Skip to comments.
Per Drudge - FLASH: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional...
Drudge report ^
Posted on 06/25/2013 7:15:58 AM PDT by Perdogg
Per Drudge - FLASH: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional...
TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 15thamendment; act; rights; scotus; scotusvoterrights; scotusvotingrights; supremecourt; unconstitutional; vanity; voting; votingrightsact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
1
posted on
06/25/2013 7:15:58 AM PDT
by
Perdogg
To: Perdogg
: Holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
From SCOTUSblog
To: Perdogg
“Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions”
To: Perdogg
The communists finally lose one.
4
posted on
06/25/2013 7:18:30 AM PDT
by
FlingWingFlyer
(Osama tried and failed. Obama got it done.)
To: Perdogg
5
posted on
06/25/2013 7:18:53 AM PDT
by
Liberty Valance
(Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
To: Perdogg
Fantastic news, from the headline, anyway!!!
Any qualifiers?
6
posted on
06/25/2013 7:19:04 AM PDT
by
fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
To: Perdogg
Wonder what the vote was?
7
posted on
06/25/2013 7:19:04 AM PDT
by
0.E.O
To: green iguana
8
posted on
06/25/2013 7:19:50 AM PDT
by
HOYA97
(twitter @hoya97)
To: green iguana
So what specifically in Section 4 is found to be unconstitutional? What’s in Section 4?
9
posted on
06/25/2013 7:20:25 AM PDT
by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: fwdude
"....Fantastic news, from the headline, anyway!!!...."
Not sure what this means...can you please 'splain...?
10
posted on
06/25/2013 7:20:29 AM PDT
by
Victor
(If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
To: Perdogg
Section 5 is the section at issue, not 4
To: Perdogg
Does this mean that the South is beginning to emerge from “occupied territory” status?
12
posted on
06/25/2013 7:22:08 AM PDT
by
July4
To: Victor
These SCOTUS decisions often have qualifiers. Leave it to this corrupt court to often leave issues more convoluted and ambiguous than when they found them.
13
posted on
06/25/2013 7:22:50 AM PDT
by
fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
To: July4
14
posted on
06/25/2013 7:24:09 AM PDT
by
manc
(Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
To: Vigilanteman
I’m going to wait half a day for people smarter than me to analyze all the meanings and outworkings of this decision. The case isn’t going anywhere.
15
posted on
06/25/2013 7:24:34 AM PDT
by
fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
To: Vigilanteman
Section 4 is the preclearence section. It says that certain southern states must get any voting changes at all pre-cleared by the Justice Dept before the changes can be enacted. These changes can be as small as changing the boundaries of a water district, or requiring ID to vote.
Texas currently has a voter ID law that is similar to others the Supreme Court has found okay that cannot be implemented because it's being held up by Justice in pre-clearence. This decision means Texas can go ahead and enact the law.
To: 0.E.O
Read that vote was 5 - 4...but didn’t see the breakdown...
17
posted on
06/25/2013 7:25:15 AM PDT
by
~Vor~
(Freeper since 10/98)
To: Perdogg
Won't make a white of difference to Ubama/Holder.
They'll do whatever they want.
18
posted on
06/25/2013 7:25:17 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Religious faith in government is far crazier than religious faith in God.)
To: fwdude
Yup. I remember too well a year ago and the initial reports that Obamacare had been struck down.
To: montag813
In the Drudge report, the article states it is section 5. Later the article refers to section 4. A bit confusing. On FOX news, the reporter covering the case said it was section 4.
20
posted on
06/25/2013 7:25:39 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson