• Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a textbook case on how to eliminate voting rights without actually repealing laws on voting rights. This allows them to say that “the courts have solved issues with partisan gerrymadering, which still remains illegal under this ruling” while making partisan gerrymandering de-facto legal by taking away anyone’s right to actually enforce the law. I mean sure, it’s still illegal. All you need to do is find someone with standing to actually sue…oh, wait.

    It’s logic similar to what was used to rescind Trump’s gag orders recently. Sure, witness intimidation and jury tampering are still illegal. But recent rulings have also said that doing anything about it violates the attacker’s free speech rights, making the laws effectively meaningless if those rulings stand.

    Same goes for the Colorado ruling. Sure, Trump engaged in insurrection. But because the Founding Fathers didn’t specify “Office of the President”, they clearly meant that those engaged in insurrection can never hold another public office again, except for the Presidency, because they clearly wanted traitors to still have a shot at leading the country, rendering Section 3 of the 14th amendment useless.

    This is probably going to be the GOP MO going forward: Rescinding the laws would be too unpopular and cause too much backlash, so instead they’ll just render the laws they don’t like useless by making them impossible to enforce.