Harris is now explaining Shelby County v Holder to Amy Coney Barrett who pretended to not know what the case was about.
OKAY, ACB is being intellectually dishonest about the holding. She's saying that the preclearance coverage formula was struck down, but "congress could pass a new formula." That's technically not a lie, but what she's not telling you...
is that Roberts struck down the preclearance formula in such a way as to make it unlikely that ANY preclearance formula could be legislated that would pass constitutional muster.
So ACB's refusal to answer this question goes to the HEART of whether the Voting Rights Act can ever be made whole again.

And Barrett knows that. She's being sent by Republicans to rule against any FUTURE preclearance formulas.
So, when you hear moderate Democrats say "we don't have to pack the court, we can just pass a NEW voting rights act" PLEASE KNOW that the first thing a 6-3 Republican court does to a new voting rights act is to strike it down on the same logic it struck down the old one.
Barrett also refused to say if section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is constitutional. That's important because Section 2 is the part that says "DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IS ILLEGAL." And it's a frontal challenge the Section 2 that the Court agreed to hear as soon as RBG died.
Let me just highlight this point. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a frontal challenge to the Voting Rights Act, on their FIRST DAY OF BUSINESS reconvening after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.
You can follow @ElieNYC.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: