Skip to comments.Supreme Court voids key part of voting law, sets up standoff between feds and states
Posted on 06/25/2013 11:57:46 AM PDT by servo1969
A landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act has set up a stand-off between Republican-led states and the Obama administration over controversial voting laws that until now had been stalled.
The 5-4 ruling on Tuesday addressed a 1960s-era provision that largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- and required them to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.
The court ruled that the formula determining which states are affected was unconstitutional.
Attorney General Eric Holder warned states against going too far. He said the Justice Department would not hesitate to take "swift" action against states looking to "take advantage" of the ruling.
He, like President Obama, said he was "deeply disappointed" in the decision, saying discriminatory practices live on and need to be addressed.
"These problems have not been consigned to history," Holder said.
Holder and Obama urged Congress to create a new formula.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And now an unfiltered message from Attorney General Eric Holder:
"This ruling didn't turn out the way we wanted so we're going to ignore it. This changes nothing, b!tches. Don't like it? F-- You. Do something about it. Any state that thinks it can change anything without clearing it with us first is gonna wind up with my foot stuck in it's a**. Got me? I'm lookin' at you South Carolina."
He probably said this.
Yeah, keeping those illegal aliens and felons from voting 3 or 4 times is SOOOOO discriminatory.
How does he intend to proceed? He can't use the VRA anymore and the Constitution clearly puts this issue in the hands of the States.
I was always appalled that my county, in Texas, STILL had to get DOJ approval just to change voting locations...
It was RIDICULOUS. We did not have significant race relation issues where I lived. There was ZERO need for this kind of over-sight... just because of problems that happened 40-50 years ago.
The Supreme Court ruled that current and future generations cannot be held to the failures of past generations and the left thinks this is a “set back?”
IOW, the left wants people to pay for any and all past perceived transgressions - FOREVER!!!! (See Paula Deen as a good example)
The problem is that the ruling was not based in the whole concept, but was based on the fact that the law affected only certain states. The way it can be “ corrected” is by passing a law that makes it applicable to all states. Watch for this to happen.
Well, the got it more right than before.
FU Eric Holder. Yuh Kommie Fascist...
I don't think so. Under the old rules, it was easy for both Republicans and Democrats from states not affected to "stick it to" those evil, racist states. Now that the rules must apply to all states, they will not be as inclined to sign up. I don't think that the Congress will agree to any new rules and therefore, Section 5 becomes moot.
That's what I'd do. And base selection of jurisdictions in need of supervision on the most recent Census and most recent Presidential election results. I doubt that minority voter participation is very high in Paterson NJ. Not that a large proportion of Paterson NJ minority residents are even eligible to vote. But that minor detail wasn't specified in the first place. It would be a hoot requiring Holder's supervision of indigo-blue cities where most of the vote fraud takes place.
Count on Holder to find an extra-legal way of nullifying the court’s decision...just like when Obama objected to the Citizens United decision and sicked the IRS on conservative groups.
Whitey hater Holder speaks.
So the head lawyer of the US is now threatening states that obey a SCOTUS ruling........NOW can we impeach him?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
...a 1960s-era provision that largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- and required them to seek federal permission to change their voting laws. The court ruled that the formula determining which states are affected was unconstitutional... Attorney General Eric Holder warned states against going too far.Y'know, by acting Constitutionally.
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.