While everyone talks about the Roe and J&J cases at SCOTUS, they are quietly hinting that they may uphold some voting restrictions.

There are three issues at play here - two are specific restrictions on voting; another regards the VRA more broadly.

/1

nytimes.com/2021/03/02/us/…
In a democratic republic, institutional structures are designed and created to balance the inherent risks that a purely direct democracy would pose to a nation’s stability.

The EC is one example of this (although it failed to stop Trump, and is arguably no longer useful).

/2
Philosophically speaking, the majority of the nation would agree that every single eligible citizen should have the opportunity to freely cast their vote, to have a voice in the direction of their government; and the constitutional structures will act as the balancing force.

/3
The Republican Party disagrees with that core philosophy.

This is not new; American conservatives have long held that they should be able to further restrict whose vote gets counted.

There are various reasonings provided for this belief; many argue for a “meritocracy.”

/4
The idea behind the meritocracy argument is that, since it is clear the founders wanted educated, industrious, and successful members of society to “guide” the broader sweeps of democracy (via constitutional structures), that should also extend to defining who gets to vote.

/5
To be fair, the *original* Constitution did not explicitly describe voting as a “right” at all.

But it definitely does now - because, as a nation and a republic, we added text to make sure it was protected.

In fact, no single right is mentioned more.

/6

theatlantic.com/national/archi…
In the Constitution, voting is an individual right that is repeatedly protected, and “shall not be abridged.”

Compare the Republican Party’s treatment of this individual right to the way they protect the right to bear arms (which is only protected in the context of militias).
/7
It’s important to recognize the Republican subterfuge here, and what it represents.

Put simply, the GOP doesn’t recognize voting as a right, even though the republic has explicitly decided that it is.

But it also represents a recurrent theme in the GOP’s broader capture.
/8
Many respected modern conservative thought leaders agree with the “meritocracy” argument, and have fought the idea that voting is a right, although they rarely say so explicitly.

Instead, they’ve spent decades exploiting “loopholes,” to whittle away at the right to vote.

/9
This “looking for an angle” approach to laws and systems is a way to break the spirit of the law, while cleverly avoiding the repercussions of breaking the law.

Put simply, it is a premeditated way to commit crimes while avoiding charges.

It is also what mafias do.

/10
So, in a very real sense, the GOP has been operating as an organized criminal enterprise for decades, while avoiding real repercussions.

For various reasons, principled conservatives and never-Trumpers have been on board with this - largely as a means to win elections.

/11
What many principled conservatives were unaware (or willfully ignorant) of is that the coalition of nihilist power seekers that they were embracing to win elections, were using them for their own ends.

The same way they used Christian fundamentalists.

/12
In effect, the GOP has, over the course of a few decades, pieced together a coalition of all the various groups who outright reject the legitimacy of certain parts of our democratically-enacted order.

And they are now using that coalition to attack it openly.

/13
Part of their strategy has involved using the courts as their new “legislative branch.”

They use the judiciary to restrict and roll back legislation, while using the other branches to attack and obstruct their opponents.

Hence their urgency around court appointments.

/14
And now they are using the courts to chip away at voting rights.

Today’s SCOTUS comments center not only on the two specific issues at play, but also allow them to take aim at the very idea that underlies the Voting Rights Act.

This should concern everyone.

//

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with ClearingTheFog

ClearingTheFog Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clearing_fog

2 Jun
One year ago today

A thread warning about the “authoritarian theater” Trump and the GOP were about to use, complete with describing their Covid strategy targeting Dem states, and warning about the way the Antifa bogeyman would be used.

3hrs later, Trump held his Bible photo op.
And police are only now finally admitting what they - and Bill Barr - adamantly denied: that they used tear gas on peaceful protestors.

So Trump could hold a Bible in front of St. John’s Church.
Flashback

Here is Bill Barr, saying “I was there,” and “There was no tear gas used.”
Read 5 tweets
26 May
Susan Collins’ PAC is under investigation for what the FBI calls a “massive scheme to illegally finance” her re-election bid.

The GOP uses her to pitch these things, because the media continues to allow her to pretend that she is a “moderate,” as if she is materially different.
“The FBI is investigating what it describes as a massive scheme to illegally finance Sen. Susan Collins' 2020 re-election bid”

axios.com/susan-collins-…
Read 6 tweets
25 May
I’ve had a couple of people ask me for the beginner’s guide to what all the DOJ hubbub is about.

Here are a couple of threads to read, in order, to catch up.

First, Asha’s thread goes back to what Mueller did & didn’t do, and what Barr did.

Read, then come back & scroll 👇

/1
Now, one important thing that Asha didn’t mention (probably for brevity), is that Barr didn’t act alone.

Tweet 4 in her thread leaves out a huge part of the story, which is what all of the Garland/DOJ/Court talk is about today.

Instead of “I’ll do it,” what Barr really did..
/2 Image
Barr actually *conspired* with Rosenstein and the OLC (who is supposed to just provide legal counsel), to fabricate a memo that would *justify* his plan to mislead everyone about the Mueller report.

Judge A.B. Jackson realized this & ordered DOJ to release that memo.

👇
/3
Read 8 tweets
25 May
I am not a lawyer, but after viewing Judge Amy Berman Jackson's unredacted memo, I think it is pretty clear that Merrick Garland is not protecting Bill Barr.

The parts that I have highlighted here are the parts that were previously redacted; Garland agreed to unredact this.

/1
Unredacted: Jackson's clear opinion that Barr's DOJ was intentionally dishonest, concealing the content of the OLC memo and misrepresenting its purpose to the court.

Recurring theme here: Jackson exposed the OLC memo for what it was - part of a political PR strategy.
Unredacted: The memo was crafted - at Bill Barr's request - to "recommend" that Barr make a judgement call about Mueller's report.

Why? Because the underlying motivation behind the memo was, "getting a jump on public relations."
Read 9 tweets
24 May
Question for legal Twitter:

If a candidate runs under a marijuana legalization party, and there is documented evidence that he had no interest in pursuing the party’s platform (was simply running to siphon votes), would voters have grounds to sue him for Honest Services Fraud?
In addition to that, if there were evidence of a nationally coordinated scheme to run fraudulent candidates in this way (rather than organic, individual choices by candidates) could that constitute racketeering?
@glennkirschner2 @DirkSchwenk @marceelias @BoutrousTed @lauferlaw

Two separate legal questions above... any thoughts/insights? :-)
Read 4 tweets
24 May
Did the GOP use fraudulent candidates to control the Minnesota state Senate?

The Republican Party currently maintains a majority in the MN Senate by a single vote: 35-34.

It appears they leveraged the growing popularity of two marijuana parties to hold on to power.

/1
In 2018, two marijuana legalization parties broke the popularity barrier to achieve Major Party status under MN state law.

This allowed them to appear on statewide ballots without needing to collect signatures - but it also meant they lost control over who ran under their name.
Leading up to the 2020 election, as early as June, MN journalists were seeing a trend - candidates running for Senate under these two parties, who had no experience, weren’t even particularly active on the issue, and who appeared to be quite Republican.

minnesotareformer.com/2020/06/15/som…
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(