It's so blatantly illegal. WTF is scotus smoking?
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
150 points (98.1% liked)
News
23287 readers
4375 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Trumpamphetamine.
Kind of a weird headline considering the supreme court is actually overturning a lower court ruling to leave Virginia's voters in place
Not really, when you consider the big picture of how there is no evidence of any illegal voting and removing voters is a Republican agenda because inconvenience is a tool for a party that never gets the popular vote directly. See criminal gerrymandering, and the anti democratic electoral collage. Take a real direct popular vote without these criminal biases and do so with ranked voting; Republicans will cease to exist.
They may mean that the phrasing makes SCOTUS sound passive, when they are arguably being 'active' in this by overturning a lower court's ruling.
Honestly, I wish I could change the headline.
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant and tbh I'm not sure how people didn't get that. Also, the state of Virginia is being active here by purging these voters in the first place. Status quo bias is a real thing and the AP seems to be bending over backwards to use it to make Republicans in Virginia and on the supreme court seem more reasonable than they're being.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I meant and tbh I’m not sure how people didn’t get that.
A lot of us are in a state of hypervigilance regarding conservative apologia, I think. False positives. Too keyed up, too ready to reach for the reflexive rebuke.
Not just the headline.
The high court, over the dissents of the three liberal justices, granted an emergency appeal from Virginia’s Republican administration led by Gov. Glenn Youngkin. The court provided no rationale for its action, which is typical in emergency appeals.
Do you have a source to the contrary?
I'm honestly not sure how that contradicts what I was trying to say there, but yeah as for my source the next paragraph of the same article
The [supreme court] justices acted on Virginia’s appeal after a federal judge found that the state illegally purged more than 1,600 voter registrations in the past two months [and told Virginia to put them back and allow them to vote like they would have been in the first place]. A federal appeals court had previously allowed the judge’s order to remain in effect.
So to recap, these voters were registered, Virginia tried to purge them less than 90 days before an election, a federal court told them to stop that and return things to normal, and the supreme court said "no, don't stop," so the AP headline that basically says "supreme court stops stop" seems overly convoluted to me and like it's kind of burying the lede here
You're adding the key context that backs up your statement. That's not what the article says. And hey, looks like the article was even updated:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday left in place Virginia’s purge voter registrations that the state says is aimed at stopping people who are not U.S. citizens from voting.
That's pretty clear to me.
States can't decide who's on the ballot but this is totally cool.
Fuck the conservative Justices.