No kidding.
But, wait ... Earlier this week the same Court ruled -- against a mountain of evidence found in laws passed in states across the country that limited, restricted or otherwise denied the voting rights of certain individuals -- that the states had a right to do just that: restrict, limit or deny the right to vote based on the biases and agendas of state legislators and governors.
The essential element of a free nation -- the right to freely choose its leaders -- was utterly destroyed by the ruling. Now -- and the mad rush to do so began minutes after the ruling -- the states covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are free to implement laws designed specifically to reduce the number of citizens allowed to vote in whatever manner the state legislatures decide. The Court tossed it back to the Congress (!) with the suggestion that a new law should be written -- one that would guarantee that which is already guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution.
What does it all mean? Victory for human rights? Victory for political rights? Or in the twisted jargon of this extreme right-wing Court, was the real victory given to those who support and advocate the concept of Federalism -- that state power can trump federal power (very broadly speaking) in those issues not specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?
Wasn't Federalism (as a right-wing, political concept) this week in these three rulings given the greatest comeback since Lazarus?
