HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court to review k...

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:06 PM

Supreme Court to review key section of Voting Rights Act

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

17 replies, 2948 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 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court to review key section of Voting Rights Act (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 OP
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #1
valerief Nov 2012 #5
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #12
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #14
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #16
John2 Nov 2012 #17
jody Nov 2012 #2
SCVDem Nov 2012 #3
Indi Guy Nov 2012 #4
DallasNE Nov 2012 #6
LarryNM Nov 2012 #7
byeya Nov 2012 #8
olddad56 Nov 2012 #9
tomm2thumbs Nov 2012 #10
underpants Nov 2012 #11
davidpdx Nov 2012 #13
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #15

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:11 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:33 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:30 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:10 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:47 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:03 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:24 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:28 PM

3. Look at the election map

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:31 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:30 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:12 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LarryNM (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:18 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:22 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:16 PM

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


the more the better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tomm2thumbs (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:22 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:14 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread