Trump's Supreme Court is the Most Anti-Voting Rights Court in 70 YearsThe far-right court has entered "a new era of extreme partisanship" and Americans are paying the price.
As the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision remains pending on Louisiana v. Callais – which could potentially gut the Voting Rights Act – the Washington Post released a new analysis confirming that the Court remade by Donald Trump is rolling back Americans’ freedoms at a historic rate. The Court, reshaped by Trump’s three appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, is the first since before the Civil Rights Movement to reject civil and voting rights claims in a majority of cases involving women and minorities. Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. The analysis examined the first five terms of the six-justice far-right majority, including 270 decisions from 2020 to 2024 and compared them to every Court going back to the New Deal era. The reporting reveals the Trump Court has dramatically weakened the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in elections. Comment from Lauren Groh-Wargo, Fair Fight Action CEO: “The data doesn’t lie: Trump’s Supreme Court is the most anti-freedom Court we’ve seen in generations – unless you’re a billionaire or a big corporation. For the first time since the civil rights era, America’s highest Curt is actively rolling back the rights of women and minorities. Trump’s justices are not interpreting the law, they are rewriting it – acting as the legal personnel for far-right special interests. The people paying the price are the same communities that had to march, bleed, and die just to earn the right to vote.” Key Findings • Washington Post’s SCOTUS Analysis:
Clarence Thomas’ SpeechIn a rare speech made last week at the University of Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas left no ambiguity about the Court’s ideological agenda. He described progressivism as an existential threat to America, claiming it “seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government.” Justice Thomas, who has spent decades dismantling the legal framework protecting Americans’ voting rights, reproductive freedom, and other civil rights, made clear his ideological manifesto and the intention of the Court. GOP Scheme to Transform the CourtAs speculation has grown around the possible retirements of 76-year-old Justice Samuel Alito and 77-year-old Justice Clarence Thomas, Trump told Fox Business last week he already has a short list of replacements. He stated he’s “prepared” to appoint two or three additional justices. Sources close to both Alito and Thomas said to CBS News they do not plan to step down this year. But the pressure is building: if Republicans lose the Senate in November, the window for a like-minded replacement closes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the GOP would move quickly to fill any vacancy. As one analyst noted, if Alito, Thomas, or 71-year-old Chief Justice Roberts were all to retire, Trump would be on track to appoint his fourth, fifth, and even sixth justice to the Court. That outcome is not accidental. It’s the product of a decades-long, dark money-fueled project to transform the Court into the far-right’s legal personnel. Engineered primarily by Federalist Society, its co-founder Leonard Leo has played an instrumental role in placing every conservative justice now sitting on the Court. Leo has used his access to funnel influence and money to the justices he helped seat – introducing Justice Thomas to billionaire Harlan Crow, who provided Thomas with decades of undisclosed luxury travel, private jet flights, and paid private school tuition for a family member. For Justice Alito, Leo has organized a luxury fishing trip to Alaska with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer – which Alito failed to disclose while later helping decide Supreme Court cases in which Singer had significant financial interests. From 2014-2017, Leo collected more than $250 million in dark money for conservative nonprofits, followed by a $1.6 billion gift to a trust he controlled. What it Means for Voting RightsIn Louisiana v. Callais, the Court now appears poised to gut Section 2 of the VRA, the law’s last major pillar after Shelby County v. Holder stripped away its pre-clearance requirements and led states to almost immediately enact new voter laws that restricted ballot access for voters of color. A ruling limiting or eliminating Section 2 would remove the primary remaining safeguard against racially discriminatory voting maps and election practices. Such a ruling could also have a cascading effect on voting maps across Southern states where Republicans control the legislature or hold a veto-proof majority – and where voting is racially polarized. As of today, Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina have already passed new congressional maps with the aim of gaining additional Republican seats. Our analysis estimates that as much as 30 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11 percent of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could be lost if Section 2 is gutted by the far-right Court. The Washington Post analysis reports public confidence in the Court is declining along with independence. According to the latest Gallup poll, 52 percent of Americans now disapprove of the Court’s job performance, while only 42 percent approve. As the analysis = noted: “The people see such a deep divide among the justices, it undermines the sense of procedural fairness and gives the sense that the cases are coming prejudged.” Stay aware and be ready to vote. Fair Fight Action Team Paid for by Fair Fight Action.Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to stay sharp, fight back, and never miss a beat in the battle for democracy.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.