Section 4 of the VRA found unconsitutional

[martybegan]

The opinions at the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

So basically pre-clearance is still allowable, but the formula used to determine who needs to be pre-cleared is unconsitutional due to the age of the data used.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course that's a bit, a small bit, of hyperbole but given recent history and a Republican H. of Rep. majority we can assume voter suppression will not only continue but accelerate.

This ruling (once again 5-4) along with CU v. FEC has completely transformed our country into a Plutocracy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia have purposely and consciously harmed the American People and the democratic ethos of this once great nation.

It will be interesting to see the comments from those who cherish liberty. For more details see the link below.

SCOTUSblog

Tomorrow or the next day the reprehensible gang of five will have an opportunity to defile The Declaration of Independence and deny a set of citizens liberty and the ability to pursue happiness as they choose.

 

[dilloduck]

oh no---we have to go back to equality ???

 

[martybegan]

Of course that's a bit, a small bit, of hyperbole but given recent history and a Republican H. of Rep. majority we can assume voter suppression will not only continue but accelerate.

This ruling (once again 5-4) along with CU v. FEC has completely transformed our country into a Plutocracy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia have purposely and consciously harmed the American People and the democratic ethos of this once great nation.

It will be interesting to see the comments from those who cherish liberty. For more details see the link below.

SCOTUSblog

Tomorrow or the next day the reprehensible gang of five will have an opportunity to defile The Declaration of Independence and deny a set of citizens liberty and the ability to pursue happiness as they choose.

The VRA is still in effect and any injured party can still sue in federal court to force thier state/locality to follow the law.

All that is removed is the CURRENT pre-clearance system, which was based on old data and not the current conditions in the locality. Congress can rewrite it and send it to the court to see if it would work again.

Pre-clearance was a relic of the 60's and 70's when REAL voter suppression was rampant. Today is not the case. Why keep relic laws on the books when they served thier purpose?

 

[Katzndogz]

No no according to liberals ALL voting rights have been repealed!

 

[Wry Catcher]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

 

[martybegan]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

They could have challenged that WITHOUT this case ever coming to the court.

All the case does is remove DOJ oversight over places that may have zero evidence of discrimination for the past 30 years, but still needed preclearance because of old data.

People wrongly denied the vote can STILL sue in federal court, and Section 2 still applies.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

They could have challenged that WITHOUT this case ever coming to the court.

All the case does is remove DOJ oversight over places that may have zero evidence of discrimination for the past 30 years, but still needed preclearance because of old data.

People wrongly denied the vote can STILL sue in federal court, and Section 2 still applies.

Of course, and that suit will take place after an election. What remedy exists then? None! This can and will be spun by the anti democratic forces as simply an update - in reality it fucks over minorities, students and the aged.

 

[martybegan]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

They could have challenged that WITHOUT this case ever coming to the court.

All the case does is remove DOJ oversight over places that may have zero evidence of discrimination for the past 30 years, but still needed preclearance because of old data.

People wrongly denied the vote can STILL sue in federal court, and Section 2 still applies.

Of course, and that suit will take place after an election. What remedy exists then? None! This can and will be spun by the anti democratic forces as simply an update - in reality it fucks over minorities, students and the aged.

So pre-clearance has to be perpetual and ever ongoing? Even if the conditions that created the need for pre-clearance are no longer valid?

Congress could have fixed this the last time they re-upped the VRA, but they got lazy, kept a formula from 40 years ago intact, and got burned.

The section was written when ACTUAL voter suppression using guns and dogs and hangings was going on. That is no longer the case, and the law SHOULD have been updated to reflect that.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Free at last. Free at last.

It was unconstitutional then. It's unconstitutional now.

I'm surprised the democrats don't want to re-enact Reconstruction.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

Limiting people to one vote is suppression?

My, how times have changed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course that's a bit, a small bit, of hyperbole but given recent history and a Republican H. of Rep. majority we can assume voter suppression will not only continue but accelerate.

This ruling (once again 5-4) along with CU v. FEC has completely transformed our country into a Plutocracy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia have purposely and consciously harmed the American People and the democratic ethos of this once great nation.

It will be interesting to see the comments from those who cherish liberty. For more details see the link below.

SCOTUSblog

Tomorrow or the next day the reprehensible gang of five will have an opportunity to defile The Declaration of Independence and deny a set of citizens liberty and the ability to pursue happiness as they choose.

The VRA is still in effect and any injured party can still sue in federal court to force thier state/locality to follow the law.

Oh goody. So the injured party can file suit but the election will be over by the time the matter goes to court.

All that is removed is the CURRENT pre-clearance system, which was based on old data and not the current conditions in the locality. Congress can rewrite it and send it to the court to see if it would work again.

Congress can't agree on the day of the week. The USSC knows that, hence voter suppression will accelerate. You know that so stop being so dishonest.

Pre-clearance was a relic of the 60's and 70's when REAL voter suppression was rampant. Today is not the case. Why keep relic laws on the books when they served thier purpose?

LOL. Oh yeah, there's no voter suppression going on, it's all about making our elections honest, fair and aboveboard. Let's face it, anti democratic forces have won. American has become a Plutocratic Republic wherein the People's House is owned outright by the 1%.

 

[Katzndogz]

Where are the democrats happy about the rule of law? Don't they want the rule of law? Or, just the rule of some laws?

 

[martybegan]

Free at last. Free at last.

It was unconstitutional then. It's unconstitutional now.

I'm surprised the democrats don't want to re-enact Reconstruction.

I dont think it was unconstiutional (or if so just barely) at the time, as what was going on was clearly unconsitutional voter suppression of black voters.

However a remedy for stringent times is in no way supposed to be permanent. They should have either renovated Section 4, or got rid of pre clearance entirely.

One can make the same argument over affirmative action, which was needed decades ago, and should be soon put to rest.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Captain hyperbole strikes again.

 

[martybegan]

Of course that's a bit, a small bit, of hyperbole but given recent history and a Republican H. of Rep. majority we can assume voter suppression will not only continue but accelerate.

This ruling (once again 5-4) along with CU v. FEC has completely transformed our country into a Plutocracy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia have purposely and consciously harmed the American People and the democratic ethos of this once great nation.

It will be interesting to see the comments from those who cherish liberty. For more details see the link below.

SCOTUSblog

Tomorrow or the next day the reprehensible gang of five will have an opportunity to defile The Declaration of Independence and deny a set of citizens liberty and the ability to pursue happiness as they choose.

The VRA is still in effect and any injured party can still sue in federal court to force thier state/locality to follow the law.

Oh goody. So the injured party can file suit but the election will be over by the time the matter goes to court.

All that is removed is the CURRENT pre-clearance system, which was based on old data and not the current conditions in the locality. Congress can rewrite it and send it to the court to see if it would work again.

Congress can't agree on the day of the week. The USSC knows that, hence voter suppression will accelerate. You know that so stop being so dishonest.

Pre-clearance was a relic of the 60's and 70's when REAL voter suppression was rampant. Today is not the case. Why keep relic laws on the books when they served thier purpose?

LOL. Oh yeah, there's no voter suppression going on, it's all about making our elections honest, fair and aboveboard. Let's face it, anti democratic forces have won. American has become a Plutocratic Republic wherein the People's House is owned outright by the 1%.

Having federal burecrats, not judges, interfere in the state/local democratic process if far more undemocratic that repealing one section of this law.

It was designed to target actual physical VOTER SUPPRESSION, dogs, guns, lynching, water cannons. Fires in churches that sort of thing. If your side wanted it to handle what you percive today as voter suppression, the section should have been re-written. It wasnt. game over.

 

[g5000]

Read the decision for yourselves here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The only reason Democrats are upset about this decision is because states can no longer be compelled to draw racially gerrymandered districts that are guaranteed to elect a Democrat.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No they didn't. They said its unconstutional for a state to have to abide by archaic measures that do not even exist.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Relax kids.

The Voting Rights Act has not been repealed.

It simply needs to be applied based on recent data.