BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters / Bloomberg

@Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act law aimed at protecting minority voters #breaking

www.twitter.com/Reuters

Bloomberg News' Greg Stohr reports:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court threw out a core part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rolling back a landmark law that opened the polls to millions of southern blacks.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said Congress lacked grounds for requiring some states, and not others, to get federal approval before changing their election rules.

From the opinion, via SCOTUSblog: "The Court makes clear that: 'Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.'"

http://live.bloomberg.com/Event/Supreme_Courts_Blockbuster_Week_Day_Two

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/voting-rights-act-provision-struck-down-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

---

@SCOTUSblog: DOJ will now prob try to save preclearance by bringing actions to "bail in" states and localities with the worst history of discrimination.

[onehandle]

1. Welcome back to the 1950s. nt

[hobbit709]

34. That's 1850s

[AllTooEasy]

185. Possible Silver Lining...

The Court says that you can't make southern states live by one set of strict rules, and let everyone else get a press pass. If Obama and Congressional Dems work it right, then the southern states will still have the same set of strict rules, and so will everyone else. In other words: NOW NO ONE GETS A FREE PASS.

...or they could screw it up and everyone gets a pass.

I hope the former happens. It's ridiculous to think that America's only racist places are in the South. NYC is the most racist city I've been in, and I've lived in NC, AZ, and LA(Louisianna).

[Doctor_J]

194. have you been drinking?

If Obama and Congressional Dems work it right

Reality check.

[AndyTiedye]

206. We Haven't Got the Votes to Fix This, and Now We Never Will

While they left parts of the Voting Rights act intact, without any means of enforcement it is meaningless.
Their control of the House will prevent us from doing anything about it in the near term.
Allowed to disenfranchise and gerrymander at will, our chances of retaking Congress are pretty much nonexistent.

We Are Truely Fucked.

[G_j]

2. K&R

[msanthrope]

3. 2014..give Obama a Congress that will draft a new formula and protect our

rights.

[dsc]

4. he had one

and should have used it when he did.

[Indyfan53]

8. No he didn't!

Ted Kennedy died and we lost the filibuster-proof majority.

They republicans threw a monkey wrench into the whole thing!

[dsc]

16. the initial bill passed 98 to 0

and I highly doubt that northern republicans would have joined a filibuster of a voting rights act. This could have, and in retrospect, should have been done.

[BumRushDaShow]

71. What "initial bill"?

From 1965? You are trying to jump the shark and compare 1965 with 2009, with dumb fuck rethugs in 2009 who were still pissed that Specter switched parties? They would have easily filabustered to delay until they took back over one of the chambers.

[dsc]

74. no 2006

the one they just invalidated. I highly doubt that any northern gop politician who was ever going to run again for anything, would filibuster a voting rights act.

[lastlib]

76. don't bet the farm on it.

They'd just complain that it hurt their state (whether it's true or not--truth is NEVER an obstacle to bought-off GOPpers), and they'd be heroes in their state.

[dsc]

77. then why in 2006 did not a single, solitary senator

oppose the law, not one. And in the house not one single solitary person from north of the mason dixon line opposed, not one.

[BumRushDaShow]

85. The difference is the black face in office as President

or did you miss the news about the rethug leadership meeting on Inauguration Day 2009 where they promised to block anything that the President would put forth?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legislative-Constipation

[dsc]

96. oh please?

it would be political suicide for any politician north of the mason dixon line to filibuster a voting rights act. I can see the tv commercials now, with split screen of filibustering senators from the 50's and 60's on one side and a northern goper running for reelection. The GOP still had 2 Maine Senators, a MO Senator, two KY Senators, an IN Senator, an OH Senator, a SD Sen, two AZ Sen.

[BumRushDaShow]

123. Again, see post #85

In 2009, they set out to block everything he did. Ask Tom Coburn, who even blocked and then delayed payment for the Pigford II settlement (for Black farmers discriminated against by the government for loans/grants) that the courts demanded be paid and that the USDA had agreed to pay. The missing piece was an appropriation from Congress and Coburn put a hold on it for months and months, torpedoing what was supposed to be a unanimous consent from the Senate on the House bill that authorized the funds.

And thanks to the pre-2013 Senate rules, ANY Senator could do an ANONYMOUS hold or filabuster on any legislation or confirmation, so the offender could remain unknown, saving their ass in an election.

[BumRushDaShow]

79. So you think Judd Gregg

who teabagged his way out of office leaving NH with yet another crazy self-hating teabagger Kelly Ayotte, would have not filabustered?

And the 2006 one was just a revised version of the sunsetted original with updates to the list requiring pre-clearance.

[dsc]

83. we needed one gop vote

and yes I think we would have gotten it. I think we would have gotten around 80 votes for a formula that covered most of, if not all of, what was covered under the 06 renewal and maybe even some new places.

[BumRushDaShow]

88. See post #85

Operation Block Everything.

And they are STILL doing it to this day.

[tblue]

106. Especially at the very beginning

of his first term, when he had enormous political capital. The blue dogs and Smowe and Collins would have had a much harder time opposing a bill like that, if they were ever so inclined. It was a golden moment that we didn't take advantage of and never got back again.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

139. Still trying to figure out how this was his fault. He never had a working majority in the Senate.

Let me repeat once more:

HE NEVER HAD A WORKING MAJORITY IN THE U.S. SENATE!!!!!!!!

Not "at the very beginning of his term" or any time thereafter!

As you rightly put, the Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans gave him the most problems.

We need to give this president a working PROGRESSIVE COALITION!!! Only then will he be able to get anything done!!

[Coccydynia]

104. Filibuster proof? Shrub didn't need a filibuster proof Senate.

Only the Dims do.

[DallasNE]

117. The Filibuster Has Been Used More In The Last 4 1/2 Years

Than in the entire history of the Senate prior to that date. That has to tell you something.

[Coccydynia]

120. It tells me the Dems don't mind the Filibuster.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

143. Nope. It tells me that it only matters when the black Muslim socialist from Kenya is president.

Bill Clinton was a Democrat and even he wasn't treated this way. Most of his judicial appointments and agency heads were approved, not filibustered (it requires only ONE senator to place holds or to filibuster nominees or legislation--ONLY ONE!!).

[Coccydynia]

145. Then the Dems should do away with the Filibuster

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

150. On this agree, but blame the right person(s). Stop blaming the president for what he cannot control!

[Coccydynia]

156. I don't recall blaming the President for anything.

I believe I used the terms Dims and Dems.

However, if a bill comes to the President's desk that is so compromised to avoid the tyranny of the minority, the President is obligated to veto the bill.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

159. Of course, he would veto the bill, but you gotta get it him first. He can't act without

congressional action.

It's up to us to bombard Harry Reid with calls until he is forced to reform the filibuster once and for all.

[BumRushDaShow]

126. Stats to illustrate

[EC]

10. He really didn't.

Frankin wasn't seated until summer and by then Kennedy and Byrd were hardly ever there and we needed 60 votes for everything.

[wordpix]

18. true and that 60-vote thing needs to go! Protects the minority and defeats the majority

so basically, the minority gets its way

[AndyA]

64. Harry Reid's gonna get around to that someday...

He's really got his feathers ruffled about the 60 vote requirement...he's really thinkin' about it hard...he might just write a really stern note to McConnell about it...

[DallasNE]

119. The Purpose Of The Filibuster Is To Prevent The Tyranny Of The Majority

Except it has been twisted into the tyranny of the minority. The answer should not be to completely eliminate the filibuster but to have clear guidelines what conditions must be present and how it is conducted in order for it to be invoked. Obviously, returning to the talking filibuster would have to be one of the changes.

[Coccydynia]

122. Actually, no. If that were true then "The People's House"

Would have a similar rule, and they don't. That is what the courts are for.

And surely you don't think the majority has had it's way for the past five years, do you?

[DallasNE]

142. The Senate Is Designed To Be The More Deliberative And Stable Body

The staggered elections and the filibuster were ways to ensure that was the case. The Senate was actually put in there as a check on "the peoples house" by preventing the tyranny of the majority. Rules changes have reversed that to where it is now the tyranny of the minority so the old rules need to be brought back -- especially the talking filibuster -- and the filibuster needs to be completely removed from the advise and consent process. The courts are not there to legislate because there is no check on them, as we are again reminded today.

There is no way you can seriously think I believe "the majority has had it's way for the past five years" from my words so why would you even say it?

[Coccydynia]

152. First, it is the length of the Senate terms

And the staggered nature of the election process that serves as a check on the house, as you say. The Filibuster is not required to achieve this.

The reason I brought up the point about majority rule is that with the Filibuster you guarantee tyranny of the minority.

If we are to have tyranny, we should at least have tyranny of the majority.

[CreekDog]

207. Designed to give 600k Wyomingers more votes than 4 mil Los Angelenos

Seems fairer to the fewer, whiter folks in Wyoming.

By golly who can't get behind that kinda fairness!

[DallasNE]

217. It Would Take A Constitutional Convention To Fix That

Filibuster reform is only waiting for someone willing to take it on. When the Constitution was written the disparity in population much smaller so the unfairness was not that great. Today we could give each State one Senator and then one additional Senator for each five House members -- greater than half, round up. That would give Wyoming 1 Senator, Nebraska 2 Senators, Wisconsin 3 Senators and so forth. The Electoral College would be adjusted accordingly (I would be open to direct election of President but am not there yet).

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

146. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that permits or prohibits filibusters and holds.

And the House has its own parliamentary rules that allow the Speaker to delay legislation. The use of the docket or schedule is a powerful tool used to block legislation from even being considered. The Speaker also wields great authority when it comes to committee assignments, the seniority system, and who gets to speak on the Floor.

And by the way, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about political parties.

[telclaven]

173. House used to have such a rule

It was dropped a few decades back.

[Coccydynia]

177. Very interesting. I did not know that.

[Nihil]

240. Oh fucking yawn ...

What you have - and have had *quite happily* for decades - is the
"Tyranny of the Minority" i.e., the tiny, tiny minority who *OWN* you
guys ...

All of the folks who flock to defend Obama in this (and his other f-ups)
are just sheep.

Those guys have run the show for years ... and years ... and years.

They aren't about to give up in any sensible timeframe.

They put a puppet of a different skin colour in place and YOU ALL BOUGHT IT!

I've been watching the response for many years now after joining DU in the
forlorn hope (way back when) that the majority of voters were wrong.
I'm no longer convinced that Bush is not a typical president. Tell me again
how different Georgie baby is from BillieBob or Daddy George or Ronald the
fall guy? Persuade me that the random people that your current president
is killing are somehow more deserving of death than those who his predecessor
slaughtered for the sake of fossil fuel company profits?

You guys really need to get a sense of perspective. You bite anyone who
tries to point out the stupidity of believing that "your guy is better than that"
and yet you tolerate the same exceptionalistic bullying behaviour from "your guy"
that you shrieked to high heaven when "the other guy" did it.

(Sorry DallasNE - this wasn't aimed at you but was just the response to reading
one too many excuse threads of "If only ..." and your title hit a point that had
been rubbed raw by the constant attempts to shrug off the latest f-up with the
hope that "someone" would have learned their lesson "this time".)

[treestar]

90. Plus notice everything should have been crammed into that short period

Like there were 96 hour days then.

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. 72 Days. That's how long we supposedly had a "veto-proof" majority. It's amazing how similar....

the arguments coming from the president's far left, are to those coming from the right. The myth that the president had a veto proof majority for two (2) years is just a lie, and it keeps being repeated by the same group of folks, for pretty obvious reasons.

It was eight months after the election when Al Franken was FINALLY sworn in, and some people's selective memories don't recall Sen. Kennedy fell ill at the President's Inaugural Dinner, and returned home to Boston. If I'm not mistaken, Sen. Byrd was having health challenges at that time as well.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

149. Senator Kennedy, Senator Byrd, and Senator Tim Johnson were often in and out with illness-related

issues.

The president had a veto-proof majority in the Senate for 45 days.

[Tarheel_Dem]

160. What? You mean Obama couldn't turn back decades of bad policy in 45 days? What a slacker.

I hate him!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

171. I was wrong. You were right. It was 72 days!!!

I stand corrected. I previously stated that Democrats had 45 days of a filibuster-proof Senate.

That's not true. They had 72 days.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

[Tarheel_Dem]

174. Hey! At least you're big enough to admit when you're wrong. That doesn't happen here often.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

189. On the larger point, however, we are both right! 72 days is not enough time to get things done...

...especially with everything that was on this president's plate. Not to mention: It only requires ONE senator--JUST ONE--to place Holds and/or invoke a filibuster. UGH!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

196. Exactly. He really would've been "Barack The Magic Negro" (remember that one?) if he could've......

pulled off a reversal of decades of bad policy in a couple of months, especially with Nelson & Baucus in the caucus. It's bad enough when Republicans say shit like that, but when so-called "liberals" pick up their vicious tp's and run with them, it's time to reassess that "liberal". You Better Believe It!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

198. People already think he's Barack the Magic Negro. They think all he has to do is snap his skinny

fingers and all the issues of concern would be resolved.

[Tarheel_Dem]

201. Or they claim he can use the "bully pulpit", and then in the very next breath, they admit....

they don't bother to listen to him anymore. That one cracks me up.

[JustAnotherGen]

232. +1

[DallasNE]

218. And It Was In That 72 Days

That the Affordable Care Act passed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

225. Yep!! Had to pass it via reconciliation if I recall correctly. Why? Because it takes only ONE

senator (Republican) to block legislation.

Why that's so difficult for many people to understand is beyond me. It's very simple.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

180. Kennedy was out from March on, his successor was not there until late September ...

... after Kennedy died in late August.

So - with Sanders (I) and Lieberman (ID) caucusing with ALL Dems - only from later September '09 to February '10 (when Scott Brown replaced Kennedy's successor, Paul Kirk, after the special election in MA) was there 60 votes.

And keep in mind that Ben Nelson and Max Baucus are among the Dems ... that ACA was passed at all is amazing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Senate

[Tarheel_Dem]

181. It was truly amazing. But what I'm most amazed by is the revisionism that routinely takes place....

here at our beloved DU. People forget how long the healthcare debate lasted, and it sucked a lot of oxygen out of the room, as if Congress can't walk & chew gum at the same time. So if a few delusional people think the president could change the world in a couple of months, I don't value anything else they have to say. They are disingenuous at best, and liars at worst.

The only purpose Nelson & Baucus served is that they gave us a simple majority, not much else.

[Renew Deal]

12. He did

1. New START. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that is purposed to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half and to establish a new inspection and verification regime. The treaty was recently ratified by Congress after being signed earlier this year by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

2. DADT Appeal. President Obama recently signed the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) Repeal Bill into law, which will allow gays to serve openly in America’s military. For the first time in history, gays no longer have to hide their sexual orientation or face dismissal. According to objective statistics, more than 13,000 military personnel were released under the DADT since 1993.

3. Tax Cuts. President Obama recently signed an enormous tax cut bill that will extend the Bush era tax cuts for families at all income levels through 2012. The bill also consisted of a new payroll tax cut for wage earners, numerous tax breaks for businesses and extended jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed.

4. Fair Sentencing Act. Earlier this year, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to reduce racial inequity that has historically existed relative to the sentencing of people caught with crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. To be charged with a felony, crack users needed to possess only 5 grams of the drug to be sentenced with the same charge that powder cocaine users needed to be caught with (500 grams). Now, to be charged, crack users need to possess 28 grams of crack cocaine to 500 grams of powder cocaine.

5. Childhood Obesity Act. President Obama recently signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was primarily spearheaded by First Lady Michelle Obama. This bill is purposed to subsidize free meals in low-income areas, to ensure that children receive well-balanced and nutritious school meals, to provide free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million low-income children and to ultimately reduce childhood obesity.

And more: http://madamenoire.com/106752/president-obama%E2%80%99s-top-12-accomplishments-of-2010

[dsc]

22. I am not saying he didn't do anythign

but this was something that should have been done. The Court signaled their line of thought on this in a previous case.

[Renew Deal]

25. Someone should have proposed a change

And gotten it passed. There's 535 people in the congress.

[dsc]

35. this is the kind of law a president has to spear head if it is going to get done

If for no other reason that the DOJ has to have major input on the formula.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

151. How do you know that he didn't do anything? You're assuming. Stop doing that!

[dsc]

155. maybe because I wasn't in a coma the last 4 years

I dare say if the first African American President called for changing the formula in the Voting Rights Act it would have been news.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

162. Nothing good this African American does ends up in the news. Stop being naive.

The Corporate Media merely focuses on the whining coming from the Left and the Right. It never focuses on anything positive this administration does.

And furthermore, the one thing that Eric Holder has done right has been on the issue of voting rights. He has been pursuing that issue.

All your complaints about this president, at least with respect to this issue, are unfair and incredibly naive.

[CreekDog]

208. I though you wanted Obama to ban abortion?

Can you make up your mind?

[zeemike]

52. The things he did are things the GOP does not care about.

And that in essence means they are in control even when they are in the minority...
And our Senate leader told us before the election he was going to do something about the filibuster rule, but once the election was over he promptly took it off the table.

How many times do we have to be fooled again before we stop buying the bullshit?
And when we do it just enables them.

[KittyWampus]

186. The Republicans don't care about Health Care? And DADT? LOL

[zeemike]

187. They care about health care

And they want to keep it as a for profit business run by the insurance companies and the drug manufactures....and they got that.

But they don't care about DADT at all....they don't care whether the soldier that dies is gay or not...but they DO use gay rights to motivate their base and keep them angry at the "liberals"...for obvious reasons.

That is how triangulation works....and it works on us as well as their own.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. No he didn't

He only had 60 in the Senate for about 4 months in 2009 and that was before the ALEC agenda and redistricting were implemented nationwide in 2010.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

169. Only 72 days. Kennedy passed away.

I stand corrected. I previously stated that Democrats had 45 days of a filibuster-proof Senate.

That's not true. They had 72 days.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

[treestar]

92. And each day of it should have lasted 90 hours

or an eternity, so that every possible thing and then some should have been passed.

[dsc]

99. Honestly this was pretty important

I would rank it, and I am a gay man, higher than repealing DADT for example. This isn't not naming some random post office.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

136. Wait! That's Congress's job, not the president. Second, you are WRONG!!!!

I'm so tired of people not being up on the history of what happened. Obama NEVER had a workable majority in the Senate, so please stop!! It's simply not true!!

[dsc]

141. the 2006 bill, which was just overturned passed 98 to 0

as in not a single solitary senator in opposition. The notion that 3 years later he couldn't get just one gop senator to vote for a new formula is nothing short of absurd.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

154. You're kidding right? You can't be that naive. Didn't you read the story about McConnell

summoning Joe Biden to his office at the beginning of this administration and telling Biden that they will block everything?

What about "BLOCK EVERYTHING" you don't understand?

They can't get ONE Republican--not even the most moderate one--to go along with anything this president wants.

Can you see that?

[dsc]

157. he got two votes for his stimulus plan

and I don't think any northern GOP pol could survive filibustering a voting rights act.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

164. And what happened to those Republicans dare I ask?

I don't think the North is immune to having bigots. There are bigots all over this country.

[dsc]

166. one is up this time, one retired in 12

[AllTooEasy]

184. He didn't need a new formula back then. He had the complete Voting Rights Act.

...any excuse to strike at Obama.

[MrSlayer]

6. Right, just like they brought us all that change in 2009.

Forget it. This country is over.

[Democat]

11. Good luck with that

Many on DU seem to be here working to take Obama down.

Wonder how they'll like the alternative.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. And are all moist

About who they are going to vote for in 2016. . .


Good luck with that - know why he won? The black vote - it was historic in 2012.

Guess what - they aren't going to let us vote and more. I wouldn't be surprised if President Obama and First Lady Obama won't even be able to vote anymore.

Mark my words - this was personal on the part of those cough cough INjustices.

[Zoeisright]

50. No shit.

This place has become disgusting lately - more like FR than a democratic gathering place.

[Dustlawyer]

107. We thought we elected the man who campaigned! Did he do some great things, yes! Has he broken

a lot of key campaign promises, yes! Has he filled his cabinet with industry insiders, yes! Has he presided over what the NSA has done, yes! Is he still better than Romney, hell yes, but do we still have a right to be pissed, yes!
Our political system is such that no one becomes President without owing big donors! The ruling class really doesn't give a shit about the social issues, they just want no regulation and all of out tax dollars. He has done that! They scare us with the Romneys of the world to make us grateful for the Obamas of the world who are more subtle in fucking us over!
Without real campaign finance reform, including publicly funded elections we are all screwed. This is not likely to happen.
Obama was set to be a transformational President with the power of a majority of We the People behind him. He has been viciously attacked, but instead chose to give them the things they wanted instead of exposing the corruption of our election system. We have become universally hated in the world when he had them all celebrating his victory at the beginning. The Rethugs did not do that, Obama did!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

172. 'Cept we don't give him enough time to make good on those promises. If he hasn't acted on

the campaign promises NOW--when we want him to--that means he's a lying, swindling manipulator.

It's the second term. He's only in his 5th month. Is it too much to ask that we wait and see what happens?

It's it also too much to admit that everything he's attempted to do to make good on those promises have been blocked, mostly by Republicans but also helped along with Blue Dog support.

[Major Hogwash]

55. Damn right!!

We're going to have to draft some real hardcore Democrats to face off against those phony blowhard Tea Party faux patriots in the House!!!

It's now or never.

[Kablooie]

66. This ruling nearly guarantees more Republican wins in 2014

The gleeful southern states will do everything in their power to block black votes now.

[msanthrope]

67. As an election attorney for the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012, it's not

just the South...it's everywhere.

[Kablooie]

105. I just read Wikipedia and I see even some districts in California were listed.

You are right sir.
Umm ... MSanthrope. Madam? Excuse me.

So now the previously monitored states can inject new, repressive election requirements at the last minute so there will be no time to challenge them in court before an election. Is that right?

[msanthrope]

114. You are absolutely correct. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

233. thank you

They really can do whatever they want now.

[dsc]

100. actually the gop is pretty much maxed out house wise here

Senate wise, they can make some mischief, but the seats we have up are not in covered states.

[Kablooie]

101. That's good to know.

[bowens43]

128. with his dismal record why would you think that?

Obama has no respect for our rights.

[Doctor_J]

195. We are NOT going to have more reps or senators than we had in 2009

your post is utter idiocy. Besides, Obama is a Reagan Republican by his own admission.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Time to fire up.

[Berlum]

7. "Whoop dee doo!" - RepubliBaggers (R)

[iandhr]

9. Can anyone say judicial activism.

[reflection]

13. What kind of benighted fools

can look at what went on in Florida this past Presidential election and make this sort of ruling?

Then again, I'm not a lawyer and every time I opine about a court ruling I end up looking like a fool once the details come out. Perhaps there's a good reason they did this, but I'll be damned if I can see one.

[AngryOldDem]

20. Very short answer: Times have changed.

But have they? Really? But that's what I heard as a quick rationale for the decision.

[reflection]

28. Time always changes.

But the evil bastards who try to game the voting process are ubiquitous and unchanging.

[loyalsister]

30. Yes they have

Voter suppression is as prevalent in northern and middling states as in the south. That protection should have been expanded to accommodate those changes.

[bobclark86]

38. It's rather simple.

It treated some states differently than others. And as we all know, there is absolutely no racism outside the Deep South (and, coincidentally, never a single race riot outside the Deep South).

The protections need to be expanded to all states -- something the decision states may be done.

[reflection]

44. That's a good way of explaining it.

Thank you. I try to understand why some of these things happen, but it can be hard for me to wrap my head around sometimes.

[CreekDog]

209. It's false and misleading. Don't call a pack of lies "good"

Bob shows downthread that he doesn't know anything about the Voting Rights Act that a right wing blog didn't tell him.

If you want to call that good, I feel bad for you and anyone else convinced of falsehoods

[reflection]

224. I read downthread.

But I don't understand where the disconnect is between you and Bob.

Where is the misleading? I honestly am missing something. There is a formula Congress used which says "these areas need special restrictions." This decision did away with the formula, right?

Not that I expect this current crop of misfits to do it, but if Bob's ideal is to have those restrictions extended and homogenized so as to protect all voters and treat all states equally, what is the problem?

[CreekDog]

226. Which of those provisions are protecting *any* voter in *any* state right now?

as opposed to yesterday.

and you think you're going to get them extended to *all* states from John Boehner?

and nevermind that the "formula", which didn't specify any state, is just going to be replaced with another "formula".

it's BS that the formula was unconstitutional. the formula said that states and localities which the law was created to monitor would be monitored closely. there was no reason to throw it out. if you want all states to be monitored in the same way, a separate bill could have applied to everywhere the more stringent protection the Voting Rights Act required.

but now we have nothing.

and Bob thinks that's great.

Bob also thinks that lead from bullets aren't a problem. i'm tired of arguing with his...um...arguments.

[mountain grammy]

54. You are correct, of course, but getting Congress to do anything

well, we'll just have to see. But I don't think the court should have had a say in this matter and five of them are dead wrong.

[bobclark86]

65. This is exactly what they do!

For the past 200 years, this is what they've done. They are the ones who make this decision. And I fail to see how a law can be only aimed at only a handful of states. Either all or none -- that's how federal laws are supposed to work.

[CreekDog]

131. you're saying states that had segregation on the books couldn't be treated differently?

that's ridiculous.

[CreekDog]

133. because such states had defacto apartheid within their borders

the Voting Rights Act was created to deal specifically with the states that engaged in that behavior.

[bobclark86]

188. Yeah, it was a horrible situation (which many GOPers want continued), BUT

the laws of the nation should apply to ALL the states. Not just a few. That would be like Congress writing a law making abortions much more difficult in only a handful of states.

Congress needs to re-write the section, but applying to ALL states. THAT is what needs to be done. The SCOTUS was OK with the process, it just needs to be expanded.

[CreekDog]

197. Please quote the text of the actual law that named specific states

because you are full of it, you just don't realize it.

[bobclark86]

199. Go read the law.

Which sets forth a formula on how to figure out who it applies to. Roberts states specifically writes "We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula."

For reference, here's the list of places, until today, which needed pre-clearance:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/covered.php

[CreekDog]

200. You have read the law and now admit that no state is specifically named in it

thank you very much.

[bobclark86]

229. It's worse...

They left it to the DOJ to pick and choose.

[CreekDog]

230. you're saying it's worse if the Obama Admin picks and chooses than being thrown out completely?

whatever.

[mountain grammy]

228. The law is aimed at a handful of states because of their history

and has been expanded to other states when necessary. New York and California are under scrutiny also. I do think every state should have to check in before any major changes in voting laws, but can't for the life of me figure out exactly what part of the constitution was actually violated here. Roberts, in his opinion, didn't say. So now the royal, corrupt court can just decide something is unconstitutional without even citing how! What bullshit!

[CreekDog]

205. The law applied outside the deep South, which you don't seem to know

Applied everywhere and provisions required special enforcement in places luke California and Michigan.

But your ignorance of the law seems not to trouble you.

[lastlib]

80. "What kind of benighted fools..." Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia....

...John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy. Question answered?

[reflection]

81. I suppose.

[heaven05]

14. well

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:07 PM - Edit history (2)

just read section 4 and 5. Get ready for a huge racist backlash against minorities in general. Literacy tests like in the old/now south, will spread to northern, western, eastern states to confuse and disqualify people. Oh, it's going to get ugly. Amerikkkkkkkkka, the beautiful? Bullshit!

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Damn it! Bet it's another wonderful 5-4 decision!

[AngryOldDem]

17. Our march backward continues.

This, combined with gerrymandering districts and other election fuckery, makes voting a joke here anymore.

Look for a return to a variation of poll tests and other obstructionist means to keep people from the polls.

And I had to laugh at the conversations I heard that now Congress has to "come together" to work on this issue. What another joke.

[HardTimes99]

47. Forget 'poll tests,' think 'poll taxes' - that's the Republicans' real agenda, i.e., to

nullify the very premise of democracy itself: one man, one vote.

[Iliyah]

19. I need more information

but this doesn't sound good for minority's' voting rights.

Some posters are constantly posting about the USA turning into a totalitarian nation, hello, welcome to the US Supreme Court.

[premium]

70. What the Court is basically saying is that Congress

can't mandate that some states have to come to the Feds to make changes in their voting laws while other states are free to do so without Federal approval, so, all the Congress has to do is make the law nationwide and it should be ok.
At least that's what the Court implied.

[tblue]

108. I can't think of anything more important than this

but this House will never go for it.

[premium]

113. I agree and this is why we need to take back the House in 2014,

as daunting a task as it might seem
I actually agree with this decision, it should be a law nationwide, the DoJ needs to come up with a uniform set of voting standards and the congress needs to pass a law that requires all states/cities/towns/counties to get permission from the DoJ to change their voting laws.

What the SCOTUS could have done was delay the implementation of the ruling for a year and allowed the congress to pass a new law to include all states, while keeping in place the law already in place for the states/cities/counties that are required to ask permission.

[CreekDog]

210. Stop being an apologist for the RW supreme Court majority

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

And stop mocking our liberal justices who clearly explained that your interpretation is BS.

[premium]

213. Apologist?

If that wasn't so pathetic of a comment, it would be laughable.
The court basically said that enforcement has to be equal across the board, congress can fix this easy enough which Sen. Leahy is already doing.
Go away and bother someone else.
BTW, I didn't mock anyone.

[AndyTiedye]

214. You Do Understand That the Possibility of Any Such Measure Passing the House is 0.0000%, Don't You?

[premium]

215. I think that Nancy can peel off enough repubs

to get it passed, especially if from now to election day, she shames them and we bombard the most vulnerable repubs. with phone calls and e-mails.
I think all we would need is what, 14 repubs? Something like that?

[AndyTiedye]

221. Only Three Things Wrong With That Plan

I think that Nancy can peel off enough repubs to get it passed, especially if from now to election day, she shames them and we bombard the most vulnerable repubs. with phone calls and e-mails.

1. It assumes that Rapeuglicans are capable of shame.

2. It assumes that they will break ranks, when the future of their party is at stake.

3. It assumes that vulnerable Rapeuglicans (assuming any still ARE vulnerable after today's ruling) would support something that makes them MORE vulnerable.

[CreekDog]

219. It is equal under the law. You're saying you don't want them to spend more $$ in racist places

[premium]

220. No, what the SC said was that you have to apply the same

scrutiny on all states, the feds can't be selective on who gets special scrutiny, so, I say scrutinize all states using the same criteria as say, FL, NC, etc.

[CreekDog]

222. so you're saying that a state with more problems can't get more scrutiny?

thanks for playing.

[premium]

223. I'm not saying it

SCOTUS is saying it, take it up with them. All I'm saying is to apply the strict scrutiny standards to all the states, problem solved.
Thanks for, once again, twisting words out of context.

[SummerSnow]

23. Now they will make all kinds of bias rules for voting.

It begins.

[blkmusclmachine]

183. AG Gregg Abbott (TX) already jumping in with both feet.

Carnage.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. So they win

With all the charges of Fascism and Dictatorships and Authoritarian Leadership in the WH -


It's the 'States' that now have the right to put back Poll Taxes, Literacy Tests, etc. etc. That's really what it's about. And it might even happen at the district level. And it's not just the South - look what they TRIED to pull in PA.


And you know what? I'm not fighting for something I've had for 22 years.


Loud and Clear I've heard Alito. Leave this place now -if you are black.

I'll leave - I won't fight. Fuck that. I'm not a begger and I'm not going to beg this country for one fucking thing.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

26. Thank you,Ralph, for Alito and Roberts.

I'm pretty much done. They people want Ayn Rand. . .let them have it.

[nineteen50]

32. Next it will be only white property owners with

1/2 million in assets that will be allowed to vote. Or corporate persons without bellybuttons.

[moondust]

51. The Nader Court strikes again!

[SunSeeker]

165. +1

[heaven05]

29. clarence thomas

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)

voting against his self interest. I hope when he goes to vote, he will have to prove he is literate enough to cast a vote. What a stupid, stupid man. Such a cynical appointment by the senior bushmonkey, especially to replace Thurgood Marshall.

[srican69]

31. he is a troubled and a misguided soul

[heaven05]

33. Thurgood Marshall

HE AIN'T!!!! sorry for the ain't, couldn't help it.

[BlueDemKev]

86. Marshall's exact words...

...when he was asked about Bush's nominee to replace him:

"Never heard of him."

RIP, Thurgood.

[dembotoz]

37. soul???? no he is a bought and paid for hack

[KansDem]

78. Who pulls in a handsome 6-digit salary with perks and healthcare...

...and only works a few hours each year.

Yeah, for that kind of swag I could be easily be troubled and misguided!

[onehandle]

40. It's not his self interest. He's a 1%er. Ralph Nader's SCOTUS only votes for the 1%. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

59. What foreign languages does he speak?

My grandfather and his brothers were always able to vote down in Talladega because they had a 'friend' who could get them the literacy test. Very often it was in a latin language (they all took it at Morehouse waaaay back in the day) and so they could memorize the answers/get around it.


I hope the test they give him is in Farsi or something. I hope he doesn't know what it hits him when it happens.

[iamthebandfanman]

161. He didnt vote against his own self interests...

hes rich, has a powerful job, a wife that lines his pockets with bride money..
and gets to rub his penis on anyones coke he damn well pleases...

this doesn't hurt him one bit.. who ya kidding ?

to suggest he have loyalty to skin colours when he has no loyalty to law or common sense.. is asking a lot of him

[heaven05]

163. yeah

he's a real piece of work.

[tomg]

36. What do you call the SCOTUS "decision"?

Republican outreach to minorities.

This decision is a mockery of everything the United States should strive to uphold. They have thrown this country back to 1962. If Roberts and Friends have their way, they will take us back to 1862.

[heaven05]

63. yeah

Dred Scott decision--2013.

[Coyotl]

39. More injustice from the Bush Junta

June 25, 2013
By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a civil rights law that requires some states to get federal permission to change their voting rules, but it struck down the formula for which jurisdictions are covered — leaving it to Congress to redraw the map.

The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Under the law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nine mostly Southern states must get permission from the Justice Department or a special panel of three federal judges before they make changes. The rule also applies to 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere.

The act is considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. Congress has renewed it four times, most recently in 2006, with overwhelming margins in both houses.

But the law still uses election data from 1972 to determine which states, cities and counties are covered. Some jurisdictions complain that they are being punished for the sins of many decades ago.

Legal observers have said that striking down the map would mean sending the issue back to a deeply divided Congress, and they said it was an open question whether Congress could even agree on a new coverage map.

[heaven05]

72. never

happen, not now, in this legislative branch of our so called free democrazy and I fear, ever again. Gerrymandering and racist tricks like that will prevent any redrawn map that can stop the likes of what we saw in this last election to keep people from the vote. Dred Scott-2013. Clarence Thomas, you are a POS

[MissNostalgia]

41. This is awful

I guess ALEC has written our new voting laws

[Iliyah]

42. I believe its 5-4 usual justice voting

and they gutted section 4 and 5 but left it open for the congress-critters to revise, amend, et al.,

Its important to get the assholes, i.e. GOPers out.

[DFW]

43. NOW is the time

For every eligible voter in EVERY state that still CAN get registered to do so.

If there is an election--ANY election in your state this year VOTE (especially VA-gov and MA-sen).

Next year, no matter what, VOTE

If they can roll back the extremist tide in a place like Iran, we sure as hell can do it in the USA. If we don't even try, we deserve every evil thing the Republicans will do to America, and they will do a LOT of evil things to our country, if given the chance.

[Archae]

45. This could be a plus for our side.

Hear me out, ok?

If republicans now take advantage of this to pass voter suppression laws, we can show the US just how racist they are.

This is a case of losing a battle but winning the war.

[Myrina]

53. ... if they get the voter suppression laws passed, it won't matter ....

.... because who's going to vote them out if only the 1% lily-white corporates can vote?

[Major Hogwash]

58. ^That's the real danger, right there^

If those states rush bills in to their state legislatures to block or hinder voting, then we will ALL lose our chance for a fair election in 2014!!

[maxrandb]

124. It's a damn good thing we came out in force in 2010 and prevented the Teabagger takeover

of our Congress and State Houses...

[CreekDog]

135. So when Dem voters are kept at home, Dems will win lots more elections

try thinking.

[Jamaal510]

178. I'm assuming he/she meant

that more people on our side will become angry and show up in droves for the midterms.

[CreekDog]

179. of course that's what they thought --but their thought was half-baked at best

[maddogesq]

46. Looking for legal eagle to explain this phrase.

"Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

My assumption here is that they left the door open for Congress to set some kind of standard that applies to all states equally. Therefore, if the Dems could somehow take both houses with a Dem prez, they could do just that.

Is my assumption correct?

2014 could be one of the hugest mid-term elections in history, IMHO.

[mountain grammy]

56. yep

[Chakab]

48. And this is why I laugh everytime that I hear that Republicans will be irrelevant

soon because of shifting demographics. With gerrymandering and support from the courts on their voter suppression tactics, they'll maintain the same amount of representation at the federal level that they have now for decades to come.

[mountain grammy]

49. Yeah, right. Because Congress is so fucking functional.

These five corporate hacks make me sick.

[michigandem58]

57. The "region bigotry" folks must like this ruling

Hard to see how you can support the original law unless you acknowledge racism has a greater history and presence in some states.

[lobodons]

60. Please Die

One of these 5 individuals, Please Die!! (all 5 would be asking for too much and would cause a wet dream, but just 1 would do)

[vkkv]

61. Sad

Just sad.

[zazen]

62. just in time to help North Carolina GOP defend against NAACP redistricting lawsuit n/t

[Kablooie]

68. Just in time to kill The 2014 election.

No chance of Dems taking the house now.

Southern states will be free to use every trick in th book to prevent black votes.

[obama2terms]

84. Hey don't be so down

The repukes tried to suppress people from voting in the 2012 election. And remember what happened? People showed up in DROVES to vote, waiting sometimes 8 hours or more. That's because repukes don't understand, that if you mess with the American peoples' rights, they tend to get mad, and try hard to exercise the right that some people ( being repukes) tried to suppress. Also the voting rights act didn't stop voter suppression, which is today's main problem in voting. If people vote like they did in the Presidential election, the GOP doesn't have anything to go on.

[BlueDemKev]

91. I hope and pray...

That we'll be able to hold together the broad coalition which got Pres. Obama elected to a second term. It is absolutely imperative that the entire Democratic base get out and vote in every election, every time. Even if that means waiting 10 hours in line to vote!

[jeff47]

204. Not gonna happen.

Just look at all the Obama hatred on DU.

The Republicans are evil bastards, but they are very, very good at what they do. And that's keep themselves in power.

[AndyTiedye]

212. Even That Landslide Barely Made a Dent in the Gerrymandered House

…and it will be far worse next year with this ruling.

The House is gone, we need to focus on holding the Senate.
That was already going be an uphill battle with so many open Democratic seats,
but now with a new wave of voter suppression we really have a problem.

[caseymoz]

69. SCOTUS nostalgic for 60s riots.

Perhaps they think since our police are so ramped up they don't need to be responsive.

[blkbear]

73. SCOTUS - ILLOGIC

Circular illogic, this law works so well that we need to strike it down.

Somebody lend me a hand, this requires a triple face palm....

[BlueDemKev]

75. All the more reason...

...to vote to keep Democrats in control of the WH. Winning 3 of 10 elections before Obama came along is the reason for this shitty Supreme Court.

If it means standing in live for TEN HOURS, get out and vote!! In EVERY election, EVERY time!

[L0oniX]

82. Sad & pathetic move for the soon to be minority of old white racists assholes. Die soon muthafuckas!

[demwing]

87. This just gave us the single, national hot issue that will sweep Dems into both houses in 2014 /nt

[heaven05]

95. I

don't see how, since a lot of states will rush through laws to further suppress the Democrat vote. I bet a cup of coffee that the 2014 Democrat vote will be decimated by states with Rethuglican majorities in their legislative branches.

[demwing]

103. I see your coffee, and raise you a slice of pie

This will put fear of god into progressive voters, and that fear will create turnout.

[heaven05]

109. you're on

[CreekDog]

231. and they will vote *how*?

since their voting rights were just weakened.

the lack of critical thinking in your post is just astounding.

[demwing]

234. I'm not surprised that you're astounded

Re-read your own post, and learn the difference between "weakened" and "eliminated."

You'll be astounded...again.

[CreekDog]

235. You made an ignorant and incorrect statement: preclearance wasn't weakened, it was *eliminated*

get it right before you try to make it sound like progress. it's regress.

[demwing]

236. 1. "weakened" was your word, not mine

If you don't like it, don't use it.

2. I never even mentioned preclearance.

3. Rude, condescending people make DU suck, especially when they are painfully wrong.

[CreekDog]

237. voting rights were weakened because preclearance was eliminated

yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[demwing]

238. I'd love to sit and chat with you all day

But I'm not going to.

[CreekDog]

239. i thought you liked Life In Hell?

[deurbano]

127. I think that HAS to be the approach... that this will be galvanizing..

and will have the opposite effect. We have to USE this despicable ruling as a rallying cry to drive the Neanderthals out of civic life.

Last summer my (then) 13-year-old was making a video about ALEC and the vote suppression efforts by the Republican state legislatures... and we were VERY worried about the effect these efforts would have in states like Florida, where they were particularly egregious. But, in Florida those efforts backfired, and that was a pretty uplifting development that was made possible by the hard work of the NAACP and others who would not let the chicanery triumph. (Especially in Florida!)

For the time being, we have to live with these crappy justices who would vote against democracy...but we can do our best to make sure the next elections result in the opposite outcome of the one they are trying to orchestrate.

[heaven05]

167. this

approach along with a miracle in our legislative branch is our only hope, really.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

89. Quelle surprise. And the sun rose in the east this morning, too.

[Kolesar]

93. The Obama government had to intervene to stop the voting restrictions by the Republican governments

... in those "former Jim Crow" states. That may not have made a difference in the presidential election, but I expect it made a difference in the "down ticket" legislative contests and other contests.

[denem]

94. The next time you hear about legislating from the bench,

save a few choice words for the Roberts court.

[marshall]

97. It's simple--extend pre clearance to all counties and states

The court threw out the targeting of certain areas, not the process itself.

[Kablooie]

98. I bet you'll see a lot of English only ballots in heavily Hispanic districts in 2014.

Might even see proof of mastery of English before voting.

[midnight]

102. I can see more secret oath taking to make legislators do lots more underhanded road blocking.

[DallasNE]

110. "Current Conditions"?

Where in the Constitution does it say that laws to be legal must reflect ill-defined current conditions. While it is desirable to keep laws current it seems to me that that is the job of Congress and not the Supreme Court so this is just the latest example of legislating from the bench. And it is another reminder that elections matter.

Many people even anticipated that this court would somehow use a current conditions test to strike down this provision even though the law was just recently extended. Congress saw nothing in current conditions that required changes to the law so this is just a power grab by the Court.

[Coccydynia]

111. I wish to apologize to my fellow DUers

I was recently censored for referring to the South as a cesspool of bigoted ignoramuses. But today the nation's highest court stood with the DU court and declared our nation a changed nation.

Again, I apologize for my depiction of the South as a ball and chain hanging around the neck of this nation. And I look forward to continuous free and fair elections that have been the hallmark of the South these past few years.

God Bless the South. And God Bless the Enlightened States of America.

[heaven05]

112. yep

I concur.

[SunSeeker]

168. LOL. nt

[ctsnowman]

115. K & R

[DCBob]

116. So where are all those folks who claim theres not a hill a beans of difference between D's and R's??

Answer: Too busy bashing Obama about.. something.

They may regret their indifference someday if and when this country is taken over by the wacko RW.

[southmost]

118. no words

RIP Voting Rights Act 1965-2013

[alp227]

129. The law is still effective, relax!

But congress has to redefine which state/districts are covered. Can't just use some arbitrary 1972 standard.

[Iliyah]

147. A large portion of Amercia will see this as

a violation of voting right, which unfortunately in the United States we need rules and laws and amendments to protect Americans from radical views of the few who have lots of money which equals to power and right now they want total control over America. Look across the country and the states that are run by GOPers who are hammering away at worker rights, women rights, voting rights. MI has become a dictatorship in some parts of the state. These GOPers don't care about us and they do want to impose their insane beliefs on America.

As long as you have tea brats rule in the House and the filibuster in the Senate, what sane revision is approachable?

[brett_jv]

148. Not really in effect anymore ...

Removing the map's 'validity' and telling THIS Congress to re-draw it is a de-facto reversal of the law.

This Congress will not redraw it, not before the 2014 elections anyway, and possibly never.

I expect by 2016 we'll no longer have winner-take-all electoral college voting in Virginia, N. Carolina, or Florida. This has the potential to make it considerably harder for a Democrat to win the WH in 2016.

[Posteritatis]

202. Which the current Congress will never do. (nt)

[CreekDog]

211. You don't understand the decision you're talking about I'm afraid

[on point]

121. This may be good. We need a new national all states VRA to fight GOP games

It should cover all states and outlaw some of the games they have played like:
Not enough voting locations booth
Purging voter rolls of dems
Calling / mailing voters with wrong dates / locations in order to disenfranchise voters

Etc. there is a long list of dirty tricks.....

The point is there should be national standards that apply in the old south but also Ohio, Penn, and other places the pukes are now trying to game the system

Personally, I would add one other thing

ONLY REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CANDIDATES DISTRICT CAN GIVE MONEY TO A POLITICIAN

Corps still can't register to vote and that neatly and legally cuts them out of that game

[CreekDog]

137. Where are we going to get a "new VRA" from?

if we actually do get one, what poison pills will it have?

[Doctor_J]

193. Yeah, it's good alright

Just like CU is good.

The only way this comes out good is if it prompts a lot of very aggressive, very widespread riots from coast to coast.

wake the fuck up

[Gman]

125. Gotta take it to the streets

There is no other way now. And it will only get worse.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

132. I predict more bad news is coming re: DOMA...

I believe the ruling is coming this week, perhaps Thursday at the very latest. If SCOTUS' ruling on the VRA is any indication for how they feel about civil rights, I don't expect DOMA to be overruled.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

134. All this happening while the black Muslim socialist from Kenya is the president.

Don't, for one second, think it's merely a coincidence.

[brett_jv]

138. My understanding of another reason why this is really fucked ...

I believe this ruling opens it up for number of GOP-controlled (but not 100% in the tank Red) states, like Virginia, Florida, and N. Carolina to move away from winner-take-all electoral college voting and do the 'apportioning' thing (I think it's called), in which they can gerrymander the distribution of the electoral votes across the whole state.

I believe that overall this aspect of the ruling is 'what the Right was hoping for', more than the ability to do poll taxes and literacy tests. I can't actually imagine THAT happening. However ... I can EASILY see the loss of winner-take-all in a number of states that we really don't want that to happen in.

On the slightly-positive side ... any such state automatically becomes 'no longer a swing state', so there will be no more Florida 2000 repeats.

[John2]

190. I really don't agree

with this decision at all. I think the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds again and legislated from the Bench. I don't see the justification for the ruling, if it was Constitutional back then, from different Supreme Courts, it should be constitutional today.

The only way for what Congress to did not to be constitutional, is to change the Constitution. Congress gave the DOJ the responsibility to carry out the law. The only authority the Supreme Court should have is to interpret the constitutionality of the law. So how is it UnConstitutional now?

The reason the law was set up this way, was because certain jurisdictions were more abusive than others. Was it the position of the five rightwing Supreme Court Justices, the law did not have mechanisms to relieve these jurisdictions from scrutiny or add jurisdictions to scrutiny based on evidence of serious abuse of voting rights? Was it their opinions, no jurisdictions were added or relieved from scrutiny? If that wasn't the case, then these judges clearly violated their oaths, and overstepped their authority under the Constitution.

I suspect these Judges felt the freedom to do so, because of the make up of the current rightwing Congress. In another Congress, they would not be so safe to abuse their office. If it was a more Liberal, Congress, it would be grounds to remove them from the bench. Only Congress has the right to make laws, the court only interprets the Constitutionality of the laws. The Law only discriminated against Jurisdictions, that showed serious abuse of voting Rights. If I was DOJ, I would still carry out the current law, where jurisdictions showed serious abuse of voting rights. It is not up to 5 rightwing Supreme Court jUstices to determine which jurisdictions have serious voting rights violations.

That the Democratic Congress and Democratic President should do is butt heads with the five rightwing Supreme Court JUstices if they have the balls to do so. That is what you would have if I was the President. What power does the rightwing Republicans in Congress and on the current Court to remove this President? Go Lincolnesque on them.

[maryellen99]

140. Like I posted on another thread in GD

Sad day in this country when minority voting rights get trashed but a racist like Paula Deen is seen as a "victim"

[HardTimes99]

175. +Infinity! - nt

[Ash_F]

144. Will they be able to require all states do it now? /nt

[SpankMe]

153. Huge step backward. Welcome to the new America. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

158. Christ almighty. n/t

[LeftInTX]

170. Rick Perry and Tom Delay are gonna be very happy

Our "poll tax" voter ID will probably pass.
Our blue dog districts, Texas has Hispanic blue dog districts - Hispanic ranching/military areas - will turn to Tea Party.

Worse decision since Bush vs. Gore

[Spitfire of ATJ]

176. Ohio had lines like Florida....

This could bite the Republicans in the ass.

[blkmusclmachine]

182. Jim Crow, here we come.

[Doctor_J]

191. Some DUers think this SCOTUS can still be trusted

(well as long as they're attacking Snowden)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3089149

When do the guillotines come out of the shed?

[Doctor_J]

192. Slappy should have been impeached while we had the House & Senate

there are now mountains of evidence that he lied under oath at his confirmation hearing. Pelosi could have had him AND Smirk and Cheney booted out of the government.

[Posteritatis]

203. Wonder if they'll stick with gerrymandering or go straight to poll taxes and literacy tests. (nt)

[malthaussen]

216. Proud to be an American

I was born under Jim Crow, and it looks like I will now die under Jim Crow. What a joy it has been to watch my country progress to liberty and retreat from it in one lifetime.

-- Mal

[Beacool]

227. So many people worked and sacrificed so much to see the Voting Rights Act become law in 1965.

What a heartbreak, particularly for people like John Lewis and all the rest of that generation. They were in the front lines of the civil rights movement, some of them even paid with their lives.

It is fundamental that the next president not be a Republican. I cringe to think who a Bagger, or even Christie, would nominate to the SCOTUS.