HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Conservative Justices Voi...

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:46 AM

Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.”

The court’s more liberal members, citing data and history, said Congress remained entitled to make the judgment that the provision was still needed in the covered jurisdictions.

“It’s an old disease,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said of efforts to thwart minority voting. “It’s gotten a lot better. A lot better. But it’s still there.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/conservative-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html



Here it comes. Expect the worst.

40 replies, 3835 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law (Original post)
onehandle Feb 2013 OP
Drale Feb 2013 #1
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #2
loudsue Feb 2013 #4
demwing Feb 2013 #13
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #34
cosmicone Feb 2013 #16
caseymoz Feb 2013 #18
cosmicone Feb 2013 #24
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #35
dbackjon Feb 2013 #26
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #36
John2 Feb 2013 #27
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #33
lark Feb 2013 #3
leftyohiolib Feb 2013 #8
lark Feb 2013 #9
leftyohiolib Feb 2013 #17
lark Feb 2013 #22
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #37
srican69 Feb 2013 #5
iandhr Feb 2013 #6
octoberlib Feb 2013 #7
ck4829 Feb 2013 #10
Comrade_McKenzie Feb 2013 #11
freshwest Feb 2013 #14
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #23
TeamPooka Feb 2013 #12
iandhr Feb 2013 #15
freshwest Feb 2013 #25
caseymoz Feb 2013 #19
Peter cotton Feb 2013 #20
caseymoz Feb 2013 #38
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #21
John2 Feb 2013 #28
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #31
sakabatou Feb 2013 #39
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #40
BigDemVoter Feb 2013 #29
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #30
OKNancy Feb 2013 #32

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:52 AM

1. Um Link? /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:52 AM

2. The VRA is toast

will be overturned 5-4. White conservative control will return to the former Confederate states and the clock will be rolled back to the 1920s.

The Democrats failure to filibuster Alito and Roberts when nominated (thank you Sen. Lieberman) handed the court to the radical Right and with it, doomed the U.S. I do not see us recovering from this for generations, if ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:55 AM

4. You hit that nail on the head. The USA may never recover from this court.

They couldn't be much worse. A bunch of Opus Dei sickos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:22 PM

13. Civil rights can not simply wait for old men to die off and be replaced

Where is the line in the sand drawn?

We talk about overturning civil rights as if it were a news story, not an attack on our lives. Where and when do we stop talking and start acting? How are we to determine the appropriate actions to take?

With politicians, we can wage campaigns to remove them from office. How do we deal with corruption and antagonism on the Supreme Court? We rightly refuse to use force as a tool, and so we are left with time as our only ally.

But what do we do when we finally determine that civil rights can not simply wait for old men to die off and be replaced?

Do we engage in civil disobedience? Mass strikes? Those will last only as long as it takes for the next iPhone to be released. At the height of the OWS movement, I argued with "friends" who could only complain that the protesters slowed down their daily commute to work. Poor babies....millions of acres of forests, all blocked from view by a bunch of trees.

If we aren't willing to fight for a right, then we've defaulted to the position that the right is actually a privilege and that if we're not good little tools, those privileges can be withheld. I don't want to live in that world. I don't want my kids to grow up with that concept of "normal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:54 PM

34. Civil disobedience is our only recourse

only don't expect GOP controlled legislatures to take it lying down. Bull Connor is rising from the grave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:33 PM

16. You may be wrong on this.

I don't think Roberts will vote to sunset the VRA and leave it on his legacy. That was also his reason for the way he voted for the ACA. The ensuing shellacking of his name on Faux News and other conservative outlets could not have been pleasant for him.

I really don't think, as CJ, Roberts wants a legacy like Plessy v Ferguson.

On Edit:

I also think that Roberts doesn't want to be remembered by history like Roger B. Taney in the decision Dred Scott v Sandford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:46 PM

18. Just because he did it on the ACA


doesn't mean he'll do it this time. With the conservatives I argued with over racism, I came away with the distinct impression that they do not understand racism, can't recognize it, can't identify it in themselves.

And this is as true for Thomas as anyone. He simply misses the point, trumps it with "greater" ideological principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:13 PM

24. I was talking about Roberts, not Thomas.

Thomas is a gone case with no hope of rehabilitation. Perhaps he drank too many cokes containing pubic hair and the hairball has reached his brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:57 PM

35. Roberts is making it very plain

by his questions that the VRA is not going to stand.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Just to get the -do you know which State has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African American voter turnout?

GENERAL VERRILLI: I do not.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Massachusetts. Do you know what has the best, where African American turnout actually exceeds white turnout? Mississippi.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. But Congress recognized that expressly in the findings when it reauthorized the act in 2006. It said that the first generation problems had been largely dealt with, but there persisted significant -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Which State has the greatest disparity in registration between white and African American?

GENERAL VERRILLI: I do not know that.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Massachusetts. Third is Mississippi, where again the African American registration rate is higher than the white registration rate.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:19 PM

26. We may need a revolution

This and the gay rights issues that are coming up before the courts.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:58 PM

36. Actually gay rights has an excellent chance of passing

Kennedy is the swing and he has ruled favorably before on gay rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:48 PM

27. Isn't this the effect

 

of electing George W. Bush for President of the United States? He will be if not is the worst President this country has ever had. That will be part of his legacy too. We will have to fight back for what this country loss or will lose. I wish there was a way we could legally remove some of them. We really need to turn Congress over. We have several Taney's on the Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:51 PM

33. The Dems had the clout to stop

both Alito and Roberts, but chose not to in the interest of "bi-partisanship". After all, their opponents would certainly extend to them the same courtesy in the future.

The Vichy Democrats have destroyed this nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:53 AM

3. Alito, Scalia, Thomas & Roberts

are licking their lips at this chance to let Repugs voter restriction fraud loose on the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:58 AM

8. it's the only way they'll get the power back lie cheat steal - well when they do what do we do?

when tyrants take control of the government then use the legal process to bind you what do you do? 1st they came for the minorities voting rights what makes anyone think they'll stop there. then they take away the rights of the poor to vote what then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:10 PM

9. They take away our right to a good free education

thereby lowering the job skills and then they hire all us poor folks at slave wages with no benefits so we aren't healthy and die young. The change SSI to investments only and then they tank the stock marked again and again, taking all the profits and empoverishing everyone else. They disallow any form of birth control to create even more poor people and keep women enslaved to their biology. Of course rich women will have no problem getting these banned substances.

Handmaidens Tale is a Repug wet dream of the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:36 PM

17. if any country did this to us we'd be at war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:58 PM

22. If they even threatened to do these things

we'd go to war with them pre-emptively to "save the American way". There are no rules or consequences for the ultra-rich and their paid enablers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:00 PM

37. The neoConfederates want another civil war

They will push to the brink in the hopes that this time, they will be able to break free of the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:57 AM

5. I can feel a pit in my stomach ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:57 AM

6. Sad but not surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:57 AM

7. What a disgrace. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:12 PM

10. "Oh, these white hoods? It's because we're dressing up as ghosts, you can totally trust us."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:16 PM

11. They should alter the law to subject all states to section 5. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:24 PM

14. Agreed. Federal elections should be federalized. But the de-centralization crowd wants fiefdoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:58 PM

23. I agree but not sure the Constitution agrees. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:21 PM

12. The Roberts court will take us back to Brown V Board of Education

talk about a stain on our history.
John Roberts will be one of the most famous oppressionists in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:27 PM

15. Remember we expected the worst over the Affordable Care Act.

I am not optimistic here but we shouldn't 100% loose hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:14 PM

25. True, the leaks prior to that were not favorable. Electoral reform was mentioned in Obama's election

night statement and also the SOTU.

If the court is paying attention, they know that if they strike down the Voting Rights Act, it will light a fire in the voters. The number of states constrained under that act is limited, it doesn't apply to all states.

Those who stood in long lines to re-elect Obama will rightly see it as an attack on them and may do what Obama has urged them to do, take over the country by ballot one place at a time. I welcome that, but the loss of the Voting Rights Act would allow the GOP to further erode our freedom to decide our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:48 PM

19. If this is done, there should be a nonstop


Occupy movement at the SCOTUS. Scalia called it "perpetuation of racial entitlement." What an idiot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:54 PM

20. Do you think such a movement is likely to occur?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:29 PM

38. Looking at the Civil Rights movement


Yes. I think anger could break out over this. I mean, it did over Civil Rights before. Economically, African Americans are worse off than they have been in twenty years. You take away the Voting Rights Act on top of that, after Republican efforts to stifle voting in 2012, and this can stir nonstop trouble.

Now add in the fact that other minorities are larger than they've ever been, and have also been the target of GOP racism and disenfranchisement and you have the possibility of convulsions as large as the '60s.

If the Supreme Court knocks this down, they will have overreached. It's hard to say how many consequences it'll bring down on itself and the Republican Party. This will not go smoothly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:57 PM

21. I believe the problem is that the law is not backed up by the Constitution.

I hope I am wrong. What we need is to figure out where in the Constitution voting rights are protected and get Congress to pass a law for all states based on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:03 PM

28. Voting Rights

 

should be covered in the Equal Protection Clause. Scalia is an embarrassment to this country and the Court. I wish there was a legal way to remove him. Every American citizen that has not broken any laws are entitled to the same rights as any other citizen in this country. What he inferred that a citizen does not have those privileges because of race is outlandish! He made other outrageous statements concerning Gay Americans. This man should be removed from the Court!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #28)


Response to John2 (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:39 PM

39. Agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:40 PM

40. Someone pointed out that the 15th Amendment applies. I stand corrected. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:09 PM

29. Those FUCKS are just looking to steal more elections. . . .

The same damn ones who stole the election in 2000--how convenient for them-- ASSHOLES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:13 PM

30. Right after this, they're going after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 --Bank on it....

The Teabaggers, Paulites, Birchers and their allies have been trying to beat back the rising tide of color, and they are running out of cards to play...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:56 PM

32. kick for updates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread