Plus they forgot few key words “in certain specific ways”. I don’t think say for example all of USA women are going to lose the right to vote. Something about a constitutional amendment. People shouldn’t blanket compare to Gilded Age, Dark Age etc.
I’m sure they thought themselves clever. Yeah their specific comparison in actual article was on point and then they go ruin it by over generalizing in the headline and insert
See, here’s the scary part - through the theory of original intent, and with enough creative wording, SCOTUS can find interesting ways to end-run around constitutional protections, and there’s very little recourse to this if enough of the court goes along with it (and if cases are brought dealing with these specific issues). Additionally, it actually wouldn’t be that hard to disenfranchise voters - simply drop them off voter rolls, continually. I have a friend who had to reregister twice with his state in the last 8 years because a good chunk of his entire county’s population got purged from the rolls. There’s, again, very little recourse on this because enforcement of compliance with things like federal law rests entirely on the federal government, and the incoming admin has shown a willingness in the past to simply ignore enforcement of things they don’t want to enforce.
Gilded Age or Dark Ages, which one, they’re different.
Plus they forgot few key words “in certain specific ways”. I don’t think say for example all of USA women are going to lose the right to vote. Something about a constitutional amendment. People shouldn’t blanket compare to Gilded Age, Dark Age etc.
I’m sure they thought themselves clever. Yeah their specific comparison in actual article was on point and then they go ruin it by over generalizing in the headline and insert
You don’t have any reason to obey the constitution if you control the Supreme Court.
See, here’s the scary part - through the theory of original intent, and with enough creative wording, SCOTUS can find interesting ways to end-run around constitutional protections, and there’s very little recourse to this if enough of the court goes along with it (and if cases are brought dealing with these specific issues). Additionally, it actually wouldn’t be that hard to disenfranchise voters - simply drop them off voter rolls, continually. I have a friend who had to reregister twice with his state in the last 8 years because a good chunk of his entire county’s population got purged from the rolls. There’s, again, very little recourse on this because enforcement of compliance with things like federal law rests entirely on the federal government, and the incoming admin has shown a willingness in the past to simply ignore enforcement of things they don’t want to enforce.