Will Republicans allow the Voting Rights Act to be updated?

With SCOTUS finding portions of the VRA to be unconstitutional unless Congress updates the data upon which it is based, will Republicans allow this historically important legislation to be updated or simply allow it to be struck down so that minorities can be oppressed from voting? The VRA has been one of the most important acts be enacted, as SCOTUS has admitted, ensuring that minorities have been able to freely participate in one of the most important acts a citizen may participate in. Will it be gutted by the Republicans or will they stand up as proud Americans and allow this act to meet the limitations imposed upon it by the Supreme Court?

Eric Cantor claims they will stand up for minority voting rights, but my opinion is that certain Tea Party type Republicans will take this opportunity to attempt to obstruct the ability of minorities (although I guess that term is due for a definition change due to changing demographics) to vote since they typically vote Democratic.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) reacted late Tuesday afternoon to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling that overturned a centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act.

"My experience with John Lewis in Selma earlier this year was a profound experience that demonstrated the fortitude it took to advance civil rights and ensure equal protection for all," Cantor said in a statement provided to TPM. "I'm hopeful Congress will put politics aside, as we did on that trip, and find a responsible path forward that ensures that the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) declined to comment on Tuesday after the 5-4 decision announced in the morning by the Supreme Court.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... ng?ref=fpb

Only if it applies for all States? Not a hand picked group of States created 50 years ago.

How about to states, counties, cities that have a history of discrimination against voting rights by minorities? Because that is the way it was before today. Those affected by the requirement for preclearance by the DOJ before changing voting laws could go to court to be removed from that requirement, and many were able to do so. That is the way it has successfully worked before today for 48 years. Now unless Republicans stand up and do the honorable and correct thing, as even their political leaders admit, those states, counties and cities that have a sordid history that continues even up today, will be able to freely obstruct the voting rights of minorities to further their partisan ideology over the rights of American citizens.

Roberts is suddenly not your little poster boy... :faint: how the worm turns... it's rather humorous. :rofllol

And let's not forget the history that make this necessary...

Disfranchisement attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats related to the numbers of people who were barred from voting.[6] In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment. For decades, white Southern Democrats exercised Congressional representation derived from a full count of the population, but they disfranchised several million black and white citizens. Southern white Democrats comprised a powerful voting block in Congress until the mid-20th century and their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, became senior members, controlling numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against lynching, among other issues.[4] Because of one-party control, many Southern Democrats achieved seniority in Congress and occupied chairmanships of significant Congressional committees, thus increasing their power over legislation, rules, budgets and important patronage projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranch ... _Civil_War

Yup.

Walter L Newton wrote: And let's not forget the history that make this necessary...

Disfranchisement attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats related to the numbers of people who were barred from voting.[6] In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment. For decades, white Southern Democrats exercised Congressional representation derived from a full count of the population, but they disfranchised several million black and white citizens. Southern white Democrats comprised a powerful voting block in Congress until the mid-20th century and their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, became senior members, controlling numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against lynching, among other issues.[4] Because of one-party control, many Southern Democrats achieved seniority in Congress and occupied chairmanships of significant Congressional committees, thus increasing their power over legislation, rules, budgets and important patronage projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranch ... _Civil_War

Yup.

Which changes nothing from the fact that conservative Republicans will take the opportunity to create obstructions for the voting rights of minorities. Does it?

Walter L Newton wrote: Roberts is suddenly not your little poster boy... :faint: how the worm turns... it's rather humorous. :rofllol

Why don't you honestly engage the topic rather than deflect with your lies and smears? I abhor Roberts dating back to his ridiculous conference of personhood on corporations and his kow towing to corporations.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Why don't you honestly engage the topic rather than deflect with your lies and smears? .

now that is funny, I do not care who you are.

I agree Dog - the statute should be updated. Let's just alter the effective date from November of 1964 to November of 2012. Are there any States that would continue to be subjected to the restrictions imposed by the VRA if this is what is done by Congress? We both know the answer to that query, don't we?

Something the Dog Said wrote:
[snip...]

I abhor Roberts dating back to his ridiculous conference of person-hood on corporations and his kow towing to corporations.

And of course you abhor Roberts for this...

The only way Roberts could get a majority to uphold the law — and thus assign the opinion to himself, the prerogative of the Chief Justice — was to join with the liberal wing on the narrow question of whether the mandate was in fact a tax even if President Obama and Congress denied it was. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined with him for this critical portion of the opinion.

Good... then you agree that Roberts made another wrong decision when he voted with the liberals on ObamaCare.