Does federal law ban voter intimidation? Views differ
By 
The choice of Senate Dems to focus on Barrett’s stated belief that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional makes good political sense. But the fact that she’s being rushed onto the Court to help Republicans ratfuck elections deserves more publicity, and Amy Klobuchar did a good job on this:
WATCH: Senator @amyklobuchar just asked Judge Barrett whether it’s illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls.
Barrett refused to answer. Then Klobuchar read her the law. Astonishing. pic.twitter.com/cxoIaXTP9e— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) October 13, 2020
Klobuchar: That is why not having Justice Ginsburg on the court right now is so frightening to so many Americans out there pic.twitter.com/ydZDWBi5JH— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) October 13, 2020
I’m sure a former Amy Chua student is drafting the outline of an opinion holding that applying the ban on voter intimidation may violate the equal sovereign dignitude of the states, although ratfucking is an issue that presents many complexities so the decision must be limited to the present circumstances.
One of the most important reasons Barrett is being rammed through is to be another life-tenured solider in John Roberts’s career-long war on voting rights. Oh, and she also refused to commit to recusing herself if Daddy Trump can get an election case to the Supreme Court.
As Klobuchar pointed out, last night the 5th Circuit upheld Greg Abbott’s recent vote suppression measures, asserting that it “strained” to see how limiting a county with nearly 5 million residents to the same majestically equal one dropoff point as sparsely populated rural counties could burden the right to vote at all. This is the present and future Republicans want, and I’d say 5CA could use about 20 new seats.