The conservative Supreme Court majority has decided to overrule the Congress, which in 2006, agreed to renew the Voting Rights Act, and in so doing, has left it to trust that Southern states, which historically have worked to limit the right to vote, can now be trusted.
This is a massive blow to the civil rights movement, and to believe that things have changed from the time of a Democratic Dixiecrat South to a Republican South today is to be living in a illusion, that one can trust Republican legislatures that are presently working against women’s rights and victimizing immigrants, that somehow, without oversight, the present increased African American involvement in voting will not be reversed rapidly!
A split Congress will be unable to do anything about enforcing voting rights fairly, anymore than protecting the rights of women and immigrants affected by discriminatory state laws.
This is the ultimate outcome of the disputed Presidential Election Of 2000, and shows once again, that elections have consequences. So the Republican majority Supreme Court has insured that its agenda will be the future, as much as it was in interfering in the 2000 election, putting a loser of the popular vote by a bigger margin than the three previous cases, into the White House!
Ron: I would calm down if I were you. The court did not say requiring preclearance is itself unconstitutional — only that Congress can’t base the requirement on the same formula it has been using since 1965. Which is pretty reasonable and logical. We are in 2013 not 1965. And we also have an African/American President (though I grant you he is half white and he is not a direct descendant of slaves).
“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,”- Justice Roberts
“The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs,â€- Justice Roberts
“There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.â€-Justice Roberts
‘the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs,’â€-Justice Roberts
So, I am sure that someone like you, who seems to support the “living and breathing” interpretation of the Constitution, has no grounds for complaint. The country changes, so the Constitution must adapt. Correct?
Furthermore, this is the same Justice Roberts that rewrote Obamacare, the same Justice that rewrote what Congress had enacted by saying that the mandate fine was actually a tax in spite of Congress’s express language. Remember? As if Congress didn’t know how to legislate new taxes!! So if I were you I would…how should I say it?? Never mind.
Wow, Juan, so much more diplomatic and tactful today than yesterday! LOL
Ok, maybe the situation will work itself out, and I am glad, considering the alternative of Samuel Alito, as pointed out yesterday, that John Roberts is the Chief Justice, as he seems sometimes reasonable and decent, which I cannot say for Alito! Now watch as you attack me again! LOL
I am still concerned of the long term effect of this decision, however, and have my fingers crossed on the gay marriage cases, which will be decided tomorrow!
I think maybe DOMA might be declared unconstitutional, though its 50-50. As for California Proposition I believe the SCOTUS with declare it constitutional. The definition of marriage is a state issue and it has nothing to due with the 14th amendment unless race is involved. In that case the analysis of the statute/case/law falls under the strict scrutiny test, but if its related with sexual orientation then the law falls under a rational basis test which is much more lax than strict scrutiny.
As always leftist liberal democrats are free to insult and be racist without any consequences. Unless your Paula Dean. Democratic state Rep. Ryan Winkler of Minnesota tweeted “#SCOTUS VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas. Marriage decision may blur Court’s backsliding.†He then defend his racist comments, tweeting: “I didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues.â€
He later added: “But if such a suggestion is offensive, I apologize,†and “Deleted Tweet causing offense regarding Justice Thomas. I apologize for it, but believe VRA decision does abet racism.†And then thinking of course, like all liberals do, that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is either stupid or racist, he tweeted: ““I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however.â€
So a man who graduated with a degree in history from Harvard University claims he didn’t know what “Uncle Tom†really means.?!!! Again, he believes we are all either stupid or racist.
http://topsy.com/twitter/repryanwinkler?contains=Uncle+Thomas
Juan, do not be guilty of labeling all liberals as one and the same, at the same time that you criticize one jerk on the left for being a person who stereotypes! Because that is what you so often do, and it is unwise and reflects badly on you when you do it!
But already, there are hints that Republican states are planning to add new barriers to voting, now that the Supreme Court has decided there is no discrimination!
Shame on them!
Ron: Am I really that far off when I say liberals usually get a pass when they either say racist or stupid things? Haven’t you seen who the press usually tries to justify them? Or they say its not as bad? I am not saying that all liberals say racist stupid things, I am saying they usually get a pass or an effort is made to justify or excuse them. It was a gaffe or they really didn’t mean it , so goes the media narrative.
Am I really that far off when I say that usually liberals think that those who disagree with them are either stupid, evil or racist? I mean what have I been reading in your posts all this time?
Remember when Harry Reid said of Obama that he is “a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”? Even though the press knew about it they kept silent for a year until after the election. And we found out about it a year later because of the book Game Changer. All the things the press knew but kept silent! What was Obama’s reaction? “Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years, I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”
Thus the media closed the book.
Now remember the then Majority Leader Trent Lott’s comments at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party? “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.â€
This was at a damn birthday party!!! Not a campaign stop, and certainly not in respect to the African-American candidate for President, as Harry Reid’s comment was referring to!!!
What did then Illinois Senator Barack Obama say? “It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do.The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.â€
What hypocrisy!!! And the media of course bombarded and bombarded until Lott left. Not the same reaction with Reid , right? Of course not, but you pf course will never admit it.
Reverend Jesse Jackson can call Jews “Hymies” with little fear of consequences.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm . And Al Sharpton has a long history of race baiting and suffers no recriminations. But nothing happens to them. No boycott, no movement to take them off the air. Nothing.
Joe Biden has various racist remarks among them. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Obama told reporters that Biden had called him to apologize and that he believed he “didn’t intend to offend” anybody. Would his reaction have been the same if it were a Republican? I think not considering how he treated the Cambridge police, calling them “stupid” without know what the hell had happened thus leading to that stupid “Beer summit”!
What I am getting at is that everyone makes stupid comments, but if you are a Republican invariably then you must be racist, because of course its evident! But if you are a Democrat probably not, it was a “gaffe” or they really didn’t mean it. After all the Democrats are the good guys, right?
Requiring ID to vote is a barrier? Who would have known! LOL!
I know you will not like this, but I do not consider what Joe Biden said about Barack Obama to be racist. In my mind, Biden is loose in his talk, and sometimes makes a fool of himself, but his comments are harmless, not ill intentioned, which is NOT often the case about Republicans, although, obviously, there are exceptions.
I guess, though, if all of us in writing and speech would think more before we write or speak, it would be better, and that applies to both me and you, too, right? 🙂 But then, life would not be interesting, and politics is theater, right? 🙂
Before I wrote this blog, I was super critical of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Trent Lott, just so you would know, Juan! And I thought Harry Reid has always been far from an ideal leader. Personality and genuine nature help, and that is what I love about Joe Biden!
We agree about Biden, I don’t think he has bad racist intentions, but I do think what he said could be interpreted that way. As a matter of fact imagine if McCain or any Republican would have made that statement, you can be sure that accusations of racism from the media would be flying. As for Reid, I just don’t give him the benefit of the doubt.
And yes it is important that we all think and take a deep breath before we talk or write anything when one is upset,tired or just daydreaming.
Wow, Juan, I am impressed that you actually agree with me about Biden. He is my favorite politician of anyone since Hubert H. Humphrey, my original political hero as a kid. What I like about both of them is my sense that they are both real nice guys, genuine, sincere, would give the skin off their backs, wanting to help thy fellow man and woman, something I feel too few politicians are! What you see is what you get with both, as I see it!
” Clarence Thomas’s actions here today, though consistent, though tragic to me, are even more so in light of the bulk of decisions he’s rendered in the name of a judicial vote on the Supreme Court. A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people.” – Michael Eric Dyson professor of sociology at Georgetown University.
How disgusting. Another Hitler comparison from the intolerable left. Another one who doesn’t think before opening his mouth.
Here’s what Thomas wrote in concurrence with the majority that Dyson and other ill-mannered and badly-behaved liberal media members found so offensive:
” I join the Court’s opinion in full but write separately to explain that I would find §5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional as well. The Court’s opinion sets forth the reasons. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem.†Ante, at 1. In the face of “unremitting and ingenious defiance†of citizens’ constitutionally protected right to vote, §5 was necessary to give effect to the Fifteenth Amendment in particular regions of the country. South Carolina v. Katzenbach , 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). Though §5’s preclearance requirement represented a “shar[p] depart[ure]†from “basic principles†of federalism and the equal sovereignty of the States, ante, at 9, 11, the Court upheld the measure against early constitutional challenges because it was necessary at the time to address “voting discrimination where it persist[ed] on a pervasive scale.†Katzenbach, supra, at 308.
Today, our Nation has changed. “[T]he conditions that originally justified [§5] no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.†Ante, at 2. As the Court explains: “‘[V]oter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.’†Ante, at 13–14 (quoting Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 202 (2009)). In spite of these improvements, however, Congress increased the already significant burdens of §5. Following its reenactment in 2006, the Voting Rights Act was amended to “prohibit more conduct than before.†Ante, at 5. “Section 5 now forbids voting changes with ‘any discriminatory purpose’ as well as voting changes that diminish the ability of citizens, on account of race, color, or language minority status, ‘to elect their preferred candidates of choice.’†Ante, at 6. While the pre-2006 version of the Act went well beyond protection guaranteed under the Constitution, see Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 U. S. 471, 480–482 (1997), it now goes even further.
It is, thus, quite fitting that the Court repeatedly points out that this legislation is “extraordinary†and “unprecedented†and recognizes the significant constitutional problems created by Congress’ decision to raise “the bar that covered jurisdictions must clear,†even as “the conditions justifying that requirement have dramatically improved.†Ante, at 16–17. However one aggregates the data compiled by Congress, it cannot justify the considerable burdens created by §5. As the Court aptly notes: “[N]o one can fairly say that [the record] shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation at that time.†Ante, at 21. Indeed, circumstances in the covered jurisdictions can no longer be characterized as “exceptional†or “unique.†“The extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold §5 as enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment no longer exists.†Northwest Austin, supra, at 226 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). 3 Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) THOMAS, J., concurring Section 5 is, thus, unconstitutional.
While the Court claims to “issue no holding on §5 itself,†ante, at 24, its own opinion compellingly demonstrates that Congress has failed to justify “ ‘current burdens’†with a record demonstrating “‘current needs.’†See ante, at 9 (quoting Northwest Austin, supra, at 203). By leaving the inevitable conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of that provision. For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, I would find §5 unconstitutional.”
Juan, as Joe Biden pointed out, a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican President in 2006 called for a renewal of the Voting Rights Acts, and the vote was 98-0 in the Senate and all but 33 Republicans in the House supported the extension. The people’s voice, the Congress, supported it, and an earlier time, even Strom Thurmond voted for extension.
The Supreme Court, by what it did, was defying Congress, and was acting politically, and John Roberts had this intention since he worked in the Justice Department in 1982 under Reagan, when for awhile, Reagan thought of stopping renewal of the Voting Rights Act back then when there was still clear discrimination going on.
This act of the Court is the worst decision since the Citizens United Case and takes us backward, and already many states run by Republicans are working to pass new restrictive voting rights laws, knowing it will be nearly impossible to stop them before the next round of elections in 2014 and 2016, and knowing this is the only way to stop a Democratic Senate and Democratic President, and to insure that Republicans continue to control state legislatures and Governorships, and promote the Tea Party movement backwards.
This decision will be seen as one of the worst decisions of all time, setting back civil rights, and reminding us of what happened between 1877 and 1954. It is a tragedy of massive proportions, and Clarence Thomas is a true Benedict Arnold, and I agree with Michael Eric Dyson, that states rights should not win out over human rights, including the right to vote being protected and guaranteed.
These hyper-conservatives are out to ruin this country!
Excellent article about the way to combat these hyper-conservatives is to get out and vote in 2014!
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/06/with-victories-like-these-gop-will.html
Ron: Lets see if you can understand the basics. Now I know it’s difficult, but please try following the bouncing ball. The Justices said that the law’s Section 4b coverage formula—which requires that nine states and parts of seven others get federal preclearance of changes to their voting laws—can no longer be constitutionally justified. Why? Because black voting rates are higher than white voting rates in five of the six southern states under scrutiny. By 2009, the racial voting gap was lower in preclearance states than in the rest of the country. The ruling in no way takes away the right to bring suit against a state for discriminatory electoral practices, but simply removes the presumption of guilt that was previously exclusively reserved for these southern states. You apparently fail or simply refuse to recognize that conditions are “radically different†today, and “some things have to change.†This Section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness. But you are reacting as if this means a return to Jim Crow, but the ruling is best understood as a sign of the racial progress that progressives, like you, claim to believe in. It is you who is looking backwards and wants to take the country backwards.
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent arguments did more to help the majority. Even she had to concede that great racial progress has been made. So her opinion was reduced to the argument that covered states might return to the bad old days, with little evidence of current anti-minority practices. She also dismissed the fact that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act continues to bar discriminatory voting practices, and that the Justice Department can sue to stop them!!!!! Then she claimed that Section 4 is needed to reduce racially gerrymandered legislative districts, yet Section 4 is now precisely used by Members of Congress, more specifically Democrats, to justify racial gerrymandering!!!! If Democrats were smart, they’d realize that racial gerrymandering helps House Republicans by making so many fewer districts competitive! But no. Democrats still can’t let go of the politics of racial polarization that gets them re-elected in gerrymandered majority-minority districts.
So, in reality the SCOTUS did not throw out the advance approval requirement itself. Instead, they ordered Congress to come up with a new formula that more realistically reflects the changes in American society since 1965. to determine which states and localities will need to seek permission to change their laws. The case was decided on narrow grounds, stating that Congress should take the lead in defining what constitutes discrimination. Remember that previously the SCOTUS had described all of this progress in a 2009 case, but in the habit of this “restrained” Roberts Court (restrained with the exception of Obamacare)stopped short of overturning Section 4 and invited Congress to revise its formula. But Congress ignored that warning, and this time the Court followed through on its constitutional logic and ordered Congress to rewrite its preclearance formula to reflect current reality.This is what we as conservatives believe the SCOTUS should do in its constitutional role. A broader decision would have been taking the matter out of the hands of our elected representatives – where we conservatives claim is we prefer these matters to be decided.
Thus, leftist Liberals as yourself Ron, who are up in arms really shouldn’t be. Are you seriously suggesting that conditions in the South are the same today as they were 50 years ago?
I do not trust the state governments of Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana to be any different, as they are already attempting to pass laws making it more difficult to vote. Does a leopard change its spots, Juan? Do you really think racism is gone from the South? Even in Florida, we see much evidence of it. The Court is being activist, even though conservatives are outraged by activism, or so they say!
Who you trust or don’t trust doesn’t really matter. It’s totally irrelevant. What matters is the law. And so far no law requiring voter ID has been declared unconstitutional,discriminatory, or even that it makes voting harder. It may make it harder for those who want to commit voter fraud, or for illegals to vote, but not for law abiding citizens.
Also, I see that you cannot follow the bouncing ball. Again I repeat the ruling in no way takes away the right to bring suit against a state for discriminatory electoral practices, but simply removes the presumption of guilt that was previously exclusively reserved for these southern states, it just ordered Congress to rewrite its preclearance formula to reflect current reality. So Congress should get at it.
Finally, even though there may be racist people in the country, and unfortunately there will always be racist whether they be white, black or Asian, that does not mean that the system is racist or that racist laws can be enacted or even upheld by the Federal Courts. To suggest otherwise is simply a display of ignorance of federal law. Just because you want a law to be declared racist does not mean that it is. Just because you want a policy to be declared racist does not mean that it is. Somewhere along the line reality hits. You cannot go on forever claiming that this or that law or policy is racist simply because you are against it or because it does not promote the big government welfare state for example. And I could go on and on.
Ron in the real world, the idea that every single policy or law that does not conform to the liberal viewpoint is somehow racist, is unsustainable legally and politically. You cannot live in the liberal bubble that has been created forever, that is not reality, much less constitutional reality.
No sooner than you write the above, and Texas is working to pass laws on voter IDs and redistricting that would harm black and latino residents, and were blocked last year, due to the Voting Rights Act. And Wendy Davis, who courageously filibustered for eleven hours yesterday on abortion legislation, will now have her district eliminated, and she will lose her voice in the Texas legislature, due to the discriminatory actions of the Texas Attorney General, Governor, and GOP legislature! Are you proud of yourself, and what you claimed above, Juan?
Redistricting the would harm black and latino voters? Interesting, and may I ask how is the districting now? It’s also a racial gerrymandering, is it not? There is political gerrymandering , racial gerrymandering ( mainly done by Democrats) and so on. Again I repeat, if there are discriminatory electoral practices the right to bring suit against the state remains. By the way just as Davis will have her district eliminated or redistricted, so did Allen West here in Florida. I don’t recall you complaining then, or am I wrong? Oh, and by the way, yes I am proud of myself. I totally oppose racial and identity politics. It is authoritarian. It assumes that certain races or genders must vote and behave a certain way, and if they don’t then they are attacked and impugned. Enough!
Exactly right in your various posts Professor! The voter suppression that occurred during the 2012 election is a good example.
Ronald writes: “I do not trust the state governments of Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana to be any different, as they are already attempting to pass laws making it more difficult to vote. Does a leopard change its spots, Juan? Do you really think racism is gone from the South? Even in Florida, we see much evidence of it. The Court is being activist, even though conservatives are outraged by activism, or so they say!”
Perhaps Juan supports that racism.
To pretend to have zero awareness of the historical racism by whites, in the states of the Old Confederacy, is to be more dishonest and disgusting as those who claim that the Holocaust never happened.
OOH, D, you are being much more forthright in what you say about Juan than I have been, as I “attempt” to be diplomatic! LOL But I cannot disagree with what you said!
D: Are you implying that the Germans are still Nazi’s? It’s only been 70yrs since the Holocaust, yet I don’t see anyone still sustaining that the German people are today in their vast majority are Nazi’s racist that hate the Jews. Yet you seem to sustain that the South in its vast majority are racists and want the return of slavery.
Way to go D! 🙂
Some NRA rep brought some bumper stickers by my house today. I used my cell phone to call him and tell him that I’m throwing his trash in my trash can! 🙂
Be careful, Princess Leia, as a person from the NRA could be dangerous with people who believe guns should be regulated!
He asked for an address to supposedly take off his list. I gave him an old address I no longer live at.
Oh ok, smart move, Princess Leia!