• HWK_290@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m confused on what this actually means, if it’s not appealed. Sounds like private groups could no longer invoke the voting rights act?

    • neatchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is an issue called “standing”. In the American legal system, in order to bring a case to court, you must have proper legal standing to make whatever argument or claim you’re trying to make.

      For example, I can’t sue someone that harms my neighbor. I don’t have standing to do so. My neighbor has to be the one to do it.

      The ruling in this case essentially says that only the federal government has standing to bring Section 2 complaints

      It’s a crappy ruling and will almost certainly be overturned because it makes no sense to have the federal government be the one responsible for enforcing local violations of the VRA

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is an issue called “standing”. In the American legal system, in order to bring a case to court, you must have proper legal standing to make whatever argument or claim you’re trying to make.

        It’s great that standing can be hypothetical when the courts rule in favor of bigoted wedding photographers, but can’t even exist when Republicans disenfranchise the minorities they hate.

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, this is coming out of the 8th Circuit. Look at the territory they cover. I’m not even remotely surprised

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a crappy ruling and will almost certainly be overturned because it makes no sense to have the federal government be the one responsible for enforcing local violations of the VRA

        You’ve more faith in the Supreme court than I…

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t have faith in their ethics or logic. But I do have faith in their understanding that backing the 8th Circuit on this would be political suicide. It would catalyze their opponents in a way they are not interested in

          • ApostleO@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the great thing about lifetime appointments: they don’t have to care about their opponents at all (up until the point of violence).

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They can’t lose their jobs, but they can sabotage the outcomes they want to achieve. If they didn’t care about achieving something through their work, they’d just go on vacation for the rest of their lives.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unless youre the AG of Missouri suing to stop student loan forgiveness to protect the bottom line of a company, a company that didn’t ask for help, upon standing that if company closes up shop then Missouri will lose tax revenue.

        This is not what the law is supposed to be

        Use of the law like this, ticky tacky application and enforcement, and wholesale non enforcement of the wealthy will lead to no one respecting the law. Because the actions of the judicial branch aren’t respectable. Inequality is tracked for a reason. When it becomes too much? Historically, we see revolution. France removed their last monarchs head before it got as bad as it now. So wealth inequality is worse NOW than it was for the French Revolution.

        I’m not saying we need to guillotine the 1% and their stooges, but I sure ain’t gonna stop anyone who is, know what I mean?

        Some people will fear the law, the same way people feared the mafia, but respect? Yea, nope. That’s earned. Change the rules all you want, you can’t make people respect a bunch of Grammer nazi bitches.

    • nomecks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      All previous rulings would be open to challenge. It would absolutely gut all progress that’s been made in the last forty years.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It means that any voter who is not white as snow needs to pay attention. This is a direct attack.

      And any voter who is white as snow should get ready to fight for the rights of their brothers and sisters of color.