Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Fiendish Thingy

(15,555 posts)

17. But DOJ can only enforce laws already passed, and more importantly, upheld by SCOTUS

Reply to StarfishSaver (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 07:43 PM

Jun 2021

Are there voting rights laws currently on the books that, if enforced aggressively, would thwart the Jim Crow 2.0 laws currently being passed by states?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MSNBC Breaking: Garland about to announce plan to secure voting rights! [View all] MoonRiver Jun 2021 OP

Is CNN or MSNBC covering it live? hlthe2b Jun 2021 #1

It's on MSNBC now n/t malaise Jun 2021 #9

How can the DOJ secure voting rights when Congress can't? Nt Fiendish Thingy Jun 2021 #2

yeah qazplm135 Jun 2021 #4

Law suits to over turn laws being past? zaj Jun 2021 #5

because it was Congress which afforded the agency those oversight responsibilities bigtree Jun 2021 #6

Because DOJ has enforcement powers Congress doesn't have StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #13

But DOJ can only enforce laws already passed, and more importantly, upheld by SCOTUS Fiendish Thingy Jun 2021 #17

Yes StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #18

Will the courts allow suits to proceed for laws not yet implemented? Fiendish Thingy Jun 2021 #21

Yes - Injunctive relief is possible StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #22

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2021 #3

Voting is considered a civil right and protected by the constitution PortTack Jun 2021 #7

Yes and no... brooklynite Jun 2021 #23

They can decide how they are selected, but not the actual selection of said electors PortTack Jun 2021 #25

That assumes that the State has authorized a vote for Electors by the public.... brooklynite Jun 2021 #27

If they do not authorize electors, then they are in jeopardy of losing having their votes count PortTack Jun 2021 #29

You miss the point... brooklynite Jun 2021 #30

Yes and no... brooklynite Jun 2021 #24

K; R CatWoman Jun 2021 #8

Garland said he's going to double the amount of lawyers in our Civil Rights division! MoonRiver Jun 2021 #10

Hope to see him come out firing on all cylinders on this!! bearsfootball516 Jun 2021 #11

DoJ can only go so far... Federal Courts and eventually SCOTUS will have the final say. WarGamer Jun 2021 #12

what worries me is most of these laws are DOA at the Federal courts, but NOT necessarily SCOTUS Takket Jun 2021 #15

Federal Courts are different after the Trump Court stuffing. WarGamer Jun 2021 #16

Different, but not completely lost, as we saw in the aftermath of the election StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #19

61 cases...60 either thrown out or ruled against following the election, even with frump appointed PortTack Jun 2021 #26

yeah but we're talking about Voter Rights investigations led by the DoJ WarGamer Jun 2021 #28

Well, that's a start. I'm waiting impatiently for bigger news. Goodheart Jun 2021 #14

What do you mean by "plan for accountability"? StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #20