Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act: ‘Our country has changed’

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,635
27,395
898
Seattle
#1
The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that helped dismantle decades of discriminatory voting restrictions in the South when it passed 60 years ago. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices dissenting.

The decision drastically scales back the federal government's power to reject state laws it believes discriminate against minority voters, which include some efforts to tighten identification requirements and limit early voting hours at the ballot box. A wave of such laws swept 30 states over the past few years, and the Obama administration has aggressively fought them in court.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorized by Congress for another 25 years in 2006, gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair to the states covered under it. States that had a discriminatory poll test in the 1960s and low turnout among minority voters must seek special permission from the federal government to change their election laws, even though many of these states now have near equal voter turnout rates between minorities and whites.

"The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. "Our country has changed, and 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."

The Justice Department used Section 5 of the law to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina last year, and it also struck down early voting restrictions in five counties in Florida. (Minority voters are more likely than white voters to vote early in person, and are less likely than whites to have a government-issued photo ID.) Some Democrats argued that these laws were intentionally trying to suppress minority turnout in order to benefit Republicans.

The court has effectively now put the ball back in Congress' court, writing in their decision that is up to them to write a new formula that is based on current data. It seems unlikely that Congress, which is now more partisanly divided than in 2006, would tackle the challenge of creating a new rubric to find and eradicate racial discrimination at the polls, however.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes that the "sad irony" of Roberts' decision is that it strikes down the key part of the Voting Rights Act because it has been so successful at preventing racial discrimination. "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet," she writes.

Court watchers predicted the decision, given the conservative justices' comments on the law during oral arguments and in other cases. Justices in the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed reservations that the nine Southern states covered by the law still required the same degree of federal oversight that they did 60 years ago. "Voter turnout and registration rates [between blacks and whites] now approach parity," Roberts wrote in a decision in 2009. "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels."

Another argument against Section 4's constitutionality was that it's unclear whether minority voters in Southern states are more likely to face discrimination at the polls than they are in other states. Voter ID laws, for example, have passed in states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Indiana. Because those states do not have a history of voter discrimination—and are not covered by the act—their voter ID laws did not have to first pass federal inspection. That said, Southern states covered under the act were much more likely to pass a voter ID law than other states. Seven of the nine states covered in full under the act adopted such a law, compared with 19 states overall.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-141205218.html


And the voter ID law fight continues....
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,635
27,395
898
Seattle
#3
Wow, the amount of butt hurt on twitter about this is great.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,555
923
753
With a stranger
#4
And Holder is doing his best to show the country how little he cares about the laws of this nation.

Attorney General Eric Holder warned states against going too far. He said the Justice Department would not hesitate to take "swift" action against states looking to "take advantage" of the ruling.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XG4TEV3h
Sorry, dumbass. You can't take "swift action" against states that don't break the law. Of course, Holder doesn't exactly think the law applies to him or his department so I wouldn't be shocked to see him try to pull some shit despite having no legal reason to do so.
 

Myhairygrundle

Screw you guys, I'm going home.
Jul 16, 2005
6,797
1,944
543
Texas
#5
I assume Holder is referring to black panthers with nightsticks standing outside polling places.
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,838
5,670
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#8
And Holder is doing his best to show the country how little he cares about the laws of this nation.



Sorry, dumbass. You can't take "swift action" against states that don't break the law. Of course, Holder doesn't exactly think the law applies to him or his department so I wouldn't be shocked to see him try to pull some shit despite having no legal reason to do so.
Seriously, I was half expecting him to accuse the SCOTUS of being racist and declare the ruling invalid because he says so.
 

HandPanzer

Vergangenheitsbewältigung
May 30, 2013
46,306
42,021
293
#9
State Representative Ryan Winkler D-Minnesota responds to "racist" ruling by, well...



A Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota criticized Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act by calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Thomas,” then saying he didn’t know “Uncle Tom” was a racist epithet.
On his Twitter account Tuesday, state Rep. Ryan Winkler called the justices’ 5-4 ruling striking down a part of the law racist, and the work of “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.” Justice Thomas, who is black, was one of the five justices in the majority.

Full Story

Thankfully, Mr. Winkler has a D after his name, otherwise this would be racist.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,555
923
753
With a stranger
#10
State Representative Ryan Winkler D-Minnesota responds to "racist" ruling by, well...



A Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota criticized Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act by calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Thomas,” then saying he didn’t know “Uncle Tom” was a racist epithet.
On his Twitter account Tuesday, state Rep. Ryan Winkler called the justices’ 5-4 ruling striking down a part of the law racist, and the work of “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.” Justice Thomas, who is black, was one of the five justices in the majority.

Full Story

Thankfully, Mr. Winkler has a D after his name, otherwise this would be racist.
If the idiot didn't know Uncle Tom was a racist term, why did he call him "Uncle" in the first place? That's one of the worst excuses I've ever heard for saying or doing something stupid.
 
Apr 30, 2011
35,357
93,554
358
CLT
#11
State Representative Ryan Winkler D-Minnesota responds to "racist" ruling by, well...



A Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota criticized Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act by calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Thomas,” then saying he didn’t know “Uncle Tom” was a racist epithet.
On his Twitter account Tuesday, state Rep. Ryan Winkler called the justices’ 5-4 ruling striking down a part of the law racist, and the work of “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.” Justice Thomas, who is black, was one of the five justices in the majority.

Full Story

Thankfully, Mr. Winkler has a D after his name, otherwise this would be racist.
Clearly this was the work of hackers. :rolleyes:
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,014
2,981
258
Sunnydale
#12
From reading tweets my understanding is that blacks don't have citizenship anymore and they are no longer allowed to vote. Is that what happened?
 

HandPanzer

Vergangenheitsbewältigung
May 30, 2013
46,306
42,021
293
#13
From reading tweets my understanding is that blacks don't have citizenship anymore and they are no longer allowed to vote. Is that what happened?
Let's just say now that Supreme Court has ruled we don't have to rely on Eli Whitney any longer.
 

Guilty Spark

It's freeing and refreshing
May 4, 2005
6,355
2,191
608
Long Island NY
#14
From reading tweets my understanding is that blacks don't have citizenship anymore and they are no longer allowed to vote. Is that what happened?
And the 'unemployment' rate for blacks is about to go back down to 0%
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,913
5,313
838
Wilmington, NC
#15
I love listening to dumbfuck democrats talk about SCOTUS and the right taking us back to the days of the Jim Crow Laws...as if they weren't the party of racial segregation, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. So many misinformed dopes in this country.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#16
I love listening to dumbfuck democrats talk about SCOTUS and the right taking us back to the days of the Jim Crow Laws...as if they weren't the party of racial segregation, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. So many misinformed dopes in this country.
Duh! Everybody knows the parties swapped sides sometime in the 60's.

Its amazing how impossible it is to convince these morons that granting someone special rights, privileges, and opportunities based solely on the color of their skin IS by definition racist. Just as infringing on someone's rights, privileges, and opportunities based solely on the color of their skin is racist.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
~Martin Luther King Jr.

Crazy that in 2013 so many people on the Left would call great men like MLK an Uncle Tom.
 

OilyJillFart

Well-Lubed Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,869
1,137
433
#17
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Little did he know how that character would evolve.
 

MalcomOopsGotShot

White House Spokesperson
May 23, 2013
494
269
93
FBI Surveillance Van down the street
#19
If the idiot didn't know Uncle Tom was a racist term, why did he call him "Uncle" in the first place? That's one of the worst excuses I've ever heard for saying or doing something stupid.
It's becoming the most popular excuse for politicians who use twitter.

Cause you know, anything can be hacked.
 

MalcomOopsGotShot

White House Spokesperson
May 23, 2013
494
269
93
FBI Surveillance Van down the street
#20
Duh! Everybody knows the parties swapped sides sometime in the 60's.

Its amazing how impossible it is to convince these morons that granting someone special rights, privileges, and opportunities based solely on the color of their skin IS by definition racist. Just as infringing on someone's rights, privileges, and opportunities based solely on the color of their skin is racist.


~Martin Luther King Jr.

Crazy that in 2013 so many people on the Left would call great men like MLK an Uncle Tom.
Great avatar bro, they make a shirt like that?
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,639
49,880
644
#23
Good little tweeters, tweeting exactly what their government and media tells them to.

Since thinking for yourself is so faux pas
I am quite fond of the people who opposed the tweeters making comments like "cheese doodles soda space ships." I mean, if the people against the tweeters are 100% free thinkers who don't have their opinions influenced by any sources, then at some people it has to devolve into nonsense just to prove how super amazing free thinkers they are. Why, they shan't follow anyone else's interpretation or thoughts on the issue!
 

MalcomOopsGotShot

White House Spokesperson
May 23, 2013
494
269
93
FBI Surveillance Van down the street
#24
I am quite fond of the people who opposed the tweeters making comments like "cheese doodles soda space ships." I mean, if the people against the tweeters are 100% free thinkers who don't have their opinions influenced by any sources, then at some people it has to devolve into nonsense just to prove how super amazing free thinkers they are. Why, they shan't follow anyone else's interpretation or thoughts on the issue!
Lol, nonsense like your entire post.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,639
49,880
644
#25
Lol, nonsense like your entire post.
No, I'm with you. The people who agree with your point of view are all free thinkers and everyone else is sheeple. That's the only way the delusion works.