REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court voids key portion of Voting Rights Act

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Saturday, June 29, 2013 15:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1112
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

The US Supreme Court struck down a central portion of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, ruling that Congress overstepped its authority when it reauthorized the landmark civil rights law in 2006 for an additional 25 years.

The court said Congress must demonstrate that the law’s requirements are necessary to address problems that exist right now, not problems that existed 40 years ago.

In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority decision “can hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and moderate decisionmaking.” “Quite the opposite,” Justice Ginsburg said. “Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA.”

Tom Perriello of the Center for American Progress said the court had ignored the reality of discrimination in the country.

“The majority overruled a bipartisan commitment to liberty and provided indefensible cover to partisan efforts across the country to rig elections,” Mr. Perriello said in a statement.

“Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions,” he said. “Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.”

Four years ago, in 2009, the court stopped short of invalidating the measures. But the justices made clear in an 8 to 1 decision that the VRA contained constitutional deficiencies that Congress should address.

No legislative action was taken. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0625/Supreme-Court-voids-key
-portion-of-Voting-Rights-Act-as-outdated?nav=87-frontpage-entryLeadStory



And of course no action will be taken now, either. The right got what it wanted from its Supremes, and given they are unable to do much of anything except set up investigations of the left, pass anti-abortion legislation, block anything the White House tries to do, keep voting to overturn Obamacare and collect their paychecks, their agenda is being achieved nicely.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2013 7:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


And it took less than one day for Republicans to start taking advantage of it...
Quote:

Following VRA Ruling, Perry Signs New Texas Congressional Map Into Law

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) on Wednesday signed a new Congressional district for the state into law, a move that would have required federal approval prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Perry’s action, confirmed by an aide to Roll Call, was day removed from the Supreme Court’s decision to gut Section 5 from the landmark 1965 civil rights law. Prior to the court’s ruling, Section 5 required Texas — as well as other states with a history of racial discrimination — to clear any changes to its voting laws, including redistricting, with the federal government. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/298703_Following_VRA_Ruling_Perry
_Sig




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2013 2:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Around big cities, the new Texas map looks kind'a like the recent Maryland redistricting, and probably has the same purpose - to get more seats for the party in power. Of course, since Maryland wasn't covered by the Voting Rights Act, there was never any requirement that their plan get pre-cleared.





The Supremes warned Congress in 2009 that they needed to update the formula for requiring pre-clearance to reflect changes in the nation. Congress kept the same rules that have been in place since the 60s, ignoring that areas of the most egregious discrimination have shifted. Now the Supremes have said "Fix it".


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2013 2:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


And of course, just like before, the Republicans in Congress will see to it that nothing is fixed. Democrats are at fault as well, but they don't have any power in the House.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2013 2:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
And of course, just like before, the Republicans in Congress will see to it that nothing is fixed. Democrats are at fault as well, but they don't have any power in the House.




Umm. The 2006 renewal of the Voting Rights Act passed in the House by a 390-33 majority, the Senate by 98-0, and George W. Bush signed it into law on July 27, 2006. So it'd seem that the Republicans(who held a majority in both houses at the time) liked it pretty well then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2013 9:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The issue wasn't whether the Voting Rights Act was legal (it was), but whether it was current. Or at least that's how the majority Justices framed it. So rather than requiring Congress to fix the Voting Rights Act, they threw out the baby with the bathwater. Apparently, the right to vote doesn't count for much with these guys. And remember, these are the same ones who said that corporations are people too.

Gerrymandering has reached such a hellacious level that it is possible to win the popular vote as the Democrats did this last House election by 49% to 48% and still lose seats by 46% to 54%. That is NOT close tracking between popular vote and representation. Still, the Repubicans may regret promoting this one day, as they probably regret promoting Unitary Executive and warrantless surveillance. Once Dems gain the whip hand- and it is only a matter of time until that happens, unless martial law or something similar intervenes- the shoe really will be on the other foot. Then what?

IMHO, the whole nation should be under the voting rights act.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2013 1:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

And of course no action will be taken now, either. The right got what it wanted from its Supremes, .



Yes. Equal, fair treatment under the law, for everyone.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2013 4:15 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The issue wasn't whether the Voting Rights Act was legal (it was), but whether it was current. Or at least that's how the majority Justices framed it. So rather than requiring Congress to fix the Voting Rights Act, they threw out the baby with the bathwater.



That's the thing. The Supreme Court can't just tell Congress to fix something. All they can do is say whether it's Constitutional or not. They tried back in 2009 to warn Congress to do something, but Congress didn't, so they had only the option to declare portions of the Voting Right Act unconstitutional.

ETA: I'd also posit that changes that Republican states will make to Congressional districts and voting requirements aren't designed to deny the franchise to certain folks aren't because those folks are Black or Hispanic, but because they tend to vote Democratic. Sort'a like the Democrats in, say, Maryland gerrymandered their districts to reduce the effectiveness of white Republican voters.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 4:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


What you said, Sig, and yes, the whole country should be under it. Gerrymandering shouldn't be allowed by right OR left, absolutely. Unfortunately, on the assumption that the Voting Rights Act process will follow the same path other legislation has traveled this Congress, the Senate will act first, and the House will have to decide whether or not to follow suit. Democrats can exert pressure, but they’re effectively cut out of the decision.

Senate's already started ("After Supreme Court Ruling, Senate to Hold Hearings on Voting Rights Act", http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/after-supreme-court-rulin
g-senate-to-hold-hearings-on-voting-rights-act
/), but seems pretty obvious to me it's a no-go, just like EVERYTHING else in the House.

Grassley's giving hints as to what the Republicans might do, unfortunately:
Quote:

Top Senate Republican Hints Voting Rights Act May Be Held Hostage In Exchange For Voter Suppression

Tuesday’s decision neutering a key prong of the Voting Rights Act leaves supporters of voting rights in a difficult position. If they do nothing, voter suppression laws can go into effect, and may not be struck down by the courts until after they have succeeded in disenfranchising many voters. Yet the Roberts Court’s decision to hollow out America’s voting rights protections also allows conservatives to exact concessions before the voting rights regime that five Republican justices killed can be restored.
Shortly after the decision, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, dropped a hint at just what those concessions could be — give the greenlight to a common GOP-backed voter suppression law, or the heart of the Voting Rights Act is dead forever. In an interview with CBS News, Grassley claimed he is “open to looking at ways to address the issues addressed in the court’s decision.” Yet he added that he believed the Justice Department was wrong to use the act to block “common sense measures such as voter identification laws.”
Voter ID laws are not common sense, and they are exactly the kind of device the Voting Rights Act was enacted to prevent. http://tal9000.tumblr.com/post/54129259494/top-senate-republican-hints
-voting-rights-act-may-be



And awaaaay we go...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 3:57 PM

JONGSSTRAW


A great ruling. A great victory for states' rights and democracy!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, April 27, 2024 23:43 - 3572 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts
Case against Sidney Powell, 2020 case lawyer, is dismissed
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:29 - 13 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:28 - 745 posts
Slate: I Changed My Mind About Kids and Phones. I Hope Everyone Else Does, Too.
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:19 - 3 posts
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:12 - 18 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:08 - 9 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:51 - 6307 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:28 - 1015 posts
Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:27 - 15 posts
"Feminism" really means more Femtacular than you at EVERYTHING.
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:25 - 66 posts
Cry Baby Trump
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:21 - 79 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL