Will SCOTUS Strike Down Voting Rights Act?

[lopri]

The oral argument was yesterday and the transcript is available -> Shelby County v. Holder (PDF)

Of course such an activist ruling would be astounding and should be astounding, but the sad state of current make up of SCOTUS has made people's sensitivity dull, but the symbolic (and practical) impact of such an activism will leave a big and unfortunate mark on the court's history.

For those who are not versed at the history of voting rights act -> Wikipedia

I won't go into the details of legislative history (98-0 bipartisan support, Bush W's signing ceromony, etc.) but suffice to say this court's activism knows no bounds.

Justice Scalia in particular, has completely lost his mind if you read the transcript. It is a sad state of affair because I used to enjoy his opinions a lot despite my deep disagreements. In this transcript he was quoted equating VRA with "racial entitlement," which reportedly made the audience collectively hold their breadths. And apparently he has a divine ability to read lawmakers' unspoken minds.

What's funny about it is that the court will have to say that it is striking down VRA for it has proven to be too effective. (lol) Since Bush v. Gore, the conservatives at the SCOTUS never shied away from preventing/delaying emerging modern democracy. (see: Citizens United) And this ruling, if comes out as expected, will leave a deep scar and embarrassment in the history for our next generations.

 

[lopri]

Oh, and nevermind the "strict textualism" or whatever they usually champion. Striking down VRA is a literal example of a "Living Consitution."

 

[Thump553]

You are definately seeing an activist Court in action here, apparently perfectly willing to substitute it's decision making process for that of Congress. Congress reviewed this issue several times, most recently in 2006 when they held numerous hearings, took 15,000 pages of testimony and overwhelming approved (98-0 in the Senate and nearly as high in the House) a twenty-five year extension. The validity of the Voting Rights Act and this very provision was specificallyupheld by the Supreme Court in the late 1960s. Apparently Scalia et al now think that Congress doesn't have the same powers that the Supreme Court specifically upheld in the late 1960s.

For all the whining about the Warren Court being activists, the Roberts-Scalia Court makes them look like wannabes in power-grabbing.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I have a feeling they're trolling. They have to mention "racial entitlement" out of balance, because the government should not normally be in the business of picking winners and losers. It's only the wider context of racism that the requirement came about. Fix conservatives and it would no longer be needed.
I don't think that they will find that racism has been reduced to the degree where it should no longer be treated as the de facto stance of conservatives, because conservatives are more unabashedly racist now than ever.

 

[Ausm]

WTF is a ""perpetuation of Racial Entitlement" mean? Doesn't that sound like an activist Judge to you Rightists in here???

 

[nehalem256]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...g-rights-south-blacks-discrimination/1949719/

The conservative justices who hold a slim majority on the court expressed grave doubts that the landmark law can remain intact when its most powerful section is based on a formula devised by Congress nearly a half-century ago.

...

"Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than the citizens in the North?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who defended what he called Congress' "cautious" reauthorization of the law in 2006.

Probing questions from Roberts and Kennedy made it appear that the die was cast for Section 5. Roberts went so far as to note that Massachusetts now has the worst black turnout in elections compared with whites — and Mississippi, the best.

Damn facts getting in the way of liberal attempts to control red states.

 

[Ausm]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...g-rights-south-blacks-discrimination/1949719/



Damn facts getting in the way of liberal attempts to control red states.

What would happen if "Conservatives" kept the control...would that mean Red States would actually use less Welfare and maybe put more money in then they suck out for once?

 

[nehalem256]

What would happen if "Conservatives" kept the control...would that mean Red States would actually use less Welfare and maybe put more money in then they suck out for once?

At least the Red states don't have people irresponsibly gambling with other people's money on Wall Street crashing the economy...

 

[Texashiker]

Any law that promotes a certain sex or race, is in itself a form of discrimination.

 

[nehalem256]

Any law that promotes a certain sex or race, is in itself a form of discrimination.

While technically true. It would seem to be understandable if say black people are being discriminated against to protect them (although note that most laws protect people of all genders, races, etc).

However at what point do you say okay black people were discriminated against 50 years ago it has been long enough.

Especially when as Chief Justice Roberts notes blue states like Massachusetts which are not subject to VRA have more problems with minorities voting than red states like Mississippi.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Any law that promotes a certain sex or race, is in itself a form of discrimination.

Which is needed when discrimination is already in place. If you don't discriminate against those who naturally discriminate, you hand them all the cards.

 

[nehalem256]

Which is needed when discrimination is already in place. If you don't discriminate against those who naturally discriminate, you hand them all the cards.

But what about when the discrimination occurred 50 years ago?

 

[Texashiker]

Which is needed when discrimination is already in place.

Laws that promote certain races and sexes over others are not the answer.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What would happen if "Conservatives" kept the control...would that mean Red States would actually use less Welfare and maybe put more money in then they suck out for once?

Please don't quote the troll. Just put him on ignore like everyone else.

 

[spacejamz]

Please don't quote the troll. Just put him on ignore like everyone else.

That is the liberal way...ignore everyone who doesn't agree with you...tolerance at its finest...

 

[DominionSeraph]

Laws that promote certain races and sexes over others are not the answer.

They're the only answer to institutionalized racism/sexism.

Would you give up your guns, and have the cops give up their guns, because, "It is wrong to promote yourself over the lesser armed," when there are armed people out there who would use those guns to promote themselves over you?
Somehow I don't think that you think that disarmament is the answer. Yet you ask the same here.

You're not very bright.

That is the liberal way...ignore everyone who doesn't agree with you...tolerance at its finest...

Who are you? Oh, nobody.

 

[nehalem256]

They're the only answer to institutionalized racism/sexism.

And at what point do you say that laws to rectify institutionalized racism/sexism are not in fact institutionalized racism/sexism?

50 years?

100 years?

500 years?

 

[Texashiker]

They're the only answer to institutionalized racism/sexism.

At what point do we draw the line?

Should someone be forced to hire based solely on color or sex?

Laws that promote certain races or sex are nothing more then reverse discrimination.

If discrimination has happened, take it up in civil court.

~~~ EDIT ~~~

I would like to inject an example I know of into the thread. This happened in my town, a man in his 20s has been passed up for 3 promotions. The last promotion went to a woman. The man has filed a sexual discrimination civil suit against the company.

If the company promote the man, the woman would sue. But this time it was the man suing.

No matter what a company or the government does, not everyone is going to be happy.

If the state government has to draw districts based on population. But regardless of what the states do, not everyone is going to be happy.

Isn't it time we moved past the racial issue?

 

[spacejamz]

Who are you? Oh, nobody.

Elitist much??

 

[DominionSeraph]

Isn't it time we moved past the racial issue?

Liberals have been saying that since the dawn of time. Unfortunately we live in a world with conservatives, and so we can't move beyond compensating for their self-centeredness.

 

[PokerGuy]

Liberals have been saying that since the dawn of time. Unfortunately we live in a world with conservatives, and so we can't move beyond compensating for their self-centeredness.

I have to give you credit for your troll account :biggrin: Nice work.

 

[nehalem256]

Liberals have been saying that since the dawn of time. Unfortunately we live in a world with conservatives, and so we can't move beyond compensating for their self-centeredness.

It seems you are contradicting yourself there.

If conservatives are as self-centered as you think they wouldn't care about things like race that exist outside of them ()

 

[Jaskalas]

REPOST

I do not imagine that Section 5 alone constitutes the "Voting Rights Act".

About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.

The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula.

In 1982, Congress extended Section 5 for 25 years

In 2006, Congress extended the requirements Section 5 for an additional 25 years.

 

[glenn1]

But what about when the discrimination occurred 50 years ago?

It doesn't matter if it was 50 years ago, 50 centuries ago, or 50 seconds ago. In the U.S., your presumption of guilt or innocence is not supposed to be based on what crimes you may have previously committed. Also, Section 5 not only turns presumption of innocence on its head, but IMHO clearly violates the 14th Amendment as well - either you mandate pre-clearance for all states or none with no picking and choosing. Additionally, it makes no sense that a plaintiff in Massachussetts is forced to use the more rigorous Setion 2 burden of proof whereas a plaintiff in Alabama gets to take advantage of the lower Section5 standard. Evidently lawmakers in northern states want their acts of potential voter discrimination to be legally favored.

 

[PokerGuy]

Basically, the court chose to allow unconstitutional laws to stay on the books in the 60's because it thought it was the only way to address some of egregious wrongs in some areas. With those factors no longer in place, it's time the court struck down clearly unconstitutional unequal treatment under the law, some parts of the VRA clearly have to go. The only question is, which ones.