SCOTUS Strikes Part Of The Voting Rights Act

After you did it in only one page.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote: 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?

Four years ago it was constitutional when they upheld this very section as constitutional in Northwest Austin Municipal Utiltiy District, yet today it is not. What has changed in those four years?

You lie like, well, a dog. SCOTUS did not rule it was constitutional 4 years ago. In fact, as the quoted text above clearly indicates, they took great care not to do so; choosing instead to give Congress an opportunity to address the coverage formula before taking the extraordinary step of ruling on the constitutionality of the formula put in place nearly 5 decades ago. Congress, having declined to take advantage of that opportunity granted to them by the Supreme Court before any ruling on constitutionality was issued, is now placed in the position of having to do so as a result of today's ruling. The only part ruled unconstitutional was an outdated formula which the federal government was using to interject itself where it should not be doing so.

It is absurd to deny a State the ability to require that a valid photo identification issued by that State be presented in some States using the VRA as an excuse to prevent them from doing so when SCOTUS has already ruled that such a requirement is not in any manner discriminatory and is instead a reasonable requirement to ensure the integrity of the ballot.

Subsection 4(b) of the VRA, the only portion of the law which was struck down by the Supreme Court today states:

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of the Director of the Census under this section or under section 6 or section 13 shall not be reviewable in any court and shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

It is not reasonable, nor rational, to continue to require some States be subjected to this statute simply because 50 years ago less than 50% of those eligible to register to vote were not registered or because 50 years ago that State had a test or device which the law found objectionable. What existed 50 years ago is not relevant today and it is absurd to think, or believe, that because there was a test or device in place 50 years ago that there are grounds for the federal government to continue to insert itself into the business of that State today. It is therefore not reasonable, nor rational, to continue to exercise authority over any State based on conditions 50 years ago. Were there any States at all where less than 50% of those who are of voting age are registered to vote in 2012?

Please Dog, explain why the federal government should continue to have the ability granted them by the 1964 VRA today simply because in 1964 less than 50% of eligible voters voted or less than 50% of the people of voting age in 1964 were registered to vote. I would really appreciate seeing a reasoned and rational argument offered to defend that particular provision, which was the only one struck down by the Supreme Court today.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote: 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?

Four years ago it was constitutional when they upheld this very section as constitutional in Northwest Austin Municipal Utiltiy District, yet today it is not. What has changed in those four years?

You lie like, well, a dog. SCOTUS did not rule it was constitutional 4 years ago. In fact, as the quoted text above clearly indicates, they took great care not to do so; choosing instead to give Congress an opportunity to address the coverage formula before taking the extraordinary step of ruling on the constitutionality of the formula put in place nearly 5 decades ago. Congress, having declined to take advantage of that opportunity granted to them by the Supreme Court before any ruling on constitutionality was issued, is now placed in the position of having to do so as a result of today's ruling. The only part ruled unconstitutional was an outdated formula which the federal government was using to interject itself where it should not be doing so.

It is absurd to deny a State the ability to require that a valid photo identification issued by that State be presented in some States using the VRA as an excuse to prevent them from doing so when SCOTUS has already ruled that such a requirement is not in any manner discriminatory and is instead a reasonable requirement to ensure the integrity of the ballot.

Subsection 4(b) of the VRA, the only portion of the law which was struck down by the Supreme Court today states:

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of the Director of the Census under this section or under section 6 or section 13 shall not be reviewable in any court and shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

It is not reasonable, nor rational, to continue to require some States be subjected to this statute simply because 50 years ago less than 50% of those eligible to register to vote were not registered or because 50 years ago that State had a test or device which the law found objectionable. What existed 50 years ago is not relevant today and it is absurd to think, or believe, that because there was a test or device in place 50 years ago that there are grounds for the federal government to continue to insert itself into the business of that State today. It is therefore not reasonable, nor rational, to continue to exercise authority over any State based on conditions 50 years ago. Were there any States at all where less than 50% of those who are of voting age are registered to vote in 2012?

Please Dog, explain why the federal government should continue to have the ability granted them by the 1964 VRA today simply because in 1964 less than 50% of eligible voters voted or less than 50% of the people of voting age in 1964 were registered to vote. I would really appreciate seeing a reasoned and rational argument offered to defend that particular provision, which was the only one struck down by the Supreme Court today.

Really Printsmith? Anyone who has shared companionship with Dogs can most assuredly attest that Dogs do not lie, are incapable of lying and are the most honest and guiliess animal on this planet. Printers on the other hand do not have such a great rep.
In regard to your misleading statement, Roberts made it clear that he avoided ruling that the VRA was unconstitutional four years ago, even when specifically requested to do so. He and his cronies had the opportunity to do so four years ago and refused to do so, instead letting it stand as constitutional. Had he and his cronies thought that it was unconstitutional four years ago, then they are guilty of shirking their sworn duty. But now a mere four years later, they are of the opinion that it is unconstitutional. What has changed so dramatically in four years? That "outdated formula" has suddenly become outdated in four years? Bull

Congress, after months of careful consideration, decided that formula was adequate, effective and constitutional in 2007. As Scalia stated just today, for the Supreme Court fail to defer to Congress and impose their own opinions particularly on legislation that the Court found constitutional other than the failure to update the formula, which Congress found to be adequate that it is
“That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive,” he wrote, adding that the framers of the Constitution created a judicial branch with limited power in order to “guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”

Funny how when it is directed towards defending "homosexual sodomy" as he so genteelly puts it is terrible but when it is directed towards limiting the ability of minorities to vote is ok.

My dogs lie all the time. On my bed. On the couch. On the cool basement floor.

FredHayek wrote: My dogs lie all the time. On my bed. On the couch. On the cool basement floor.

Gee, I'll bet you thought that up all by yourself.... (How's that shoelace-tying project coming along?)

OK, good one. Like you are a constitutional scholar?
My dogs will also lie when I ask them if the wife already gave them a treat.