Oct
08
2014

US Supreme Court: North Carolina Democrats may not have their election fraud, after all.

Oh, yeah, like anybody else is going to couch this anything except favorable partisan terms, either.

The Supreme Court, with two Justices noting dissents, on Wednesday afternoon allowed North Carolina to bar voters from registering and casting their ballots on the same day, and to refuse to count votes that were cast in the wrong polling places.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.  The majority did not explain its action.

The order gives the state time to file an appeal from lower-court rulings striking down those two provisions, which were part of a larger, sweeping change in voting rights in the state.  If the Court grants review of the state’s appeal, the postponement will remain in effect until there is a decision.

SCOTUSBlog goes on to note that Ginsburg and Sotomayor’s objections were largely nostalgia-based: they felt that the Democratic-controlled federal government would have used Section V of the VRA to justify interfering with the Republican-controlled state government’s right to regulate its own elections.  That Section V was thrown out is, of course, solely the fault of Congressional Democrats; their adamant refusal to update half-century old preclearance regulations* eventually forced the Court – after multiple warnings – to toss those specific preclearance rules.  But, since we’re talking about Democratic politicians, rest assured that they will happily avoid self-criticism when there’s a convenient Republican or three to demonize.

But look on the bright side: Eric Holder gets to leave his job denied a couple of key victories in facilitating Democratic election fraud.  That’s worth the price of admission, right there. So is expecting people to take voting seriously – and dear God but the average progressive argument on this topic sounds like something John Calhoun might say, if he was feeling particularly magnanimous towards the world…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Two formal dissents.  Two.  The Left couldn’t even get the tattered dignity of a five-four split. Guess Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer value their long-term reputations more than Ginsburg and Sotomayor do…

*A quick take on the subject – and the political minefields involved – may be found here.

3 Comments

  • Luke says:

    That was terribly unfair to John C. Calhoun.
    He did, after all, believe the franchise to be extremely important. Much too important to be handed out willy-nilly to anyone with a pulse.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      I agree with Andrew Jackson: it *was* a damned shame that he never hanged John Calhoun.

      • garfieldjl says:

        I actually didn’t know who you guys were referring to off the top of my head, so I looked him up.

        I actually believe Andrew Jackson did several things as President that were inexcusable, even though he did some good things (I’m not going to go into it).

        John Calhoun was a man of that time period, with his own faults, he held beliefs that all of us would find offensive now, but at the time it was perfectly normal.

        Also hanging John Calhoun would have been incredibly stupid, cause he would have become a martyr, for those beliefs.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun

        If anyone wants to read more.

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com