Posted on 11/09/2012 1:05:32 PM PST by jazusamo
The Supreme Court said Friday that it will consider whether laws designed to protect minority voters are unconstitutional.
The announcement comes just days after an election that demonstrated the increasing electoral clout of black and Hispanic voters, who helped propel President Obama to a second term.
It's against that backdrop that the court will consider rolling back part of the Voting Rights Act, first passed in 1965, to prevent states from disenfranchising minorities. Specifically, the justices will hear a challenge to the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states with a history of discrimination to get permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
It's the second racially charged case of the court's term — the justices have already heard oral arguments in a case challenging the use of race in college admissions. Gay marriage is also likely to come before the court in its current term, perhaps through a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.
In the context of affirmative action, Chief Justice John Roberts has questioned the need to continue policies that could be seen as holdovers from past generations, when the country was less diverse and the scars of segregation were more recent.
Just call it a TAX! Roberts’ll RUBBER STAMP IT!
I agree. For quite some time now the minority have been using these to dictate to the majority, but I don't see them being rolled back by the Robert's Court. Ironically, probably the only proponent will be Clarence Thomas.
in America the ground should be level for everyone
safety nets to be established only for those who are unable to make it by reason of handicap - those different because of race, gender, or nationality all compete on same level field.
‘Bout time.
Ordinarily, I'd say that this could get interesting, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that whites are on their way to becoming a minority and the "legacy" minorities are becoming aware of the fact that if we officially become minorities, we could do unto them as they have done unto us. They won't let that happen because, in their world, reverse discrimination by them toward whites is both okey and dokey.
Plus, CJ Roberts will side the liberals who don't want anyone to receive minority status if there is no pigment to their skin.
Finally, reviewing the status of so-called "minorities" after this last election strikes me as closing the corral after the horses done got out.
What's the point??
This means the left feels that whites shall be a minority soon.
Revenge.
Now that caucasions are about to become a minority, the SC is thinking about returning to 1965?
Maybe we caucasions can demand AAC* consideration.
—
*AAC - Affirmative Action for Caucasions
Obama has 4 more years and he'll demand 4 years of the same from his Injustice Dept whether Holder remains or Obama gets a new thug to see to it.
Like has already been said, there may not be much of a chance of rolling it back but I believe it should be tried.
This could be the only reason.
They will take away from whites what they gave to blacks.
Roberts is a head case, who knows what will happen. He doesn’t want unconformable DC cocktail parties you know.
No, it just needs to be changed. The “certain states” should now be Ohio, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Does this mean they are no longer encouraging black people to have abortions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.