Supreme Court to review key section of Voting Rights Act

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would decide the constitutionality of a signature portion of the Voting Rights Act.

The justices three years ago expressed skepticism about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act, which requires states and localities with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South, to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws.

It is the second important case involving race that the court has accepted this term. Last month, the justices heard a challenge to the University of Texas’s admissions policy that could redefine or eliminate the use of affirmative action in higher education.

The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/supreme-court-to-review-key-section-of-voting-rights-act/2012/11/09/dd249cd0-216d-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html

[Live and Learn]

1. LOL "Things have changed in the South."

“Things have changed in the South,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in an opinion that sidestepped the constitutional question. “Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”

Yeah, this election proved just how enlightened people have become throughout the years.

In fact, from what I saw and heard, maybe they should expand it to all 50 states.

[valerief]

5. Why doesn't SCOTUS ever have to prove things like "things have changed in the South"? nt

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Let me tell you how much has changed in the South

My girlfriend was on a road trip that passed through Arkansas a couple of years ago.

A waitress told her this "joke":

"What do Obama and Lincoln have in common?"

and the punchline was...

"Nothing yet"

The South is far, far worse than I would have ever guessed.

I don't think anything has changed there since 1865.

[Live and Learn]

14. Ugh, I agree with you. Maybe you should share that joke with Justice Roberts.

I think that the majority of folks witnessed the ugly and it will be very difficult for them to revoke any part of the act given the current tension.

[FiveGoodMen]

16. And remember

This is a waitress, at work, talking to a complete stranger while saying things that deserve Secret Service attention.

She felt comfortable with that ... imagine what she'd say to her friends and family!

[John2]

17. Did

you see the video Ed just showed on his show about Mississippi? So these Justices are in denial of America's history. They want to turn back the clock on what people fought and died for in this country. If it is UnConstitutional now, then it was UnConstitutional back then. Justice Roberts is full of it. Sounds like another Taney to me.

[jody]

2. Court limited its review to a question which it composed itself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021777193#post12

[SCVDem]

3. Look at the election map

Until some of the confederacy turns blue, they will write voter discrimination laws.

[Indi Guy]

4. There should be a push on this after Obama replaces a conservative justice or two... n/t

[DallasNE]

6. What Are The Legal Grounds For Hearing This Case

The law is the law. Or at least that is always what I was taught. Now the Supreme Court is set to legislate from the bench by rewriting the work of Congress and signed into law by the President. While conditions on the ground have changed somewhat it should be up to Congress to deal with the new realities and not for the Supreme Court to impose their will. I can easily see this being another 5-4 decision to strike down Section 5.

All they need to do is to look at what Texas has attempted to do, knowing the direction this would go should this provision be declared unconstitutional. And that was when Section 5 was hanging over their head and they still attempted their crap so take that away and who know what crap they would attempt to pull. It would certainly put in shambles the notion of original intent that conservative so like to throw in our face.

[LarryNM]

7. If the SCOTUS makes this decision, then let them try and Enforce it n/t

[byeya]

8. In my opinion, that's the attitude Pres Obama needs to take with this particular court

[olddad56]

9. things have changed and now they have to find a way to deter the latino vote as well as the black.

Judicial activism at its finest.

[tomm2thumbs]

10. 2-3 more Supreme Court Justices to be nominated by Obama.... that's all I have to say

the more the better

[underpants]

11. Yes but this will already be decided and in the books

they are moving now to give them one more POTUS election to fight off the demographic tide that is coming their way

[davidpdx]

13. I have a feeling the corporate Supreme Court

will eliminate the VRA given they have the votes. It doesn't matter what reason they use, they are going to do it. This may be the next big fight.

[Live and Learn]

15. No reason we couldn't add it back in at a later date. They will not win. nt