When I say that we have a two headed monster, Democrat and Republican
Heads on the same body, I understand that there are huge differences
between liberals and Conservatives. But they are both owned by the
same Ruling Class. Within that Ruling Class there are huge
differences which cause the members of the Ruling Class to bicker
among themselves. But one thing they understand. They will never
give up control. So while the Wall Street bunch hold sway and then
the industrial/military crowd gains the upper hand, those are
struggles within the Ruling Class.
Right now the more conservative group within the Ruling Class is
dominating. The Senate is confirming Right Wing Judges by the
carload. This will dictate national policies for the next 25
years...at least. But I don't bother much about the labels. Both
Parties are owned, and will join forces to squash any attempts by the
Working Class.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/4/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that the important lesson from this article is that we have a
majority of Republican justices on the court and they are attempting to
limit the voting power of Democrats. One of the reasons that there is a
Republican majority, is that the Republican Senate majority refused to
approve Obama's appointment of a moderate Democratic supreme court justice
during his last year in office. Every time people on the far left repeat
the assertion that there is no difference between the Democrats and the
Republicans, it is important to remember that there is certainly a
difference in how supreme court justices of the two parties tend to vote.
That's not to say that they don't sometimes surprise us by voting like
judges from the opposing party. But usually, we can count on the Republican
justices to vote against our interests.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 5:02 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Supreme Court Just Handed Down Some Truly
Awful News for Voting Rights
To guarantee the Right of All citizens to vote, or to limit the Right of
Some Citizens to vote.
This struggle his as old as the Constitution. There are only two reasons
some people want to limit who can vote. First there is the belief that some
of us are superior to others, and therefor should be the ones determining
who is best suited to serve. Then there are those who fear the Working
Class, the majority of Americans.
It's interesting that, despite generations of messing with the minds of the
average American, the majority still understand that in a democracy,
everybody has the right to speak out. And voting is the central, basic
method of speaking out.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/4/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Supreme Court Just Handed Down Some Truly Awful News for Voting
Rights By Ian Millhiser, Vox
04 July 20
Voting rights during the pandemic are in deep trouble thanks to this
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court handed down two brief, unsigned orders on Friday
concerning what restrictions states may place on absentee voting
during the coronavirus pandemic. Though neither order is a final
judgment - one grants a temporary stay of a lower court decision, the
other denies expedited review of an important voting rights case - the
practical impact of both orders is that voters in Alabama and Texas
will find it harder to cast a ballot during the pandemic.
The Texas order is particularly ominous because it suggests that Texas
will be able to apply election rules that ensure that older,
Republican-leaning voters have an easy time casting a ballot - while
younger voters could be forced to risk infection in order to vote.
The Alabama case
The Alabama case is Merrill v. People First of Alabama. Alabama law
allows anyone to cast an absentee ballot during the pandemic, but it
also imposes certain restrictions on those voters. Among other things,
absentee voters must provide a copy of their photo ID, and their
ballot must be signed by either two witnesses or one notary public.
A lower court blocked these restrictions "for voters who cannot safely
obtain the signatures of two witnesses or a notary public due to the
COVID-19 pandemic" and "for absentee voters who are over the age of 65
or disabled and who cannot safely obtain a copy of their photo ID due
to the
COVID-19 pandemic." But the Supreme Court stayed that lower court
decision
-
ensuring that, at the very least, the restrictions will be in place
for Alabama's July 14 runoff primary election.
Notably, the Supreme Court's order in Merrill was joined only by the
Court's five Republicans. All four Democratic appointees dissented.
Neither side explained why they voted the way that they did.
The Texas case
The Texas case, meanwhile, is Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, and
the stakes in that case are simply enormous.
Texas law permits voters over the age of 65 to request absentee
ballots without difficulty. But most voters under the age of 65 are
not allowed to vote absentee. During a pandemic election, that means
that older voters - a demographic that has historically favored
Republicans over Democrats - will have a fairly easy time
participating in the November election. But younger voters will likely
have to risk infection at an in-person polling site if they wish to cast a
ballot.
This arrangement is difficult to square with the 26th Amendment, which
provides that "the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18
years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or any state on account of age."
The Court's order in Texas Democratic Party is subtle, but it most
likely means that Texas will be able to deny or abridge the right to
vote on account of age, at least during the November election.
Last month, the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit blocked a trial judge's order that would have allowed
younger Texans to vote absentee. Although this Fifth Circuit order is
not the appeals court's last word on this case, it is quite unlikely
that the plaintiffs in Texas Democratic Party will prevail before the
Fifth Circuit, which is among the most conservative courts in the
country.
So those plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear their case on an
expedited basis. On Friday, the Supreme Court denied that request. As
a practical matter, writes SCOTUSBlog's Amy Howe, this refusal to
expedite the Texas Democratic Party case "all but eliminated the
prospect that the justices will weigh in on the merits of that dispute
before the 2020 election in November."
Thus, even if the Supreme Court ultimately does decide that Texas's
age discrimination violates the 26th Amendment, that decision will
almost certainly come too late to benefit anyone in November.
The Supreme Court's orders in Merrill and Texas Democratic Party fit a
pattern. Last April, in Republican National Committee v. Democratic
National Committee, the Supreme Court granted a request from the
Republican Party, and ordered all ballots mailed after a certain date
in Wisconsin's April elections to be tossed out - a decision that, in
practice, likely forced thousands of voters to risk infection in order
to cast an in-person ballot.
The Court's decision in Republican National Committee was also 5-4,
with all five Republican justices in the majority and all four
Democrats in dissent.
In recent weeks, the Court has handed down a handful of left-leaning
decisions - including a narrow decision temporarily preserving the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and an even
narrower decision striking down a Louisiana anti-abortion law.
But on the most important question in a democracy - whether citizens
are empowered to choose their own leaders - this Supreme Court remains
unsympathetic to parties seeking to protect the right to vote, despite
the greatest public health crisis in more than a century.
