The high court, over the dissents of the three liberal justices, granted an emergency appeal from Virginia’s Republican administration led by Gov. Glenn Youngkin. The court provided no rationale for its action, which is typical in emergency appeals.
I’m honestly not sure how that contradicts what I was trying to say there, but yeah as for my source the next paragraph of the same article
The [supreme court] justices acted on Virginia’s appeal after a federal judge found that the state illegally purged more than 1,600 voter registrations in the past two months [and told Virginia to put them back and allow them to vote like they would have been in the first place]. A federal appeals court had previously allowed the judge’s order to remain in effect.
So to recap, these voters were registered, Virginia tried to purge them less than 90 days before an election, a federal court told them to stop that and return things to normal, and the supreme court said “no, don’t stop,” so the AP headline that basically says “supreme court stops stop” seems overly convoluted to me and like it’s kind of burying the lede here
You’re adding the key context that backs up your statement. That’s not what the article says. And hey, looks like the article was even updated:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday left in place Virginia’s purge voter registrations that the state says is aimed at stopping people who are not U.S. citizens from voting.
Not just the headline.
Do you have a source to the contrary?
I’m honestly not sure how that contradicts what I was trying to say there, but yeah as for my source the next paragraph of the same article
So to recap, these voters were registered, Virginia tried to purge them less than 90 days before an election, a federal court told them to stop that and return things to normal, and the supreme court said “no, don’t stop,” so the AP headline that basically says “supreme court stops stop” seems overly convoluted to me and like it’s kind of burying the lede here
You’re adding the key context that backs up your statement. That’s not what the article says. And hey, looks like the article was even updated:
That’s pretty clear to me.