“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” That’s how Roberts began the opinion.
So I guess we can now assume that the Court will strike down all those voter-ID laws that so clearly impact that most basic of rights, and will do so by unanimous vote of the justices.
UPDATE: Reader Alex Bollinger wrote this morning in a comment to this post:
Remember when the Republican SC justices (no, I will not pretend they’re apolitical) wrote an opinion in Bush v. Gore that there’s no right to vote? And that Scalia said, several times in oral arguments on that case, that no where in the plain text of the Constitution does it say that there’s a right to vote? This finding was fundamental to their argument – if there’s no right to vote, then they could discuss and bend state election law as they’d like without respect for voters’ participation in democracy.
I’m glad these folks finally found that right! Too bad rights magically disappear and reappear based on whether they further Republican Party goals.
To which I responded:
Alex, thank you so much for reminding me that Scalia said in Bush v. Gore (and elsewhere) that the Constitution provides no right to vote! No, no, they didn’t recognize a constitutional right to vote, in McCutcheon. They just said the obvious: that there is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders, because “participate in electing our political leaders” means only campaign contributions.
Democracy is a synonym for capitalism, Alex. It says so in the First Amendment.
And “hypocrisy”–bald, jaw-dropping hypocrisy–is a synonym for the Conservative Legal Movement.