"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent says nothing about what is relevant in this case—namely, the language of the NVRA—but instead accuses us of “ignor[ing] the history of voter suppression” in this country and of “uphold[ing] a program that appears to further the . . . disenfranchise- ment of minority and low-income voters.” Post, at 5."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf

No imagine two (or three) more of her on the Court right now if Hillary had won

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3999001&forum_id=2#36222744)

Liberals are unprincipled hacks, especially liberal judges, and you can't have them in power writing the law as to fit their personal ideology

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3999001&forum_id=2#36223081)

it is utterly retarded thinking. it will help them to where republicans would naturally get about 45% of the vote, but under that (which we are basically at the point now via unfettered immigration) the whole scheme unravels.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3999001&forum_id=2#36223171)

violates §20507(a)(4), which requires States to make a

“reasonable effort” to remove the names of ineligible voters

from the rolls. The dissent thinks that this provision

authorizes the federal courts to go beyond the restrictions

set out in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and to strike down

any state law that does not meet their own standard of

“reasonableness.” But see Brief for United States as

Amicus Curiae 28–29. The dissent contends that Ohio’s

system violates this supposed “reasonableness” requirement

primarily because it relies on the failure to mail back

the postcard sent to those who have not engaged in voter

activity for two years. Based on its own cobbled-together

statistics, post, at 12–13, and a feature of human nature of

which the dissent has apparently taken judicial notice

(i.e., “the human tendency not to send back cards received

in the mail,” post, at 13), the dissent argues that the failure to send back the card in question “has no tendency to reveal accurately whether the registered voter has

changed residences”; it is an “irrelevant factor” that

“shows nothing at all that is statutorily significant.” Post, at 13–14, 17.

Whatever the meaning of §20507(a)(4)’s reference to

reasonableness, the principal dissent’s argument fails

since it is the federal NVRA, not Ohio law, that attaches

importance to the failure to send back the card. See

§§20507(d)(1)(B)(i), (d)(2)(A). The dissenters may not

think that the failure to send back the card means anything,

but that was not Congress’s view. The NVRA plainly

reflects Congress’s judgment that the failure to send back

the card, coupled with the failure to vote during the period

covering the next two general federal elections, is significant evidence that the addressee has moved.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3999001&forum_id=2#36223181)

and a feature of human nature of

which the dissent has apparently taken judicial notice

(i.e., “the human tendency not to send back cards received

in the mail,” post, at 13

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3999001&forum_id=2#36227863)