Demographic trends show a dramatic rise in constituencies likely not to favor the Republican Party. And against that trend we have these Supreme Court decisions:
1. Bush v. Gore (Yeah, this was the Rehnquist court but so what?)
Stop the Florida State Supreme Court mandated recount of votes just because we are a supremer court that talks a lot about the importance of states' rights but in this case we are throwing our principles out the window instead of appropriately remanding the case back to the state court with instructions to provide uniform recount guidelines. We think it's better to arbitrarily decide the election based on yelling "freeze!" on December 9, even though the votes recounted up until then had different standards of validity applied to them across the counties; and we're stopping the recount because of those differing standards of validity. We prefer to pick the winner of the most powerful elected position in our country by preventing a more accurate recount from taking place in Florida; because--you know--we can't drag this thing out any longer.
Bush just wins.
2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Even though no law says it, and legal precedent dances around the idea, we are assuming that a corporation is a legal person and as such deserves the free speech protection we have already decided should pertain to money. Buy a TV station or two if you want your message to reach more people, folks. Or if you don't want the burden of ownership, pool a bunch of money so that a good propagandist can orchestrate buying time on those media outlets for you. Everyone has the same free speech access that money can buy.
And every corporation is a person with such free speech protection. So no limit on the monies.
3. Shelby County, Alabama V Holder, Attorney General, et al.
If there were any credible reasoning in the majority opinion then some could argue (I wouldn't be one of them) that the decision reflects objective jurisprudence. But the reasoning is satirically nonsensical, accurately paraphrased as: Because the VRA has been successful in states where preclearance of changes to electoral process is required, we no longer need VRA preclearance in those places. In other words, instead of reasoning, an Alice-in-Wonderland mockery of it that shows sharp contempt for what the VRA was designed to do.
Shorter paraphrase of decision: VRA worked; and enough of that.
The loud voter fraud nonsense we have heard about for the past decade just became valid pretext for changing electoral processes anywhere the voter suppression gang wants to work its will. I'm sure the new ID laws will be very creative in making it difficult for non-Republicans to vote.
If 2 and 3 don't work efficiently enough to game national elections in favor of Republicans, is there anything more this Supreme Court could do about it? Gut the 4th amendment in favor of "national security" when the inevitable challenges to the NSA surveillance leviathan get onto the docket? There would be lots of ways vote suppressionists could use that NSA data.