Elie Mystal: The “Chief Architect” Of The Assault On Voting Rights Is Chief Justice John Roberts

$upport via Cash App

The Nation’s Justice Correspondent, Elie Mystal, dropped a major bombshell on MSNBC’s American Voices (01/16/22), when he slammed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as the “chief architect” of the assault on voting rights. Unlike many mainstream media pundits who engage in incendiary rhetoric just for ratings, Elie Mystal backed up his bombshell assertion with very good examples that would make any reasonable person either agree with him, or at the very least, find his assertion quite plausible. The fact that Elie Mystal’s bombshell claims pass the plausibility test, should compel Chief Justice Roberts to address them, for the sake of the Supreme Court’s integrity.

Elie Mystal specifically said: “The chief architect of this assault on our voting rights is not Mitch McConnell, it’s not ot David Duke, it’s not whatever boogey man you think is hiding under the closet. The chief architect is Chief Justice John Roberts. It is he who has been an enemy of voting rights and racial equality from his very first job out of law school, which was to oppose the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. It is John Roberts who authored Shelby County v Holder in 2013 which eviscerated section 5 of Voting Rights Act which is basically why we are here right now, it is John Roberts who authored Rucho in 2020 which swung wide the doors towards gerrymandering, and it is John Roberts who provided the crucial 5th vote in last year’s Brnovich decision which eviscerated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is all being done by Federalist Society conservatives that have been put on the Supreme Court, and until we stop them, until we do something about the court–you want to pass your Freedom to Vote Act, I think that’s a great bill, we should pass it, I think we should have passed HR1, but always remember that John Roberts and his conservative cronies are waiting at the Supreme Court level to strike down whatever laws we put forward. As long as you let Republicans control the Supreme Court, you cannot have a fair and equal just society.”

It’s worth pointing out here too, that Elie Mystal is not only decrying Chief Justice Roberts’ questionable history on voting rights, but crucially, also making the point that minorities are doomed going forward, with him at the helm of the Supreme Court. This naturally raises the question as to whether Chief Justice Roberts is the right person to lead the high court.

Bottom line folks, these are questions that the mainstream media needs to take up with Chief Justice Roberts. At a time when voting rights are a red hot topic, and minorities are increasingly concerned about Republicans infringing upon their right to vote, the public deserves to know whether the Roberts Supreme Court will be a neutral arbiter in the fight for voting rights, as it should be.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Sen Cassidy Says SCOTUS Decision Gutting Voting Rights Act Justifies Restrictive State Election Laws

$upport via Cash App

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) appeared on CNN’s State of The Union show (01/16/22) to put forward the Republican position on the push for a federal voting rights legislation(John Lewis Voting Rights Act), and also discuss the related question as to whether the U.S. Senate should change its filibuster rules to allow for the passage of the said voting rights law via a simple majority vote. When asked by host Jake Tapper why Republicans are now opposed to keeping key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act(VRA) intact, when as recently as a decade ago they were all for it, Sen Cassidy gave a strange response which appeared to suggest that because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted key provisions of the VRA in Shelby County v Holder(2013), there is no need to be concerned about discriminatory state election laws–that this is not 1965 anymore, things have changed.

Yours Truly, and I suspect a lot of other viewers too, found Senator Cassidy’s Response quite strange because while liberals agree that this is not 1965, and that progress has been made on the civil rights front, we need to restore key aspects of the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Trump’s GOP is taking us back to 1965. In other words, Senator Cassidy, and by extension the Roberts Supreme Court, are totally wrong in their assessment that simply because this is not 1965, Republican states are no longer capable of crafting discriminatory election laws. The facts on the ground clearly show that after the 2020 election, relying on former President Trump’s “big lie“, many Republican-controlled states have hurriedly enacted election laws that reasonable people agree, disenfranchise voters of color.

Senator Cassidy specifically said on CNNSOTU(video @ 2:20 onwards): “The Supreme Court decided[paused for effect], the Supreme Court decided that the conditions in 1965 are different than the conditions now. Imagine that. We’ve had an African-American elected President of the United States, we’ve had an African-American elected to the Vice Presidency, an African-American elected to the[U.S.]Senate in South Carolina. Now, if anyone can’t see that circumstances have changed, they’re just not believing their lying eye…There’s more to do, absolutely, we need safeguards, but to argue we are still the same as we were in 1965 is to deny facts that are clearly before us.”

There’s no other way any reasonable person presented with Senator Cassidy’s response(including his pause for effect), would arrive at any other conclusion other than, because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 citing changed conditions, the voter suppression laws currently popping up in red states are justified. Think about that, the new Republican rationale for voter suppression, as articulated by Senator Cassidy, is that it’s not a big deal because if it was, the Roberts Supreme Court would never have gutted key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act–a sad state of affairs indeed.

Bottom line folks, Dems must use every tool at their disposal to get holdout Senators Kyrsten Sinema(D-AZ) and Joe Manchin(D-WV) to agree to a filibuster carveout for a federal voting rights legislation before the 2022 midterms because if they don’t, all the gains we’ve witnessed thus far as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act will be lost, and the Roberts Supreme Court will not lift a finger to assist. Simply put, it’s now or never for a federal voting rights law that restores key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Ingraham-Ted Cruz SCOTUS Ultimatum: Strike Down Roe v Wade Or Face Limited Jurisdiction

$upport via Cash App

Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) appeared on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle show (12/1/21) to discuss the Mississippi abortion law currently playing out at the United States Supreme Court. Conservatives consider this Mississippi law their best shot at dealing a fatal blow to the 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalized abortion, given the fact that they now enjoy a 6-3 advantage on the high court. What caught Yours Truly’s attention from the interview however, was the very direct way(not subtle any more) both Senator Cruz and host Laura Ingraham, a very influential Republican in her own right, expect, even demand that the conservative Supreme Court justices toe the conservative ideological line. As a matter of fact, Ingraham and Senator Cruz went as far as laying an ultimatum to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Strike down Roe v Wade or suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction court.

During the interview, as Senator Cruz was going on and on about why he thought the conservative Supreme Court would uphold the Mississippi abortion law, host Laura Ingraham interjected: “Senator if we have six Republican appointees on this court, after all the money that’s been raised, the Federalist Society, all these big fat cat dinners, I’m sorry, I’m pissed about this. If this court, with six justices cannot do the right thing here, the constitutional thing, then I think it’s time to do what Robert Bork said we should do, which is to circumscribe the jurisdiction of this court, and they want to blow it up, then that’s the way to change things finally because this can’t stand. This is insane.”

A concurring Senator Cruz responded: “I would do that in a heartbeat. As you know, the constitution gives Congress the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the court, I think we should do that…”

There’s no other way any reasonable person would interpret Senator Cruz’s interaction with Fox News host Laura Ingraham other than Republicans have for decades, organized and raised large sums of money through the Federalist Society and others, to put like-minded justices on the United States Supreme Court, for the express purpose of overturning Roe v Wade, and for the high court to generally act as a rubber stamp for other Republican Party/conservative ideals. What Senator Cruz and Ingraham are expressly conveying to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clear, and that is, they better toe the Republican Party line by striking down Roe v Wade, or else suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction Supreme Court–have their powers reduced.

This direct threat Senator Cruz and Ingraham leveled at the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court confirms what liberals have argued all along, and that is, the U.S. Supreme Court as is currently constituted, six conservatives and three liberals, is for all intents and purposes, a political court. This is especially so when one considers the egregious conduct of then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY), who robbed President Obama of an opportunity to fill the late Justice Scalia’s seat using the bogus “election year” rationale. Sen McConnell then turned around and abandoned his “election year” rationale in late 2020, to rush through the confirmation of Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ginsburg. Simply put, the conservative Roberts Supreme Court has become a political body, whether or not the justices want to acknowledge that fact.

Bottom line folks, this ultimatum by Senator Cruz and Ingraham should put to rest this myth that the 6-3 Roberts Supreme Court is some apolitical body, only interested in deciding cases on their legal merits. Republicans have fought for decades, and have succeeded in installing justices they are sure, will tow the GOP line. Now they expect/are demanding results, beginning with Roe v Wade. The only question remaining should be how we free the U.S. Supreme Court from it’s GOP captors, and revert it back to it’s proper realm, as the premier legal institution in America. One possible solution would be to expand the court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Three Indiana Judges Shot At After Drunken Brawl

A shocking NBC News piece says three Indiana state judges have been suspended without pay after they went on a drinking spree that resulted in a brawl and them getting shot at. Luckily, no one was killed in this incident which happened on May 1 after the judges attended a Judicial conference in Indianapolis and decided on a night of drinking afterwards.

The judges apparently left the judicial conference where they had been drinking, went to a bar for some more drinks and then decided to visit a local strip club after 3am. (Yeah, Judges go to strip clubs? Who knew?) Because the strip club was closed, they settled for a White Castle Restaurant.

It is at the parking lot of the White Castle restaurant that one of the judges, Sabrina Bell flipped off some motorists, who then got out of their car and got in a verbal altercation with the judges which resulted in a brawl and them getting shot at. According to the NBC News piece judge Sabrina Bell was so drunk that night that when she spoke to investigators she could not even remember flipping off the motorists–the very thing that caused the fight.

Lately there has been a lot of talk about judicial misconduct and specifically whether judges should be allowed to continue policing themselves. This topic came to a head after the contentious confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was the subject of a lot of complaints while he was a federal appeals judge, including some that he lied to Congress (a felony).

The public was concerned that complaints against Kavanaugh were not being fully addressed because judges basically police themselves and more often than not, just give each other a pass when complaints are filed against them. The other issue with Kavanaugh was this defense that because he was now a Supreme Court justice, the rules that applied to his tenure as a federal appeals judge were no longer applicable. There is no judicial complaint mechanism for U.S. Supreme Court justices so the complaints against Kavanaugh basically vanished.

This troubling incident in Indiana will certainly lead to more calls for some stricter accountability measures against judges, beyond the judicial complaint system which most legal analysts agree is toothless. Should judges be subject to an outside independent disciplinary body? Would this be too disruptive to the judicial process, especially if it is left to politicians? These are some of the weighty questions that need to be addressed in light of this troubling Indiana incident.

As it currently stands, these three judges are on suspension without pay but all indications are that they will be allowed to resume their duties after a few weeks. Is it possible for the public to ever respect these judges if they are put back on the bench after this incident? In my humble opinion, any judge who goes out on a drinking spree, then ends up looking for a strip club after 3 am, then gets into a brawl with a member of the public where shots are fired, is for all intents and purposes disqualified from ever serving as a judge in the United States.

Anybody who allows these characters to resume their judicial duties will be doing so to the detriment of the entire Indiana judiciary. As a matter of fact there needs to be a thorough investigation into their conduct as judges because troubling incidents like these are often symptoms of much bigger, unaddressed issues.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Faces Behind Dark Money Group Buying Judges

There’s been a lot of concern in recent years about the increasing politicization of our judiciary both at the state and the federal level. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Brennan Center and a battery of little known “court watcher” groups like Justice at Stake have been in the forefront of this war for years. This issue was even addressed by an esteemed panel of state and federal judges at an event that was televised on CSPAN. Simply put, state high courts and federal courts have become too politicized, and there is a lot of dark money dictating which judges end up in these highly influential courts.

It is however the 2018 highly contentious Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation process that elevated the court politicization debate to a national stage and audience. The reverberations from the 2018 Kavanaugh confirmation process are still heard to this day and with them, mounting questions as to who/what are the powers behind the judges that end up being confirmed to the nation’s highest courts. Well, one name came up in the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation process–The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)

We now know that JCN spent a staggering $22 million dollars just to ensure that Kavanaugh got confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and that $17 million dollars of that came from one mysterious donor. A reasonable argument can be made that this mysterious donor essentially bought Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court seat.

Prior to Kavanaugh, JCN pumped a lot of money into Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation and according to media reports, they also played a very active role in blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merick Garland. So while a lot of the vitriol is directed at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for blocking Garland’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is very important to remember that McConnell was largely playing to the tunes of the JCN who by all accounts appear to be literally buying judgeships both at the state and federal level.

As your trusted grassroots reporter doing what the mainstream media is afraid to do, Yours Truly is therefore forced to dig into the JCN and expose the faces of those seemingly purchasing our judiciary and turning our courts away from their original mission of impartial administration of justice, into partial instruments for the satisfaction of JCN’s political interests–a total travesty!!

Here are the faces behind JCN

According to this 2015 Daily Beast piece titled “The JCN Story: Building a Secretive GOP Judicial Machine”, Carrie Serevino who is JCN’s Chief Counsel, essentially runs this secretive outfit. She however enjoys the support and funding from high powered conservatives like lawyer Ann Corkery, real estate magnate Robin Arkley II, and Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo. The Federalist Society as you know handpicked Kavanaugh and has a list of other Supreme Court nominees ready for Trump in case another Supreme Court vacancy arises. Lawyer Ann Corkery is tied to the Wellspring Committee which funds JCN and has deep ties to the Koch Brothers.

Bottom line folks, it is no secret that our judiciary which the founding fathers hoped would strive for the impartial administration of justice, has fallen prey to Carrie Serevino’s JCN and other Conservative dark money groups. No reasonable person can ever conclude that Carrie Serevino’s JCN, a Conservative political outfit, is pouring all this money to ensure that judges they pick end up in influential state and federal courts, without the expectation that the said handpicked judges will decide cases in JCN’s favor. Simply put folks, Carrie Serevino’s JCN has purchased our judiciary and turned it into what our founding fathers would roundly rebuke–a partial, bought judiciary. Its about time Democrats and the mainstream media took Carrie’s JCN and its shadowy funders to task!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Trump And McConnell “Whitening” Federal Courts

OutfrontCNN recently did a segment about a sitting federal judge in mississippi rebuking Trump’s attacks on the federal judges, especially judges of color, and likening such attacks to racial attacks by the Ku Klux KLan. The judge raised several issues of concern but the one that caught Yours Truly’s attention was his assertion that a staggering 90% of Trump’s judicial picks are White. This is a shocking statistic that we rarely hear from the mainstream media and should certainly be explored further especially as Trump’s enforcer in the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, continues to bend the rules to push through Trump’s judicial picks. The full OutFrontCNN segment is available here but the relevant clip is below

There are already a lot of complaints about how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is bending U.S. Senate rules to pack federal courts with right wing judges. This troubling revelation that Sen McConnell and Trump are essentially “Whitening” the federal courts instead of making them more reflective the country’s current racial makeup should concern everybody. As Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson, the guest in the OutFrontCNN segment correctly pointed out, “We need a federal judiciary that looks like the populace.”

Bottom line, Mitch McConnell bending Senate rules to pack the federal courts with right wing judges is in itself, very detrimental to the judiciary’s image because people lose respect for a court that is viewed to be rigged/biased. With this new revelation that there’s a racial element to Trump/MitchMcConnell’s court-packing, everyone should be calling for an immediate pause to the judicial selection process until such a time as a respectable bipartisan mechanism for filling judicial vacancies can be put in place. Simply put, McConnell and Trump packing the courts with 90% White right wing damages is doing irreparable damage to the federal judiciary and must be stopped for the court’s sake. This is not a partisan issue

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. 

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Can A Sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Be Indicted?

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections heats up and more and more evidence continues to pop up indicating that then presidential candidate Trump was either fully aware of or an active participant in the interference, legal eagles are grappling with the question as to whether a sitting U.S. President can be indicted.

As it currently stands, according to many of the legal eagle pundits on cable TV, the answer to that question is no. There is apparently a Department of Justice(DOJ) policy that advises against indicting a sitting president. The pundits are quick to point out however that this is only a directive that can be changed at any time(not set in stone). Respected legal scholars like Harvard University’s Lawrence Tribe have argued against this DOJ directive saying nothing in the U.S. constitution prohibits a sitting president from being indicted if he is found to have committed crimes.

Strangely missing from the “to indict or not to indict” debate however is the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice can be indicted. We are of course talking about recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who as you will remember was the subject of numerous serious judicial complaints. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred the judicial complaints to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for resolution.

A judicial council at the 10th Circuit Court recently dismissed all the complaints against Kavanaugh concluding that even though the allegations were serious, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because Kavanaugh was no longer a federal appeals judge and thus not subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that deals with disciplining federal district court judges, magistrates and circuit appellate justices. Essentially, because Kavanaugh had been elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act no longer applied to him.

It is very important to point out that among the serious accusations against Kavanaugh was that he lied multiple times to congress while under oath. Lying to congress as you know is a serious felony, especially in Kavanaugh’s case given the fact that (1) he did that as a federal judge who should know better and (2) he lied to congress on multiple occasions.

An excerpt from 12/18/2018 USA Today article

The logical question then becomes if Kavanaugh can be proven to have lied to congress under oath, a felony, can he be indicted? Is it possible to indict a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice or are they for all intents and purposes, above the law? Is there any case law that precludes such an eventuality? All these are serious questions that one would think the mainstream media would have posed to the myriad TV legal eagle pundits by now. Instead as it has now become customary, it is left to Yours Truly to ask the serious questions the mainstream media won’t ask, for which the public is desperately seeking answers to.

Bottom line with all the attention focused on whether Trump can be indicted, it is about time the mainstream media also started asking the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in this case Kavanaugh, can be indicted.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. 

GOP Set To Reward Gerrymandering Mastermind With Federal Judgeship

Thomas Alvin Farr–Nominee for Federal Judge for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina

In case you missed it earlier this week, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported on a plan by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY) and his fellow GOP Senators to reward a North Carolina Republican lawyer, Thomas Alvin Farr, with a lifetime federal judgeship. According to Maddow, the Senate vote is scheduled for Monday after Thanksgiving(Nov 26). The full Maddow segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

As Maddow correctly pointed out, Thomas Farr is the author of the racially gerrymandered North Carolina electoral map that a federal appeals court struck down for “targeting African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Thomas Farr’s racially gerrymandered electoral map was struck down by a federal appeals court

It is because of Thomas Farr’s racially gerrymandered maps that electoral travesties like the one below are commonplace in North Carolina. In other words, no matter how well Democrats perform in elections, the GOP is assured control of the North Carolina legislature.

The effects of Thomas Farr’s gerrymandering in North Carolina

So while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is out there preaching bipartisanship now that the Democrats have taken over the House, behind the scenes and away from the limelight he is sticking true to form, packing the federal courts with radical right-wing judges with total disregard to the wishes of Senate Democrats.

Bottom line now that Democrats control the House, Senate Democrats must force concessions on some of these judicial nominees. Senate Democrats must make it absolutely clear to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republicans that rewarding Thomas farr with a lifetime federal judgeship despite his well-chronicled history of racial gerrymandering will make it impossible for bipartisan cooperation on other issues of importance. Simply put, Senate Dems must confront Sen Mitch McConnell on his phony call for bipartisanship right after the November elections.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Is Independent. Is It?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with C.J. John Roberts

In a rare public address Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the recent contentious Kavanaugh confirmation process and reiterated how important it is that the public views the High Court as independent. C.J. Roberts said regarding judicial independence, “Our role[Supreme Court] is very clear. We are to interpret the constitution and the laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them. That job obviously requires independence from the political branches.”

The problem with that is the person at the center of the public’s disaffection with the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also recently spoken about the Roberts Court. Sen McConnell and by extension his GOP’s view of the Roberts Supreme Court is in stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts says. Specifically, there is no question that according to Sen McConnell and his GOP, they have fought hard to pack the Roberts Supreme Court with conservative judges for the express purpose of getting favorable decisions from the court..

Sen McConnell recently said at a press conference following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If you want to have a long term impact, and obviously all of us would like to do that, the single most significant way to do it is judicial appointments and my party has not been in this position all that long. You can go back 100 years and only 20 of the last 100 years have Republicans had the Presidency, the House and Senate the same time, and so these opportunities have not come along that often for us and I do think it is the most consequential thing that I’ve been involved in in my time as leader.”

So what is a regular American looking at Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks about judicial independence and Senator McConnell’s partisan political remarks about judicial appointments supposed to think? Why would Sen McConnell and his GOP block President Obama’s rightful nominee Garland and then ram through Kavanaugh if the end result was to have an independent Supreme Court? Reasonable people would agree that if the Supreme Court was truly independent as Chief Justice Roberts argues, there would be more consensus in the senate confirmation process. In other words the fact that the senate confirmation fights have become so bitter is in itself proof of a partisan Roberts Supreme Court.


Bottom line as Yours Truly said in an earlier post, the Roberts Supreme Court has a serious credibility problem. It is sad to say it but most Americans are more inclined to believe Sen McConnell’s narrative over that of C.J. Roberts–that Republicans have made the Roberts Supreme Court a conservative court with the express intention of using the High Court to advance their Republican agenda–a partisan political court. Simply put, there is no way any reasonable person looking at the way Sen McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee Garland, rammed Kavanaugh through, and then gave a press conference bragging about his legacy of steering the court to the right, can ever conclude that the Roberts Supreme Court is somehow an independent court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Roberts Supreme Court Helping GOP Disenfranchise Minority Voters

Conservatives on the Roberts Supreme Court

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has for a long time covered stories about the GOP’s various efforts at minority voter suppression, the latest one being the effort by North Dakota Republicans to suppress the vote of Native Americans in the state who were key to Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp‘s win in 2012. According to Maddow, right after Sen Heitkamp’s win in 2012, North Dakota state GOP officials embarked on a scheme to suppress the vote of her key Native American voting base.

The GOP suppression scheme of choice was to require all Native Americans to present an ID with a street address in order to vote, something they knew many tribal IDs don’t have because they live in reservations. According to O.J. Semans, Executive Director of Four Directions, a Native American advocacy group, “The street addresses is very common maybe in cities but on reservations, street addresses literally do not exist.”

So you ask, “Well @Emolclause if Maddow has covered a lot of GOP voter suppression stories why is this North Dakota case special?” Here’s why. According to Maddow, a very troubling pattern is developing. Unlike in previous cases where such blatant GOP voter suppression tactics were being easily struck down in federal court, now it appears that the conservatives at the Roberts Supreme Court are increasingly affirming these shocking GOP voter suppression tactics–yeah you heard that right–the conservatives in the Roberts Supreme Court are helping the GOP cheat in elections.The conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court knows full well that imposing the street address requirement on Native American voters in North Dakota will suppress their vote but they still affirmed the challenged GOP state law–the height of injustice.


Sadly the injustice by the conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t end there. Maddow recently did a story about how Texas GOP officials are trying to suppress the vote of students at the predominantly Black Prairie View A & M University which is located in predominantly White Whaler County(you’ll probably remember Whaler County due to Sandra Bland). At issue here is whether the Black PVAMU students should vote in Whaler county simply because they attend school there. According to Maddow a decades old Supreme Court precedent already settled this issue in the Black students’ favor but now Texas @GOP officials are bringing the issue back because of a recent Roberts Supreme Court decision.

Maddow’s guest Mike Siegel a Dem congressional candidate said, “This very late change to the voting status of the students is something that would not have been allowed under the previous version of the Voting Rights Act. Texas used to be in pre-clearance and this is something that because its an impediment to voting wouldn’t have been allowed but for that recent Supreme Court[Roberts] decision that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act.”

Bottom line one is left wondering what the founding fathers would think of the Roberts Supreme Court which is now literally helping a major political party disenfranchise voters of color? It is already very hard for Americans to respect the Roberts Supreme Court which now features Kavanaugh given his very shady confirmation process. Now that on top of that the court is literally helping GOP to disenfranchise minority voters, only God knows what the future holds for the once hallowed High Court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out