that's trumped by the supposed rights of one political party when political parties aren't even contemplated in the constitution.

How about a non-competitive party alter their policies to win more votes? Nahhhh....





If the right-wing justices have any principles at all, they'd find it extremely awkward to side with the republicans after an argument like that.

[Captain Zero]

21. The disadvantage comes from not appealing to

The voters you are trying to suppress.

Seems like a justice would understand that.

[magicarpet]

10. Yay three masted sailing slave ships,...

Bring them back,...

The Buy-bull says it is okay.

Indentured servitude pays better than WalMart.

[ancianita]

12. Sounds like SCOTUS wants a reason to be okay with rationalizing the skirting of voting rights law.

[not fooled]

26. Remember that they awarded the presidency to idiot son

because continuing counting the votes in FL would have caused him harm.

[3catwoman3]

41. But Al Gore was...

...not harmed by being denied the office? Was that not the most ridiculous rationale ever?
What a load of bullshit.

[eShirl]

14. "Not cheating puts us at a disadvantage, your honor."

[Evolve Dammit]

19. exactly. Thanks

[andym]

18. Original Constitution states restricted voting rights, the amendments favor expanded voting rights

The problem is that the conservative originalist textualists hearken back to the text of the original Constitution first and foremost. Of course they need to account for the amendments, but what do they do when the principles clash? They take as narrow an interpretation as possible, which basically favors the larger amount of text in the original Constitution.
This really illustrates one of the fatal flaws of this legal approach.

[djacq]

22. He might as well have said, "Let's bring back Jim Crow"

[marble falls]

23. I don't think they'll rule for the GOP.

[edhopper]

25. You haven't

been paying attention.

[FakeNoose]

24. Justice Barrett is asking a very dumb question

... that has a very obvious answer. I'm wondering what's the context for this?
Is she looking for a way to justify her own predisposition?

[Mr. Ected]

28. You learn in 1L never to ask a question in court for which you don't know the answer

Methinks Justice Barrett just polluted the record with her question and its very unconstitutional response.

[Scalded Nun]

30. Roberts will forever have this shameful period of his SCOTUS hung around his neck

And it seems to just get worse with every case.

[GeorgeGist]

32. I'm confused ...

why is keeping them on the books a competitive disadvantage to Republicans.

[Sogo]

36. Thank you for asking that.

I thought it was some legalese I wasn't following, or something....

[Sogo]

49. Now I understand it....

In reporting tonight, the quote of Justice Barrett above is incorrect, and skews the meaning of what she said.

[mollie8]

37. Barrett

I'm going way out on a limb and may get verbally pummeled for saying this, but I'm beginning to think that Barrett, conservative that she is, has a mind of her own. Why would she ask this? She's not dense. so... wait and see how she votes before we crucify her. Just saying...

[Rocknation]

45. Maybe it's because she's SO not dense

Last edited Tue Mar 2, 2021, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

she now sees no future in being regarded as a card-carrying conservative...and particularly not as a SCOTUS judge who got her job via ex-president Duh Don...


rocktivity

[soldierant]

50. Aprpos of absolutely nothing at all,

but your comment is very appropriate to bear the number "45."

[intheflow]

46. I also saw this as maybe a good sign about Barrett.

I remember her face when Sheldon Whitehouse was grilling her during her confirmation hearing, especially when he said that she needs to consider when, why and how she was being confirmed for the seat. She actually looked like she understood and was taking to heart what he was saying. (Probably because he's an older white guy, but still.) Then I'm betting she's spending time with Sotomayor, Kagan, and (formerly) Ginsburg which may temper her more extreme conservatism, as well as January 6th. By asking she's getting them to admit their plan is to undermine voting rights. She doesn't strike me as a willfully stupid person (like Kavanaugh and Thomas). I have hope until proven otherwise.

[malthaussen]

39. "Competitive disadvantage," forsooth.

There you have it: politics is a sport.

-- Mal

[Trust_Reality]

43. Very informative question and answer.

How the vote goes will be even more informative.

[perdita9]

48. And what did the fine Christian lady say in response?

Whatever it was, it tells you worlds about her (lack of) character

[BobTheSubgenius]

51. How are these actions not massive civil rights violations?

People belong in jail.

[Joinfortmill]

52. They told the truth for once.

[burrowowl]

53. Interesting

[Blue Owl]

54. Laid bare, in front of God and everyone

Fuck the shameless Repukes. Fuck them.

[Best_man23]

55. CBS This Morning Played the Sound Clip of the Republicant lawyer's statement

At least one major network is bringing this to light.

[DFW]

56. What the Republicans on the Court know but won't hear or acknowledge

There are only three things that put Republicans at a competitive disadvantage compared to Democrats.

It isn't cheating.
It isn't faulty voting machines (after all THEY build the ones that deliver funny results).
It isn't money, since they have way more of it than Democrats do.
It sure as hell isn't Republican Secretaries of State.

No, there are only three things that put Republicans at a competitive disadvantage, and they are: their past performance, their candidates and their message, which are so piss poor that, well, of COURSE far fewer people are going to vote for them in a fairly held election. Five out of the six Republicans on the Court know this (Thomas knows only what Scalia told him, and what his wife tells him now).

Alito will vote with Thomas no matter what because he only sees out of his right eye. But Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett must be cringing and silently thinking, "for Pete's sake, you idiot, I agree with you and want to vote for your position, but I can't if you are so stupid as to constantly stick your foot in your mouth in public, and say the stupid shit you are saying!"

[uponit7771]

57. +1, if there was a smarter argument by the AR lawyers they'd no doubt vote on the side of the

... kGOP.

I think voting is where the USSC has held the ground for the kGOP over the last 20 years.

The USSC isn't erroring on the side of more voting access to everyone in their rulings