I know. But it does make a difference to all of us, which ruling elites have
more power. For example, everyone whom I am hearing on my podcasts, from the
far left to the liberal left, agrees that it's better for all of us if Biden
wins the election because that will give people a bit of space to organize for
change. There is no one who thinks he's our friend or that the policies of the
party leadership are helpful. Yet, it's still important to recognize the
differences. That reminds me, there's this new thing called, I think, The
Lincoln Foundation, composed of anti-Trump Republicans and Democratic Neo
Liberal interventionists and there's absolutely no difference between them at
all.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 5:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Supreme Court Just Handed Down Some Truly
Awful News for Voting Rights
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.
