FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/25/2013 7:40:20 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a civil rights law that requires some states to get federal permission to change their voting rules, but it struck down the formula for which jurisdictions are covered — leaving it to Congress to redraw the map.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The vote was 5-4.
“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote for the court.
Under the law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nine mostly Southern states must get permission from the Justice Department or a special panel of three federal judges before they make changes. The rule also applies to 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere.
The act is considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. Congress has renewed it four times, most recently in 2006, with overwhelming margins in both houses.
But the law still uses election data from 1972 to determine which states, cities and counties are covered. Some jurisdictions complain that they are being punished for the sins of many decades ago.
Legal observers have said that striking down the map would mean sending the issue back to a deeply divided Congress, and they said it was an open question whether Congress could even agree on a new coverage map.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by three other members of the court’s more liberal wing.
We should accelerate the state by state takeover.
Eliminating the unionista style black liberation theology voting “assistance” on sundays is a good start.
Mandating voter ID without the need of DOJ blessing is a good start.
Changes can be made without any notice to the DOJ.
Except that the Reconstruction will now include Central and South America.
It should be requirement that voting districts be rectangular (to the extent possible).
Obviously this decision (and most other major decisions these days) had elements of partisanship (particularly among the 4 libs in the dissent), but sometimes the very fact that the U.S. Constitution is such a small, concise document creates disagreement about what it means. Take this case, for instance - the 15th amendment prohibits voting disenfranchisement based on race, color, etc., AND authorizes Congres to enforce the legislation with "appropriate legislation." Reasonable minds -- even "the best and brightest legal minds in the country" -- can differ on (a) what is "appropriate legislation," and (b) who gets to determine what is "appropriate legislation" (e.g., is that Congress's job, or the Supreme Court?).
the race industry now has no income stream. You no longer need to “pay off” al sharpton/jessie jackson/naaLcp/racism lawyers. This is their industry which has been closed by the USSC.
As a proud Southerner by birth, a current resident of a Southern state, and a US citizen, I want to know why laws are applied to me that aren’t uniformly applied to all.
<.....”Mandating voter ID without the need of DOJ blessing is a good start........Changes can be made without any notice to the DOJ.”......>
This is a good day for states....Voter ID should be heavily pushed now in every state!
So what happens if Congress is not able to agree on a new formula?
Preclearance was an issue debated when the Voting Rights Act was renewed for 25 years in 2006. President George W. Bush should have vetoed the legislation for this very reason. Instead he signed the bill and included Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton in the signing ceremony in July 2006.
No more Bushes.
I’m amused at all of the “good face” optimists posting here.
I’m sure they were the same ones who were buoyed last July by the SCOTUS decision that the Obamacare mandate was a tax.
This guy said it well....
“..... ‘tis a grand day to watch Matthews apoplectic, O’Donnell spewing saliva as he foams at the mouth, Maddcow flummoxed by a Constitutional ruling and Ed Schultz screaming f-bombs and obscenities at the Court............. Anything that pushes the stick up their behinds a little more is a great day for America.”......
(Poster at the article Surfing usa)
...Rev Al Sharp-head is freaking out over this.
How sad. Did I say that with enough fake sincerity?
I would like to see tighter restraints on absentee balots.
In the Twilight Zone society in which we now live, get ready (and I'm being more than half serious) for the federal government to permanently attach your Southern heritage to you, even if you move to a northern state, and for you to have to conform to strict "voting rights" requirements on where you can live and/or vote in this northern state in order not to effectively "dilute" minority voting power.
The "pre-clearance" requirement will follow you wherever you go, if they have their way. I'm dead serious.
“demand congressional action”
Fine. Boehner, please take this issue up for debate in the House, shelve amnesty for the rest of the term.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
This was exactly the type of wishy-washy decision that Holder can effectively ignore. Nothing will happen to him.
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.