The Supreme Court Seems Ready to Send Voting Rights Issue to Congress

[Bill USA]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-supreme-court-seems-ready-to-send-voting-rights-issue-to-congress-20130227


So what happens next on voting rights?

The Supreme Court justices fell along predictable lines when they heard an argument over the constitutionality of a key section of the Voting Rights Act—its Section 5, which mandates that certain covered jurisdictions, mostly in the South, must get Justice Department approval before they may implement changes in their voting procedures.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision “a racial entitlement.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor facetiously asked if voting itself was an entitlement. Justice Elena Kagan said the current formula for determining who gets covered by Section 5 was working pretty well. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has led the charge to reconsider Section 5, asked if citizens in the South are more prejudiced than citizens elsewhere. The man in the middle, Justice Anthony Kennedy, hailed the Voting Rights Act and said Section 5 was fine in its time but likened it to the Marshall Plan as something that was dated.

I’d venture that the Court sends Congress back to tinker with the formula that determines which jurisdictions get covered by Section 5 rather than jettisoning Section 5 entirely. Chucking Section 5 entirely is possible, but Justice Roberts got eight justices got on board for a 2009 opinion that made it easier for jurisdictions to “bail out” if they had a clean record of nondiscrimination. If he could find a way to get more than the Republican five, he'd have reason to take it—and this could be the way.

Unless the Court just upholds the law, which seems hard to imagine after Wednesday's oral arguments, they’re kicking it back to Congress, where its last renewal in 2006 passed with almost 400 votes in the House and 98 in the Senate before being signed by President George W. Bush.
(more)

[FBaggins]

1. if it goe to congress then it's not going anywhere

too many people on both sides of the aisle who benefit.

[drm604]

2. So if the SCOTUS sends it to Congress,

and Congress just sits on it because of Republican obstructionism, is the current law still in effect while it sits there?

[Bill USA]

3. I guess it would be.

[John2]

4. They would have to

call it UnConstitutional. I wonder on what premise the Supreme Court say it is? I think Justice Scalia's remarks showed ignorance about voting rights according to the Constitution. Wouldn't the Supreme Court be going too far and infringing on Congress's rights. Wouldn't Congress have to repeal an existing law that was enacted decades ago similar to Roe\Wade? Would it also call into question the Constitutionality of the 15th Amendment if you took Scalia's logic about the right to vote in this country? He made a comment and Justice Sotomayer asked him a question about the right to vote. Did Scalia give an answer? For the position that he holds in this country, his comment was irresponsible about the Constitution. The language is very clear in the Constitution about the right to vote. Most elementary kids can understand it. And the right to vote in my opinion is just as applicable as the 2nd Amendment for all law abiding citizens.

[benld74]

5. For SCOTUS to even hear the case, was a major LOSS of its remaining credibility to the country