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.
as of this second there is no formula. As long as none exists there is no way to object.
“It ALSO means that states can now require voter ID WITHOUT seeking permission from the DoJ.”
Are you sure about that? It sounded to me like they still have to get approval, but that Congress must update the formula which determines which states much seek approval.
Because we lost.
No formula doesn’t mean that there are no states being monitored by the DOJ. Courts normally give them some kind of grace period when they strike down something, so they can draft a replacement.
I want to see Obama’s reaction to this, he loves this part of the VRA and is probably going ballistic behind closed doors right now.
If I am wrong on this, then there is NO law, No Constitution and we are free to use our “Reasonable Minds” to decide what we will and will not obey. Seems exactly what the USSC and our various levels of government are doing and how is that working out?
The 15th supports my theory on inferior lawyers crafting inferior legislation and a USSC so grossly inferior to not stop it dead in its tracks by telling congress, Uh, this Amendment is not allowed based on the ambiguities you stated.
Here is how it is supposed to be done if an Amendment might be in conflict with others: Section 1 of the 18th Amendment: “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed”.
Such a poorly crafted Amendment like the 15th has no business in the Constitution. “Appropriate” in an Amendment MUST mean Constitutional unless is it otherwise defined or changed like in my example of the 18th above. If the USSC had demanded every instance of “Appropriate” be changed to “Constitutional” problem solved.
Just more proof that the law schools have become Lie schools and Lawyers are now Liars who will attempt to deceive us at every turn. Shakespeare was 100% right.
Appropriate is a 100% useless legal term used by people whose entire live is devoted to deception and half truths. That term was used deliberately to obfuscate anything some political scum wanted to do later in time.
Because the USSC did not stop such a poorly written Amendment they keep building more dubious laws on top of a weaker and weaker foundation.
If we are to believe our laws are so poor than even the best judges in the country cannot figure out what them mean, then please tell me why Ignorance Of The Law, is not considered a legal excuse.
Maybe instead of crafting a crap load of 1000+ page pork filled laws to get reelected we should demand our lawmakers spend the rest of their limited careers going over the hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations now on the books and cleaning up the language so even a dishonest USSC judge could understand?
Right now this government is only for the ruling elite and unless it is brought down we will go through the dark ages like the former Soviet Union. Cut them no slack otherwise they will hang you with that slack.
Obama: Supreme Court Decision a 'Setback,' Says He's 'Deeply Disappointed'
Weekly Standard ^ | 06/25/2013 | Daniel Halper
Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:46:18 AM by Rusty0604
In a statement, President Obama called today's Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act a "setback."
"I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," reads Obama's statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
“It ALSO means that states can now require voter ID WITHOUT seeking permission from the DoJ.”
Are you sure about that? It sounded to me like they still have to get approval, but that Congress must update the formula which determines which states much seek approval.
***************************************************************
I’ll jump in here. The states & localities can make the changes without DOJ approval—but DOJ can still challenge them in court. But the onus will be on DOJ now and the state/locality change will go into effect unless a court decides to delay or stop it. In other words, these previously “constrained” localities are now just like any other American voting jurisdiction now—and Eric Holder is furious!!
It seems to me that Republicans should be opposed to this Supreme Court ruling..Look, in 1965, when the VRA was passed, all the southern states were run by Democrats, top to bottom..now, they’re all just about run by Republicans..ergo, the VRA was a good deal for the GOP
And it will be expanded to the North.
Soon you will be allowed to vote based on your ethnic background.
” Just tuned my PC to MSNBC and Rev Al Sharp-head is freaking out over this.
He says they are going to mobilize and MARCH and demand congressional action,
good luck with the house Al , I am sure the GOP senators will sellout again though.
This is good and about time. “
Aw Al,just shut up, and pass me some Skillets!
That is the best lay-out I have seen in quite some time.
The whole concept of ‘void for vagueness’ has been tossed out so that layers, judges and the like can twist and ‘lawyer’ words/phrases into concepts and meanings outside what a ‘normal’ person would even begin to infer.
Yet, Congress and the like pass 1000+ page ‘laws’ that no one can read, decipher and hope to follow. And the courts, instead of striking the same damn as ambiguous, rubber stamp every damn thing out of the gate, while denying true Justice when tossing out cases based on ‘standing’...or having to have been hurt instead of preemptive.
Only the preclearance part. Section 2 of the VRA, which allows for individual lawsuits claiming a violation of voting rights, is unaffected by this decision.
I wonder how many such suits are brought these days?
It will be more now, because they don’t have Holder doing for them anymore.
If the lawyers can’t make any money bringing suits, they probably won’t happen. With motor voter, et al, I don’t see the dockets filling up.
Quid Pro Quo for the Gay vote?
“...Justice when tossing out cases based on ‘standing’....”
IMO, every CITIZEN of the USA has standing before the USSC. That does not mean every case would be heard but each case would have to obtain a USSC hearing based upon its merits not who brought the case.
For a bunch of black robed morons to tell a US Citizen they do not have standing in our governing documents should result, at bare minimum, removal of that/those USSC judge/judges and at best if “We The People” are still running the show, a charge of treason subject to the most severe penalties described for said treason.
We are all affected by the shenanigans going on in our government and at the USSC. There is no escaping the oppression that the current, and IMO, unconstitutional government is inflicting upon us.
We obviously need to go back to the initial constraints placed on government by the constitution by our Founders. Go back to what was written then, read and understand the Federalist Papers, then and only then build back in those subsequent Amendments which a changing society absolutely require and use plain descriptive language.
As soon as deliberate ambiguity is inserted into our foundation document, the foundation begins to crumble thanks to dishonest lawyers and politicians (who, surprise, are usually lawyers)
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.