SCOTUS is ghosting THE KRAKEN
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
Lol. No, this isn't a constitutional crisis.
Miranda v. Arizona was a constitutional crisis with regard to the Fifth Amendment. Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny (e.g., Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges) were constitutional crises with regard to substantive due process. Bush v. Gore would have been a constitutional crisis if the Court sided with Gore, as they would have literally changed the outcome of an election.
This is just a bunch of angry losers filing barely comprehensible lawsuits in the hope of stirring up political capital sufficient to cause civil unrest. We'll see a few weeks of protest lasting until Biden takes office, then — like always — the masses will go back to their 9-5 jobs and be placated by angry figureheads on television until the next election cycle. C'est la vie.
Go back to reddit.
Go back to TD.W.
You're such a faggot on every thread I find you in
Glad I could make you feel at home <3
you sound nervous.
Not really, just bored of hearing the same old "wait for the uprising" argument from keyboard warriors.
You could just say you aren’t good at math or statistics instead of calling stuff you don’t understand barely comprehensible. Probably a communications degree huh. Lol.
Law degree <3. Feel free to revisit this after January 20th, when Biden takes office and the country (shockingly) does not fall into chaos.
like we havn't seen someone with a law degree be retarded. Congrats for regurgitating information long enough to earn that.
I know, Sidney and Lin are absolute morons.
Not a constitutional crisis, just a crisis about the constitution being subverted blatantly in favor of keeping the left/right machine running
MUCH different GOOD take
Your welcome to point out what provision of the Constitution is being violated by any of this. I'll try to respond as best as I can.
I mean. The left-wing patriot would see it as such by accusing the right of attempting to subvert people's constitutional right and privilege to vote, whereas the right-wing patriot would argue that their constitutional right and privilege to vote is being devalued by being made equal to harvested/dead/underage/felonious/illegal votes.
Sorry for the snark if you're actually willing to have an honest conversation about this. Voting rights are absolutely a constitutional crisis from either side, as I see it.
Sorry, this is kind of long, but it's got a lot of good substance that I hope helps flesh out the inherent flaw in the Trump team's litigation.
I totally agree about voting rights, however their construction under the Constitution is very state-centered. We try to shy away from federal intervention as much as we can. For instance, in Shelby County v. Holder the Court explicitly struck down the Voting Rights Act's Sec. 4(b) formula for federal preclearance on concerns over federalism. However, Shelby isn't directly responsive to this, I'm just citing it to show that the federal government likes to stay out of state voting as much as possible.
There's a marked difference between the "left-wing" and "right-wing" patriots' positions. Bear in mind that, prior to the Reconstruction Era, there was no inalienable right to vote. Until that time, states were free to determine voting standards, largely, as they wished. The only instruction came from Article II, Sec. 1:
This changed with the addition of the 15th Amendment. However, it is important to note that this Amendment only guaranteed that the right "to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United states or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This was extended to sex via the 19th Amendment, poll taxes via the 24th Amendment, and above-18 age via the 26th Amendment.
Outside of these proscriptions, however, there is not much else in the Constitution about voting. Thus, while you have an undeniable right to vote in these protected classes (the left-wing patriot's position) it does not necessarily follow that you have a right to a certain value in your vote (the right-wing patriot's position).
Of course, the response to this is the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which guarantees that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is why in Bush v. Gore the Court struck down the recount on equal protection grounds, as some Florida counties were excluding and correcting votes on different grounds than other Florida counties; the votes in Florida were definitionally being subjected to unequal protection within the state. Of foremost note, a citizen of State A is not protected via State B's laws (assuming the citizen is operating entirely in State A), this is why the Texas lawsuit failed for lack of standing. Now, when a citizen of State A wants to challenge State A's election law, it gets a little more complicated...
Prior to 2008, the Court applied strict scrutiny to state-internal election law challenges. This means that, for any law restricting the right to vote, the state had to present a compelling interest that justified its use. However, the Court decided (in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008)) that equal protection analysis of voting laws requires only a balancing of the interests of voters against the interests of the state, which is more akin to something we call rational basis review. The upshot of this decision has been more state laws requiring voter ID, as well as less judicial decisions overturning state election law. The right-wing patriot's constitutional argument is even weaker here, as the underlying logic requires the inference that a law (e.g., mail-in voting) that they are not restricted by has indirectly subjected them to unequal protection under the law. This is what's called a "disparate impact" argument and we've rejected its application to facially neutral laws (see Washington v. Davis (1976)), which is what a law simply permitting mail-in voting writ-large would be.
Thus, what the right-wing patriot is left with is essentially rational basis review. I can cite a whole trove of cases for this, but the short of it is that the state always prevails in rational basis review as long as it can offer some non-prohibited reason for its law (see generally, Railway Express v. New York (1949)). Promoting voter participation is one of those permissible reasons. This is all, of course, guided by the remaining Article II, Sec. 1 deference to states to make their own voting law, as well as the post-Shelby policy for such. In short, the right-wing patriot has no constitutional argument regarding the dilution of his or her vote via their state permitting mail-in voting.