So much for states rights.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
81 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What do you mean, the decision is very much a state's rights decision. It stops them from requiring proof of citizenship on federal voting forms but allows them to do so on state forms.
The GOP pushed to limit what Arizona could do. Thankfully mostly failed.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with fellow conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch to grant Republicans' request in part, though Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch indicated they would have granted the entire request.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, would have denied the request in full.
Is it me or does it seem that Coney Barrett might be reading the room better than the rest of the corrupt justices? Been seeing her dissenting from the rest of the conservatives more and more.
There's a rotating cast. Sometimes it's Roberts, sometimes it's Gorsuch, sometimes it's Kavanaugh, but usually it's a lone defection and not enough to flip the result. Maybe they're doing it on purpose to give the impression that it's not a 6-3 ideological monolith while almost always still ending up with conservative results. They're not idiots and they're well aware of their role as a political actor.
Yeah, I see it as tactical, and not necessarily an accurate reflection of their ideology. Yeah, they’re aware, but they’re also trying to tweak their public perception towards the direction of “well, they’re not THAT bad”, but they very much are.
I kind of feel like seeing the way the conservative sausage gets made might be having an effect on her.
Reuters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Reuters:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-partly-revives-arizonas-proof-citizenship-voter-law-2024-08-22/