Finally, the Supreme Court comes through and strikes a huge blow for voter integrity.

So they don't want to look at whether the horse was stolen, but at least they're gonna let us lock the barn door.

This is the Dineshtus-Uza podcast.

America needs this voice. The times are crazy and the time of confusion, division and lies. We need a brave voice of reason, understanding and truth. This is the Dineshtus-Uza podcast.

Finally, we win a big one at the Supreme Court, a case with far-reaching implications and on a critical issue, namely voter integrity laws.

The Supreme Court appears to be saying in this decision that it doesn't want to look at the 2020 election, it doesn't want to, you may say, investigate whether the horse was stolen.

But it is going to let states lock the barn door, which is to say to take practical measures to ensure against the possibility of voter fraud in the future.

And the left, of course, is screaming because they hate these voter integrity laws.

And their main argument has been that these laws are discriminatory. They make it harder to vote in Biden's phrase.

And the good thing about a Supreme Court decision is that these arguments engage each other. We find in the legal reasoning of the decision, and I have the decision right in front of me.

It's 80 or so pages. No, I'm sorry, it's about 40 pages, single spaced. But it is a very illuminating clash between Elito, who writes the decision for the majority.

By the way, it's a 6-3 majority. All the conservatives are on the 6th and the 3 progressives, Kagan, sort of my or and Breyer, are on the other side.

And so we get a kind of a Kagan writing the dissent. We get kind of a sharp contrast of views and a contrast of legal reasoning.

Now, we're talking really about two things in an Arizona law. Arizona's voter integrity law requires two things. And Elito sums them up. So I'm going to read.

Voters who choose to cast a ballot in person or on election day must vote in their own precincts or else their ballots will not be counted. That's provision number one.

Number two, mail in ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier, or a voter's family member household member or caregiver.

In other words, this whole idea of a guy showing up with a suitcase of votes. Oh, yeah, I got these from a bunch of guys in my neighborhood. That is not going to fly.

So now here's the question. The question before the court arose out of a provision in the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act was initially passed in 1965, I believe, but it's been amended subsequently.

And basically the Voting Rights Act simply says that you can't have a voting law that quote, denies or bridges the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

Now that is broad enough, but what does it actually mean? Now in 1980, the Supreme Court meant said that what it means is that that the law in question, the law that it falls a foul of the Voting Rights Act must be discriminatory in intent.

So not merely in effect, it must be discriminatory, must have a discriminatory motive, but that of course is hard to prove. So Congress sort of amended the Voting Rights Act basically to say that no voting law can be passed that quote, results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on color.

Now here's the question, do these Arizona provisions, which are on the face of them neutral, because after all they don't single out blacks, they don't say things like, well blacks can't do this, but everybody else can.

...