“The court’s three liberal justices dissented from Wednesday’s order. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan indicated only that they would have denied the requests to put the federal court’s ruling on hold. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, explaining that in her view it is too early for Purcell to apply and there was no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene at this stage.”

No, they dissented due to, in their argument, a principle that they believe should not be used in this decision. They believe that this case should not have been decided by the Supreme Court and instead let the lower courts decision stay, that there was no reason for them to get them involved.

So, back to your main statement, do the “Dems” still want to change things up? Or was your statement perhaps a bit antagonistic and meant to rile up the next moron that lacks the ability to read and properly comprehend a news article?

Not sure where you got that from as the article states that the new set of plaintiffs are not black and are claiming that its racist.

From another article: “Nine days later, a group of 12 white voters went to a different federal court, where they argued that S.B.8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it sorted voters based primarily on their race.”

Please. By all means, explain where you got “the Dems” from this. Good luck!

I mean, it really shouldn’t be off the table though. It’s genuinely not a bad idea to at least balance the court. But, it should be regarded as sort of a “Last Ditch Effort” to save the court if it comes to it.

Weird that a policy article has a thumbnail of random steak…it’s not even mentioned in the article.