Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion, along with Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas.
After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the judgment of Congress that “40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the 2006 Reauthorization. That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments “by appropriate legislation” merits this Court’s utmost respect. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress decision.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissenting opinion, with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayer.
The link to the text of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.
The majority justices who eviscerated the Voting Rights Act because they believe discrimination in voting rights is ended must inhabit a different planet than Earth.
Not only a different planet, but they have to wear those tinfoil hats for protection from the rays.
ReplyDeleteMy question for the Voting Rights Act majority is how long any of these men spent waiting on line to vote in a presidential election (not counting December 2000).
Ah, Paul (A.), you ask the very question I want to ask the five buffoons who call themselves justices.
DeleteLoved the way in which, not having the guts to do this in the full light of day, they had the nerve to throw the task of "updating" the act to Congress and the Executive, knowing full well that with the constitutional system as disfunctional, not to say broken, as it currently is, nothing can or will be achieved beyond the destruction of the Act, which is their own work, pure and simple. One of the sorriest pieces of judicial work since Dred Scott.
ReplyDeleteThis Congress? What a cruel joke.
DeleteThe majority did it, because they could. Just like Citizens United (and basically serving the same white&moneyed interests).
ReplyDeleteI predict we will suffer the consequences of Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act for decades, at the very least.
DeleteFYI, you will never guess who is your hero's best buddy. Read the last sentence here:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#Supreme_Court_jurisprudence
Bound together by opera. Ah well, no accounting for taste in friends, though I do understand the opera connection - somewhat. Perhaps the two confine their conversation to matters operatic.
DeleteI have good friends who are quite conservative. If I did not accept that we can disagree and still be friends, I would have few friends nearby. Plus, my very oldest friends and I seem to have moved in opposite directions throughout the years.
Scalia's article mentions that his family and hers dine together every New Years Eve. Well I never would have thought - which says something about judging books by their covers. I guess Ginsberg is a more complex and more "fun" personality off duty than I would have guessed from her judicial demeanor.
ReplyDeleteI also read the other day in another place that the lady does 20 push-ups a day! At her age!
Opposites attract? Ginsgurg seems so serious, and Scalia is sometimes such a clown (and I don't mean that in a good way).
DeleteMore power to her if she does 20 push-ups a day. I couldn't do a single one.