bottom line -- the supreme court found a sunset provision where congress didn't write one.

[unblock]

how is this not legislating from the bench?

the court said congress was welcome to update the coverage formula (knowing full well that won't happen any time soon).

but didn't congress already declare its intent, which was for the coverage formula to be maintained in its existing form, in perpetuity, at least until congress updated or repealed the law, or at least that section of it?

is the roberts court going to decide that certain constitutional amendments have run their course, and we must pass a fresh amendment if we really want it to continue? after all, all that stuff about speedy trials and cruel and unusual punishment was really based on british treatment of colonists, i mean, how outdated is that...!

[alsame]

1. Roberts has been trying to

gut the VRA since the 80s.


In the Reagan administration at that time was a 27-year-old lawyer named John Roberts. As a special assistant to Atty. Gen. William French Smith, Roberts was a major force behind the administration's efforts to oppose the new Section 2, according to newly released papers. He drafted Op-Ed articles, questions and answers for senators and documents aimed at defeating the new Section 2.

<snip>

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's votes in these federalism cases have been pivotal, and her vote in 2004 to uphold a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act had given those in the civil rights community grounds to be optimistic that a renewed Voting Rights Act could pass constitutional muster.

Roberts' writings, on the other hand, show much more skepticism of congressional power, particularly on voting rights. Because Roberts viewed the "effects" language in Section 2 as an "intrusive interference" that is a "drastic alteration" of American government and "constitutionally suspect," why would he look charitably on a renewed Section 5?

I would not count on him to uphold it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/03/opinion/oe-hasen3