One last thing before they go: Supremes try to change civil rights laws.

[ColbertWatcher]

From the Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court might change civil rights law
The justices agree to hear two cases, filed in Connecticut and Texas, that could end rules giving special protection to minorities in the voting booth and the workplace.
By David G. Savage
January 10, 2009

(Excerpt)
One provision in the law, known as the "pre-clearance authority," requires most states, cities and other districts in much of the South to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge in Washington before they make changes in their election rules.

(...)

This provision, Section 5 of the law, was reauthorized by Congress just three years ago, and it was given a 25-year extension. But many Southern officials say the "pre-clearance" provision is outdated and unfair.

"This is not 1965," said Texas attorney Gregory S. Coleman, who challenged the Section 5 provision as unconstitutional.

"We support the voting rights provisions 100%. Section 5 is different," he said. "It says that in a wide swath of America, state and local officials can't be trusted to abide by the law. And that the federal government must look over their shoulder. If you want to move a polling place across the street, it says you have to get permission from Washington."

(you can be sure there's more to piss you off at the link)
--Los Angeles Times

[bluestateguy]

1. Interesting that they want to do this now that Obama controls the Justice Department

If they overturn the VRA, Obama and Holder should disregard the Court (as Andrew Jackson and Lincoln once did) and continue to enforce the VRA anyway.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. But, what about the GOP's Supremes?

Shouldn't he wait until after he fills a few SCOTUS seats first?

[annabanana]

2. Well. . . . "in a wide swath of America,

state and local officials can't be trusted to abide by the law".

THIS is what they want to change? They think all that "caging" stuff is way in the past?

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Oh, good point.

I wasn't sure what to think of the guy who made that quote, but I did find something about him at the Human Rights Campaign website:

As things currently stand, given the outcomes and rationales in Romer and Lawrence, it is likely, though not inevitable, that DOMA itself and prohibitions on same-sex marriage more generally will be held to be unconstitutional in the relatively near future. Those decision provide the necessary background principles for such a holding, and the courts need not establish any additional concepts before reaching that conclusion. And while that future result is not ineluctable, current trends point strongly in that direction, and it is my professional opinion that, in the absence of some intervening event, the Supreme Court's evolving standards of liberty and privacy will result in constitutional protection for same-sex marriages within the next five to fifteen years.

I still can't figure out what the hell he said.

[LiberalFighter]

3. The challengers don't indicate what state law(s) they have in place to prevent

the abuse.

Does Texas or any of the states involved in the lawsuit have laws that have in place requirements that must be followed? Such as prohibiting the move of voting locations less than 30 days before an election. And requiring media notification to the public?

[ColbertWatcher]

7. They're probably going to use the same one that replaced regulation at the FDA ...

... you know, the "Trust Us Act of You'll Fall For Anything."

[xchrom]

4. ballsy attempt -- in the wake of th elections in 00

and 04.

the list of election outrages is pretty long in the south in particular for 00.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. They believe no one is paying attention. n/t