SCOTUS drops bomb: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

[rambone]

I do not disagree with the result of the decision. It is time to end Reconstruction and allow the South back in the Union fully.

Is that how court decisions are made? "Its time to allow _____"? Its time to end _____"?

Either it was always unconstitutional, or not.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is that how court decisions are made? "Its time to allow _____"? Its time to end _____"?

Either it was always unconstitutional, or not.

It is how this decision had to be made as the Congress was using data from 1964 and as it is now 50 years later it is time to strike it down.

As the Chief Justice wrote,

"While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

Now, if Congress has data that the South is still racist then it can simply re-implement §4.

Your side lost, ram, there are consequences to losing a war that your side starts and it matters not where your Cornerstone is. First and foremost is that you WILL respect the fundamental right of voting. The Constitution mandates this.

 

[terrehautian]

I think there should be one federal voting law enacted, Voter ID! You should have to have a state issued ID to vote, no ifs, ands or buts. Every state should be like Indiana and give someone an ID card for free. I am sure if you can't get to the license branch, a local political party will get you there just so you can vote.

 

[rambone]

It is how this decision had to be made as the Congress was using data from 1964 and as it is now 50 years later it is time to strike it down.

As the Chief Justice wrote,

"While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

Are you saying that this was constitutional in 1964, and somehow it became unconstitutional over time based on.... data?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Are you saying that this was constitutional in 1964, and somehow it became unconstitutional over time based on.... data?

Did you not read my pull quote from Chief Justice Roberts?

That is exactly what the Supreme Court said.

 

[rambone]

Did you not read my pull quote from Chief Justice Roberts?

That is exactly what the Supreme Court said.

Sounds like you support that same logic, eh?

"It is time to end Reconstruction and allow the South back in the Union fully."

 

[PKendall317]

Honestly, I don't get what the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jackson are crying about. I'm black, and I agree with SCOTUS decision to overturn Sec. 4 of the Voting Rights Act. They're acting like the entire VRA was suddenly repealed, and all the Jim Crow laws are suddenly going to come back into existence. They need to calm the hell down over this.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Honestly, I don't get what the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jackson are crying about. I'm black, and I agree with SCOTUS decision to overturn Sec. 4 of the Voting Rights Act. They're acting like the entire VRA was suddenly repealed, and all the Jim Crow laws are suddenly going to come back into existence. They need to calm the hell down over this.

Impossible. NAACP/Sharpton/Jackson don't do it for "social justice", it's for politics and money. They create racism where none exists.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sounds like you support that same logic, eh?

"It is time to end Reconstruction and allow the South back in the Union fully."

Yes, the Court was correct in ruling this unconstitutional in my opinion. Although I am uncertain why the Court did not strike down §5 as well as §4.*

Things have changed in the South after 50 years and I believe it is time to end pre-clearance.

*This was the argument of Landmark (Mark Levin). If you want a better understanding of the VRA and the 14th Amendment I believe the Landmark brief makes a very nice read.

http://www.projectonfairrepresentat...er-Amicus-Brief-Landmark-Legal-Foundation.pdf

 

[avboiler11]

Wife is holding our 8 day old, watching the Today Show, and a (black) MSNBC host on there talking about the VRA said "This ruling makes it harder for black and brown people to vote in the South."

HOW?!?!?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Rev. Jackson are crying about. I'm black, and I agree with SCOTUS decision to overturn Sec. 4 of the Voting Rights Act. They're acting like the entire VRA was suddenly repealed, and all the Jim Crow laws are suddenly going to come back into existence. They need to calm the hell down over this.

I've always like what the Cigarette Man from X-Files said about "civil rights leaders". To paraphrase:

"Fifty years ago I would be joining them in the streets with guns as all they wanted is the same rights as all of us. Now, I wake up and Martin Luther King is talking like a Maoist."

 

[Meezer]

Wife is holding our 8 day old, watching the Today Show, and a (black) MSNBC host on there talking about the VRA said "This ruling makes it harder for black and brown people to vote in the South."

HOW?!?!?

How?? According to them, Because of this:

Texas AG Abbott says voter ID law will 'take effect immediately' | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth



Yes, Texas is copying Indiana law, imagine that.

 

[Phil502]

I'm all for voter id laws, all that crybaby bs on the democrats part is so there can be easier voter fraud and multiple votes by one person.

 

[avboiler11]

How?? According to them, Because of this:

Texas AG Abbott says voter ID law will 'take effect immediately' | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth

Yes, Texas is copying Indiana law, imagine that.

I fail to see how a Voter ID law will make it more difficult to vote.

You need a government-issued picture ID to do any number of things in this country, and I've never understood why something like VOTING should be exempt.

 

[rambone]

Yes, the Court was correct in ruling this unconstitutional in my opinion. Although I am uncertain why the Court did not strike down §5 as well as §4.*

Things have changed in the South after 50 years and I believe it is time to end pre-clearance.

I agree, it is unconstitutional, and always was.

I don't buy the idea that it used to be constitutional... And some data changed it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I agree, it is unconstitutional, and always was

How was there no rational basis for this in 1965?

Are you simply unaware how uncivilized the South was? Do you acknowledge Jim Crow and Son of Ham laws or believe it was a conspiracy? How about reading tests for voting?

I don't buy the idea that it used to be constitutional... And some data changed it.

Again, how was there no rational basis for §4 in 1965?

Show me how you could bring pre-1965 Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas, states standing in schoolhouse doors, states using dogs and fire hoses, states using murder and violence, to heel without pre-clearance?

 

[rambone]

I agree, it is unconstitutional, and always was.

I don't buy the idea that it used to be constitutional... And some data changed it.

How was there no rational basis for this in 1965?

Watch the patch of this conversation go from discussing "constitutionality" and then switch over to "rationality." Its a subtle change, but if you watch for it you can't miss it.

Kirk, I understand the rationale. That's a different discussion.

We are disagreeing about the idea that emotion-driven, subjective, ever-changing "data" has anything to do with constitutionality of a law. Constitutionality -- not rationality.

You can't logically tell me that a law is constitutional in one year, and unconstitutional in another year. Show me the constitutional amendment that occurred during that timespan and it would make sense. An arbitrary flip-flop in the middle is not rational. "The times, they are a changing" is not a valid argument for reversing on the meaning of the constitution.

Are you simply unaware how uncivilized the South was?

You don't have to convince me that the south was uncivilized. I mean seriously. We're debating about who's job it should be to fix it. State vs. federal power.

I believe these problems should be fixed at the state level. If it is possible to make political change happen in D.C., it is also possible to make it happen right there in your home state, with patience and perseverance. States are easier to control, and easier to escape from when they make wrong decisions. It is much more difficult to control Washington DC and the federal heel being pressed over the entire nation.

 

[zippy23]

Its amazing to me that SCOTUS gets this right, yet everything else the decide is wrong. amazing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Its amazing to me that SCOTUS gets this right, yet everything else the decide is wrong. amazing.

Because the SCOTUS is political, and it shouldn't be.

We need 9 constitutional non-partisan experts, not people that vote party line like anything else.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

I'm not black but, I'm so sick and tired of Al Sharpton being the unofficial representative of black people. For gods sake there are dozens more black people on the social stage who can offer better insight into legislation.