Pass voting rights. Expand Scotus. Question Roberts about his Purcell principle

I'm appalled by the outcome of Scotus's Callais decision, appalled by the response in Louisiana, and appalled by the bad faith jurisprudence. I ask you to: 1. Pass the John Lewis voting rights act 2. Rebalance and expand SCOTUS with an ethics code as soon as possible 3. Call John Roberts in for questioning under oath about the Purcell Doctrine. This doctrine is a product of the Roberts' court shadow docket and it seems to be rule invoked capriciously. The Roberts' court has destroyed the public faith in Scotus with its long pattern of decisions favoring big business interests, the GOP, the heritage foundation and white male privilege. Now that the constitutional order is being undermined by the executive and scotus, Congress needs to confront the grave danger to our lives, our rights, our future, the constitution, and the principles of equal rights, freedom of speech and belief, and all the other guarantees of the constitution. Now back to the Purcell Principle: Please scrutinise the Purcell principle: Robert Hubbell explains: "The Roberts Court's so-called Purcell Doctrine ... instructs that courts should not change rules close to an election. The Roberts Court has consistently applied the Purcell doctrine to delay the implementation of judicial victories by voting rights activists. But with Callais, the Court went out of its way to accelerate the release of the decision, ensuring that it was available two months before the final week of its term in June. (Major decisions are typically released the final week of June.) When Louisiana canceled an in-process election to redraw its congressional district maps, the Callais decision was not yet final. Under normal operating procedure, Supreme Court decisions do not become "final" until 32 days (at least) after the opinion is issued. So, voting right activists opposed Louisiana's efforts, in part, on the ground that the redistricting was premature because Callais was not final. ut the reactionary majority came to Louisiana’s rescue. For only the third time in 25 years, the Court granted immediate effect to the Callais decision, allowing Louisiana to change its maps before the November midterms. See Dissent of Justice Jackson, Callais v. Louisiana. Justice Jackson wrote, Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation. The Court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map. [¶[ The Court unshackles itself from [prior] constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent." Read what the Fordham democracy project says about the "Purcell principle": "In theory, the Principle makes sense: voters may be confused if election rules or procedures are changed in the weeks leading up to an election. In practice, however, the Purcell Principle prevents courts from remedying unconstitutional or illegal voting procedures until after an election occurs. The judiciary’s application of the Purcell Principle has already had sprawling consequences for democracy and could have a significant impact on future elections. The Purcell Principle is a convoluted, under-theorized doctrine, borne out of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, that is continuously evolving at all levels of the federal judiciary." This so called "principle" seems to be a jurisprudential rabbit to be whipped out of a hat when convenient and ignored when not. But the Purcell principle is of course not the only problem. It is a symptom of a rogue activist blatantly racist and emboldened SCOTUS. Every aspect of the judicial "reasoning" of the Calais decision reeks of Jim Crow racist voter suppression. Every action taken so far by southern states in response to the decision heralds injustice, oppression, and confederate malice. Please: Summon Roberts in for questioning under oath. Even if he refuses, the summons is an opportunity to show that Congress, at least, repudiates the evisceration of the 15th Amendment.