Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AZ Mike

(468 posts)
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:47 PM Apr 2014

Did SCOTUS accidentally render GOP voter suppression efforts unconstitutional???

From Roberts:

“(t)here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”

There is NO.... RIGHT.... more basic

Electoral participation is THE MOST BASIC RIGHT in "our democracy". Is this our angle?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did SCOTUS accidentally render GOP voter suppression efforts unconstitutional??? (Original Post) AZ Mike Apr 2014 OP
And the other justices should throw that back into Roberts face whenever voter right cases TexasTowelie Apr 2014 #1
But, my biggest question is.... AZ Mike Apr 2014 #3
It SHOULDN'T be limited, elleng Apr 2014 #7
They left out Politicalboi Apr 2014 #2
what are you talking about? you can still write a check while waiting in line to vote! unblock Apr 2014 #4
+1. n/t Laelth Apr 2014 #8
When Roberts rules that convicts having served their time are free to vote without exception... Anansi1171 Apr 2014 #5
Sounds good. elleng Apr 2014 #6
Yes, GOP voter suppression efforts violate The Mal-apportionment penalty clause AsaGordon Feb 2015 #9

TexasTowelie

(116,749 posts)
1. And the other justices should throw that back into Roberts face whenever voter right cases
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:55 PM
Apr 2014

reach the SCOTUS or note his hypocrisy publicly.

AZ Mike

(468 posts)
3. But, my biggest question is....
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:57 PM
Apr 2014

....if electoral participation is, in fact, the most basic right of all in our democracy, can it be limited at all?

elleng

(136,043 posts)
7. It SHOULDN'T be limited,
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 04:12 PM
Apr 2014

so the posture of the up-coming cases with the effect of doing so is very important.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
2. They left out
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:56 PM
Apr 2014

“(t)here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” Especially if you have millions of dollars to back it up.

unblock

(54,150 posts)
4. what are you talking about? you can still write a check while waiting in line to vote!
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 02:02 PM
Apr 2014

the use of jingoistic rhetoric notwithstanding, this decision is an effort to stifle political speech.

the rich have absolutely zero evidence that an aggregate limit of an eight of a million dollars *per election cycle* in any way keeps them from having a voice in politics.

all letting them exceed that already stupendously high limit does is give them enough voice to shout down and stifle the political speech of those who can't compete financially.

this decision leads to *less* political speech, not more, and by roberts' rhetoric, a disenfranchisement of americans. not that he cares about those who can't afford to cough of more than an eight of a million dollars per election cycle.

Anansi1171

(793 posts)
5. When Roberts rules that convicts having served their time are free to vote without exception...
Wed Apr 2, 2014, 03:20 PM
Apr 2014

...the you can consider his words as something other than the babel of a corrupt and dangerous hack.

AsaGordon

(6 posts)
9. Yes, GOP voter suppression efforts violate The Mal-apportionment penalty clause
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:12 PM
Feb 2015

Neo-Redemption Gerrymandering of the Electoral College,
Suffer Loss of Representatives to Congress
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=3368

The "Democratize the Electoral College" civil actions (Mal-Apportionment Penalty-MAP initiative - www.electors.us) demonstrates how "voter suppression" tactics, "Winner-take-all", and "Gerrymandered Districts" in national presidential elections violates the proportional electoral mandate of the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution adopted during Reconstruction.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Election Reform»Did SCOTUS accidentally r...