Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court voids key part of voting law, sets up standoff between feds and states
FoxNews.com ^ | 6-25-2013 | Associated Press

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Alaska; US: Arizona; US: California; US: District of Columbia; US: Florida; US: Louisiana; US: Michigan; US: Mississippi; US: New York; US: North Carolina; US: South Carolina; US: South Dakota; US: Texas; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: act; alabama; discrimination; doj; federal; georgia; holder; mississippi; obama; rights; scotus; scotusvotingrights; state; statefederal; texas; vote; voting

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."

1 posted on 06/25/2013 11:57:46 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969

He probably said this.


2 posted on 06/25/2013 12:02:02 PM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
He... said he was "deeply disappointed" in the decision, saying discriminatory practices live on and need to be addressed.

Yeah, keeping those illegal aliens and felons from voting 3 or 4 times is SOOOOO discriminatory.

3 posted on 06/25/2013 12:04:30 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
He said the Justice Department would not hesitate to take "swift" action against states looking to "take advantage" of the ruling.

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.

4 posted on 06/25/2013 12:08:07 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
"... the 'Justice' Department will not hesitate to take "swift" action against states looking to "take advantage" of this ruling."


5 posted on 06/25/2013 12:08:49 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

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.


6 posted on 06/25/2013 12:11:30 PM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them f)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
He said the Justice Department would not hesitate to take "swift" action against states looking to "take advantage" of the ruling.

IOW, don't think that the Supreme Court ruling is actually law or anything! I or Lord Obama will continue to tell you what laws are and are not allowed to be followed!

FUBO & FUEH!
7 posted on 06/25/2013 12:26:31 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

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)


8 posted on 06/25/2013 12:30:14 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

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.


9 posted on 06/25/2013 12:34:53 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Well, the got it more right than before.

FU Eric Holder. Yuh Kommie Fascist...


10 posted on 06/25/2013 12:47:22 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
The way it can be “ corrected” is by passing a law that makes it applicable to all states.

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.

11 posted on 06/25/2013 1:08:58 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: livius
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.

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.

12 posted on 06/25/2013 1:55:33 PM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

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.


13 posted on 06/25/2013 2:10:19 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Whitey hater Holder speaks.


14 posted on 06/25/2013 2:11:43 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
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.

So the head lawyer of the US is now threatening states that obey a SCOTUS ruling........NOW can we impeach him?

15 posted on 06/25/2013 4:10:16 PM PDT by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Still bitterly clinging to rational thought despite it's unfashionability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969; Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

16 posted on 06/25/2013 9:13:03 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks servo1969.
...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.


17 posted on 06/30/2013 5:49:09 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson