law. they went all around the legislative intent. they went all around the history behind the voting rights act. to come up with some arbitrary five five-factor test that i i don t know where they found it. to to, in essence, weaken this law. but again, this ball is now in congress s purview. they have to act. and we are gonna work very, very hard with our democrats in the united states senate, in the united states house, to act. we have to do that in order to protect the rights of so many americans. > listen to what the president said today and mentioning some of the other elements and some of the other restrictive voting laws that republicans are passing. it is mildly positive, in the sense that there s a remedy available, based on the particular voting decision. i think that it is critical that
law, and do everything to subvert the letter of the law. they went all around the legislative intent. and went all around the history behind voting rights act. to come up some arbitrary test, i don t know where they found it. to innocence, week in this law. again, this ball is now in congress is hands. they have to act. we are going to work very, very hard, with our democrats in the united states than it, and the united shouts state to act. we have to do it in order to protect the rights of so many americans. this is what the president said today in reaction to this, and mentioning some of the other elements and some of the other restrictive voting laws that republicans are passing. it is my sense that there is a remedy based on the particular voting decision.
particular voting decision. i think that it is critical that we make a distinction between voter suppression and suspension. the ability of a state legislative body to come along and vote their their legislature vote to change who is declared who is the winner i find to be somewhat astounding. but the supreme court rule did not rule that way today to the best of my knowledge. i ll have much more to say about that because i plan on speaking extensively on voting rights and as well as going on the road on this issue. thank you very much. neil: all right. the only nonsurfside issue to come up on that voting rights measure, of course, the supreme court news on that.
[ me and you by barry louis polisar ] -read the room, guys. -yeah. me and you just singing on the train me and you listening to the rain me and you we are the same me and you have all the fame we need indeed, you and me are we me and you singing in the park me and you, we re waiting for the dark it is my only positive in the sense that there s a remedy available based on the particular voting decision. i think that it is critical that
ballot harvesting ban was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. in her dissent, justice kagan took aim at the majority, accusing them of rewriting the law in order to weaken a statute that stands as a minute to america s greatness that protects against its basest impulses. prisoner biden called the decision deeply disappointing. president biden: it is mildly positive in the sense that there is a remedy available based on the particular voting decision. i plan on speaking extensively on voting rights. the court s decision comes just days after the justice department announced its lawsuit against georgia s new election law. the department of justice shouldn t be weaponizing this process and punishing states for trying to enact measures that protect voters. the doj says today it remains strongly committed to challenging discriminatory election laws. in the court s final opinion of the term, the justices struck down california regulation