SCOTUS Strikes Part Of The Voting Rights Act

The liberal side of the court dissented. Not a complete reversal, but some "progressive" movement made. (Yahoo, multiple sources.)

From the SCOTUS decision...

(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” [/b][/i]

The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. Pp. 18–21. [/b][/i]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 6_6k47.pdf

In other words, the government couldn’t even make an argument that the endemic discrimination that required federal interference in state-level legislative processes still existed. They just argued that because the conditions existed 50 years ago, they might still be a problem today — an argument that lends itself to unlimited exercise. Small wonder the court found this irrational.

(the whole story at...)
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/25/b ... ights-act/

(great comment from the HotAir comment section on this article)

"I hear Eric Holder is going to hold his breath until the Supreme's change their minds"

Which Congress by near unanimous votes in 2006, after hours upon hours of testimony, with thousands of pages of legisltive history, decided was appropriate. And this conservative wing of SCOTUS ignores the Congressional decision and substitute their own judgement in place of that of Congress. Talk about an activist court.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Which Congress by near unanimous votes in 2006, after hours upon hours of testimony, with thousands of pages of legisltive history, decided was appropriate. And this conservative wing of SCOTUS ignores the Congressional decision and substitute their own judgement in place of that of Congress. Talk about an activist court.

No kidding... not bad. That's why we have the various branches of government... you know... checks and balances and all that... it's a pain when it doesn't go your way... isn't it?

And why did VRA originally come about? Because of southern Democrats "discouraging" minority voting.

Walter L Newton wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Which Congress by near unanimous votes in 2006, after hours upon hours of testimony, with thousands of pages of legisltive history, decided was appropriate. And this conservative wing of SCOTUS ignores the Congressional decision and substitute their own judgement in place of that of Congress. Talk about an activist court.

No kidding... not bad. That's why we have the various branches of government... you know... checks and balances and all that... it's a pain when it doesn't go your way... isn't it?

Actually the Supremes went overbreadth in their "checks and balances". It is not their job to legislate from the bench nor to substitute their judgement for that of Congress, only to determine if the legislation is constitutional. Traditionally, the courts defer to representatives of the people on matters of legislative findings, not legislate from the bench.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually the Supreme's went over breadth in their "checks and balances". It is not their job to legislate from the bench nor to substitute their judgement for that of Congress, only to determine if the legislation is constitutional. Traditionally, the courts defer to representatives of the people on matters of legislative findings, not legislate from the bench.

It didn't legislate from the bench... it put it right back in congresses lap "Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions."

It really bugs Something the Dog Said when the "if you're white, you're automatically a racist" meme is busted.

From the SCOTUS PDF linked to above...

Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. [/b][/i] The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2. We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.” Presley, 502 U. S., at 500–501. 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.

Deciding on the current constitutionality of a law... just doing the job they are suppose to do. Remember that constitution thing?

Walter L Newton wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually the Supreme's went over breadth in their "checks and balances". It is not their job to legislate from the bench nor to substitute their judgement for that of Congress, only to determine if the legislation is constitutional. Traditionally, the courts defer to representatives of the people on matters of legislative findings, not legislate from the bench.

It didn't legislate from the bench... it put it right back in congresses lap "Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions."

Which Congress had done only seven years ago. Have conditions changed so radically in seven years? Or is the conservative wing of the court asserting their partisan biases?