FredHayek wrote: And why did VRA originally come about? Because of southern Democrats "discouraging" minority voting.
So now that it is southern Republicans discouraging minority voting, it is ok?
Differing views about voting. I would prefer my voters be legal and documented while you would rather hundreds of illegal/undocumented voters and/or felons be allowed to vote rather than deny one legal voter the right.
And honestly, do you think voter intimidation is just as bad now as it was in the Jim Crow days? Because if you do, you are lying, or denying the efforts and advances of MLK and others in the civil rights struggle.
I prefer that voting be made readily accessible to all citizens having the right to vote.
Voter intimidation is certainly not as bad now through the success of the VRA which the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is attempting to strike down since it is obvious that the Republicans in Congress will not allow to be updated.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.”
At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.”
Except Roberts is placing his opinion in place of that of Congress who decided only a few short years ago that the current needs and burdens were satisfied by the current Voting rights. He is an activist judge legislating from the bench to suit partisan idealogues. Roberts provided no evidence or support that the current VRA is not effectively providing the constitutional protections that this same court found that it was doing only four years ago. What has changed in four years? Roberts provided no explanation other than Congress failed to update the tests that he found was constitutional only four years ago. Simply a matter of a conservative activist judge throwing out precedent and the historical deference to Congressional intent to satisfy partisan ideology.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.”
Except Roberts is placing his opinion in place of that of Congress who decided only a few short years ago that the current needs and burdens were satisfied by the current Voting rights. He is an activist judge legislating from the bench to suit partisan idealogues. Roberts provided no evidence or support that the current VRA is not effectively providing the constitutional protections that this same court found that it was doing only four years ago. What has changed in four years? Roberts provided no explanation other than Congress failed to update the tests that he found was constitutional only four years ago. Simply a matter of a conservative activist judge throwing out precedent and the historical deference to Congressional intent to satisfy partisan ideology.
He didn't really do that with the ACA mandate which I believe will be a huge fubar for this country and satisied the Dems... not the GOP.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
It sounds a little unfair to me that some States have different voting rules than others. If VRA is too be extended both red and blue States should have to observe it. Otherwise majority red States could make rules for minority blue States.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: It sounds a little unfair to me that some States have different voting rules than others. If VRA is too be extended both red and blue States should have to observe it. Otherwise majority red States could make rules for minority blue States.
The VRA is based on the sordid history of discrimination against minority voters by certain states, counties and cities. Those that have that history must obtain preclearance from the DOJ before they change their voting laws, until today. Those states can go to court to prove that they no longer practice such discrimination and be removed from that limitation, and many have done so and are no longer under that requirement. This requirement was found to be constitutional only four years ago. Today, Roberts and his conservative cronies found that conditions have dramatically changed in the past four years, and that requirement is now unconstitutional unless Congress changes it. Even though Congress found it was working effectively and overwhelming voted to keep it intact only 7 years ago and the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional four years ago. Until today.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
FredHayek wrote: It sounds a little unfair to me that some States have different voting rules than others. If VRA is too be extended both red and blue States should have to observe it. Otherwise majority red States could make rules for minority blue States.
The VRA is based on the sordid history of discrimination against minority voters by certain states, counties and cities. Those that have that history must obtain preclearance from the DOJ before they change their voting laws, until today. Those states can go to court to prove that they no longer practice such discrimination and be removed from that limitation, and many have done so and are no longer under that requirement. This requirement was found to be constitutional only four years ago. Today, Roberts and his conservative cronies found that conditions have dramatically changed in the past four years, and that requirement is now unconstitutional unless Congress changes it. Even though Congress found it was working effectively and overwhelming voted to keep it intact only 7 years ago and the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional four years ago. Until today.
"The VRA is based on the sordid history of discrimination against minority voters by certain states, counties and cities."
Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on August 6. The 1965 act suspended poll taxes, literacy tests, and other subjective voter registration tests. It authorized Federal supervision of voter registration in states and individual voting districts where such tests were being used. African Americans who had been barred from registering to vote finally had an alternative to taking suits to local or state courts, which had seldom prosecuted their cases to success. If discrimination in voter registration occurred, the 1965 act authorized the Attorney General of the United States to send Federal examiners to replace local registrars. Johnson reportedly told associates of his concern that signing the bill had lost the white South as voters for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.
FredHayek wrote: It sounds a little unfair to me that some States have different voting rules than others. If VRA is too be extended both red and blue States should have to observe it. Otherwise majority red States could make rules for minority blue States.
The VRA is based on the sordid history of discrimination against minority voters by certain states, counties and cities. Those that have that history must obtain preclearance from the DOJ before they change their voting laws, until today. Those states can go to court to prove that they no longer practice such discrimination and be removed from that limitation, and many have done so and are no longer under that requirement. This requirement was found to be constitutional only four years ago. Today, Roberts and his conservative cronies found that conditions have dramatically changed in the past four years, and that requirement is now unconstitutional unless Congress changes it. Even though Congress found it was working effectively and overwhelming voted to keep it intact only 7 years ago and the Supreme Court found it to be constitutional four years ago. Until today.
"The VRA is based on the sordid history of discrimination against minority voters by certain states, counties and cities."
Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on August 6. The 1965 act suspended poll taxes, literacy tests, and other subjective voter registration tests. It authorized Federal supervision of voter registration in states and individual voting districts where such tests were being used. African Americans who had been barred from registering to vote finally had an alternative to taking suits to local or state courts, which had seldom prosecuted their cases to success. If discrimination in voter registration occurred, the 1965 act authorized the Attorney General of the United States to send Federal examiners to replace local registrars. Johnson reportedly told associates of his concern that signing the bill had lost the white South as voters for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.
You must still be worried about the Democratic Party.
No I am worried that the Republican party will use this as an opportunity to create obstructions to the voting rights of minorities. But then that would apparently make you quite happy.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: No I am worried that the Republican party will use this as an opportunity to create obstructions to the voting rights of minorities. But then that would apparently make you quite happy.
Gee... it took you a whole three pages before you pulled out the race card.
