Thank you for unmasking Roberts; chief justices are not saints. Thank you also for illuminating the criminality of the Trump organization’s attitude towards compensation and taxation. On its own, the news is unbearable, but your patient explanations maker it at least digestible!
What the majority of the justices did last week was to hold that Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not make "disparate-impact" sufficient to prove that the law was violated. That was clearly wrong, as the history of the Act--and the wrongs that led to it--show. But the court did not hold that voters cannot show "disparate treatment," and while that is hard, it may not be impossible; in a North Carolina case a couple of years ago, the Fourth Circuit said that the law could not have been better designed if it had been intended to disenfranchise Black voters. That was disparate treatment. Still, you are certainly right that the immediate solution is a new Voting Rights Act, which will take more Democrats in the Senate, and holdling the House.
As for the Trump saga, once again the family has shown how faithless they are, by virtually convicting their faithful servant Weisellberg in their public comments.
Many years ago, I defended several people accused of tax fraud. I remember reading stories at the time of how people think it is a victimless crime. I never felt that way. People who cheat on their taxes are stealing from all of us. We are all victims.
Hi; you are right; the VRA act limps along, but the other prongs are much harder to prove given that clever legislatures will craft laws to seem to be neutral. The worst part of the opinion that the notion of combatting non-existent fraud is a legitimate state interest. While it is a legitimate interest, the remedy must be calibrated by the size of the occurrence of fraud--which is essentially zero.
Since I wrote my comment, I've been thinking that there's actually an "easy" fix: Have Congress amend the Voting Rights Act to restore citizens' opportunity to prove their cases by showing the discriminatory effect of a state action. The provision could be three or four sentences, tucked into a must-pass piece of legislation this year.
Thank you for unmasking Roberts; chief justices are not saints. Thank you also for illuminating the criminality of the Trump organization’s attitude towards compensation and taxation. On its own, the news is unbearable, but your patient explanations maker it at least digestible!
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate your comment.
What the majority of the justices did last week was to hold that Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not make "disparate-impact" sufficient to prove that the law was violated. That was clearly wrong, as the history of the Act--and the wrongs that led to it--show. But the court did not hold that voters cannot show "disparate treatment," and while that is hard, it may not be impossible; in a North Carolina case a couple of years ago, the Fourth Circuit said that the law could not have been better designed if it had been intended to disenfranchise Black voters. That was disparate treatment. Still, you are certainly right that the immediate solution is a new Voting Rights Act, which will take more Democrats in the Senate, and holdling the House.
As for the Trump saga, once again the family has shown how faithless they are, by virtually convicting their faithful servant Weisellberg in their public comments.
Many years ago, I defended several people accused of tax fraud. I remember reading stories at the time of how people think it is a victimless crime. I never felt that way. People who cheat on their taxes are stealing from all of us. We are all victims.
Hi; you are right; the VRA act limps along, but the other prongs are much harder to prove given that clever legislatures will craft laws to seem to be neutral. The worst part of the opinion that the notion of combatting non-existent fraud is a legitimate state interest. While it is a legitimate interest, the remedy must be calibrated by the size of the occurrence of fraud--which is essentially zero.
Since I wrote my comment, I've been thinking that there's actually an "easy" fix: Have Congress amend the Voting Rights Act to restore citizens' opportunity to prove their cases by showing the discriminatory effect of a state action. The provision could be three or four sentences, tucked into a must-pass piece of legislation this year.