Read on Twitter
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& #39;s saying that the preclearance coverage formula was struck down, but "congress could pass a new formula." That& #39;s technically not a lie, but what she& #39;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& #39;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& #39;s being sent by Republicans to rule against any FUTURE preclearance formulas.
And Barrett knows that. She& #39;s being sent by Republicans to rule against any FUTURE preclearance formulas.
So, when you hear moderate Democrats say "we don& #39;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& #39;s important because Section 2 is the part that says "DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IS ILLEGAL." And it& #39;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.
