Okay, that's it. All of you monkeys off of my Goddamn planet.

[Doktor Howl]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19132385-supreme-court-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act?lite

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What the fuck, America!

[Doktor Howl]

What the fuck, America!

Justice Roberts, lol.

Congress had extended the law by an overwhelming majority in 2006.  The will of the people was quite clear.

Now the court is saying "congress must deal with this", which means "keep trying until you give us what we want."

If they'd said it was flat-out unconstitutional, that would be one thing, and up for debate.  But that isn't what happened.

[Doktor Howl]

The Voting Rights Act is invoked often. It was used to block more than 1,000 proposed changes to voting laws between 1982 and 2006, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute at New York University.

And last year, the Voting Rights Act was invoked to stop a voter identification law in Texas and a Florida law that eliminated early voting days, which the center said would have made it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of minority voters to cast ballots.

And then

Roberts was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion and said that he would have struck down not just the map but the requirement that any jurisdiction get federal clearance to change a voting law.

There really are no words.

[Doktor Howl]

And the ASSHOLE QUOTE OF THE DAY:

As part of the ruling Tuesday, the court published a chart comparing white and black voter registration in 1965 and in 2004 in the six states originally covered. In Alabama, for example, the white registration rate was 69 percent and the black rate 19 percent in 1965. By 2004, that gap had all but disappeared — 74 percent for whites and 73 percent for blacks.

"There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act," Roberts wrote. "The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process."

He cited two towns deeply scarred by the civil rights movement: Philadelphia, Miss., where three men trying to register black voters were murdered in 1964, and Selma, Ala., where police beat hundreds of people marching in 1965. Both towns now have black mayors.

"Problems remain in these States and others," Roberts wrote, "but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our Nation has made great strides."

And yet he voted to strike it down.

Isn't that precious?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The cynic in me thinks this ruling on the Voting Rights Act was part of a "You want gay marriage, huh? Well, what are you gonna give us in return?" conversation happening behind SCOTUS' closed doors over the last few months. The rest of me believes the cynic is too optimistic, of course, because they'll probably uphold Prop 8 anyway.

This decision is flat-out horrific, but it isn't surprising. I'm not sure what Americans think their country is these days, but they're certainly wrong, whatever it is they think.

[Doktor Howl]

The cynic in me thinks this ruling on the Voting Rights Act was part of a "You want gay marriage, huh? Well, what are you gonna give us in return?" conversation happening behind SCOTUS' closed doors over the last few months. The rest of me believes the cynic is too optimistic, of course, because they'll probably uphold Prop 8 anyway.

This decision is flat-out horrific, but it isn't surprising. I'm not sure what Americans think their country is these days, but they're certainly wrong, whatever it is they think.

Somewhat relevant, and timely.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34847.0.html

[I_Kicked_Kennedy]

I'm 98.25% angry about this.

Mostly, I feel that SCOTUS made the morally wrong decision here. I think that provision was important, and if left to their devices, most of those states would do everything they could to keep minorities from having their vote. It was completely necessary in 1965 and, sadly, it still is.

But there's a little part of me that thinks a strict reading of constitutional law does in fact make this specific provision unconstitutional*.

That same part of me says "We need an amendment or two, then." I guess I won't fault those 5 justices for their decision, but I'm still allowed to think they're total dickbags.

*At first glance. I'm going to read up on constitutional law to see if I'm wrong.

[Doktor Howl]

But there's a little part of me that thinks a strict reading of constitutional law does in fact make this specific provision unconstitutional*.

Want to elaborate on that?  Because amendment XV is pretty fucking clear on the subject.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

America's America^TM. Where what's good for you is out of reach, what's beneficial is beaten down, and what will encourage your dependency on Big Pharm, The Man, and Fast Food is nestled sweetly in the basket of your free* Rascal Scooter, with a bow** and everything.




_{* for qualifying insurance holders only.
** gift-wrapping available for an extra charge.}

[Left]

"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements," Scalia said, "it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

Said like the clueless honky he is.

[Doktor Howl]

"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements," Scalia said, "it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

Said like the clueless honky he is.

VOTING IS A RACIAL ENTITLEMENT!   

[I_Kicked_Kennedy]

But there's a little part of me that thinks a strict reading of constitutional law does in fact make this specific provision unconstitutional*.

Want to elaborate on that?  Because amendment XV is pretty fucking clear on the subject.

So, that amendment says that no one can be prevented from voting based upon race. Good. That's should have gone without saying, you know, with the "...all men created equal" which turned out to be lip service, so yes we had to make an amendment that says "To be clear, black people and any other citizen, no matter what race, can vote." The provision that was struck down did not say "Black people have the right to vote," but rather, "There are some states that aren't treating black people fairly, so any time they want to do something to change the laws, they need to check with us first."

Just to remind everyone, they didn't strike down the entire Voting Rights Act of 1965. Just this part. This provision is where things get hairy. Now, since I've posted it, I've noted that there is some debate over this specific matter, and it may not be as clear cut as I initially thought. To start, Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Meaning, that anything not mentioned in the constitution that isn't prohibited by the constitution is up to the states. Article 4 of the constitution gives states the right to govern their elections provided that it works within the framework of the constitution and the amendments. Now, at the time, these states were doing everything they could to circumvent the efforts of minorities getting to the polls, so this did provide Congress with the ability to prevent that without having challenge every law until it got to the federal appeals or Supreme Court (a lengthy process that would have done little to prevent harm in the short term, or correct elections it screwed up... seeing as it would have possibly sent segregationists into Washington, further hampering efforts of equality), but we'd be getting into the idea of the law's intended effect, rather than it's establishment as a precedent.

In the rejected provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the federal government imposed extra oversight to the bad apple states, while not applying the same scrutiny to other states.
Necessary? Yes.
Morally sound? Certainly.
Integral in preserving democracy? Without question.
Constitutional? Well...

Look at it this way. Article III outlines the judiciary, and in 2020, after the reactionaries of the GOP taken over everything, they decide that California's Supreme Court isn't making decisions as they like (or deem "proper interpretation of the law", blah!), they say "Ok, the Supreme Court of California must, from this point on, have at least two justices from either Texas or South Carolina to keep their decisions in order." Well, that would be unconstitutional and unfair. Granted, this is a terrible example, bordering on straw man, but it's not entirely different than what the provision did with the voting.

Now, if these states do something unconstitutional or impose laws that do prevent minorities from voting, that's when [ideally] the federal oversight would step in, or the Supreme Court would reject the measure(s). I acknowledge our system is far too broken, and the processes would prevent timely correction of the matter, but this is how it's supposed to work. The reason for the state v. federal distribution of powers is to provide a balance in the event either realm has become monolithic in it's viewpoints. Again, those that passed the law in 1965 (and again in 2006) had moral intentions, but in the event they didn't, we would agree they were doing something terrible. If it were the opposite, meaning, if the US Congress passed a law in 1965 that said the northeastern states' voting laws had to be approved by the rest of the country (which had shifted to a more racist viewpoint), we'd be losing our shit.

I don't like the decision, and if it were 5-4 the other way, I would have been very pleased. But I would have been hesitant, if asked, to say if they made the "constitutional" decision. On the other hand, if I'm looking at the long ball game, this could work in favor of progress, too. The ACLU, SPLC, and every other pro-democracy group has their lawyers at the ready to challenge these in court. This would get the obstructionists and prejudices of lawmakers and judiciary members on record and in full view. This may motivate minorities in droves to the polls in 2014, similar to 2012, despite GOP's efforts. That is, if their gerrymandering and voter ID bullshit doesn't effectively snuff out the movement. I'm curious to how it plays out.

Scalia can eat a bag of AIDS infested dicks, as far as I'm concerned.

[Doktor Howl]

But there's a little part of me that thinks a strict reading of constitutional law does in fact make this specific provision unconstitutional*.

Want to elaborate on that?  Because amendment XV is pretty fucking clear on the subject.

So, that amendment says that no one can be prevented from voting based upon race. Good. That's should have gone without saying, you know, with the "...all men created equal" which turned out to be lip service, so yes we had to make an amendment that says "To be clear, black people and any other citizen, no matter what race, can vote." The provision that was struck down did not say "Black people have the right to vote," but rather, "There are some states that aren't treating black people fairly, so any time they want to do something to change the laws, they need to check with us first."

You now might consider reading article VI, the part about the constitution (alongside federal law and ratified treaties) being the law of the land.  And article I's granting of the power to congress to pass such laws as are necessary to permit the executive branch to enforce this.

The entire 1965 law is constitutional.

[I_Kicked_Kennedy]

But there's a little part of me that thinks a strict reading of constitutional law does in fact make this specific provision unconstitutional*.

Want to elaborate on that?  Because amendment XV is pretty fucking clear on the subject.

So, that amendment says that no one can be prevented from voting based upon race. Good. That's should have gone without saying, you know, with the "...all men created equal" which turned out to be lip service, so yes we had to make an amendment that says "To be clear, black people and any other citizen, no matter what race, can vote." The provision that was struck down did not say "Black people have the right to vote," but rather, "There are some states that aren't treating black people fairly, so any time they want to do something to change the laws, they need to check with us first."

You now might consider reading article VI, the part about the constitution (alongside federal law and ratified treaties) being the law of the land.  And article I's granting of the power to congress to pass such laws as are necessary to permit the executive branch to enforce this.

The entire 1965 law is constitutional.

I guess this is where I'm a bit concerned. The Supremacy Clause you are referring to was the same one that rejected Ableman v. Booth, in that it said since federal law supported US Marshall apprehending fugitive slaves, the state was not allowed to interfere. Now, I will grant that it is a superb argument that the provision in the Voting Rights Act was constitutional (and one I will be happy to use in support of it, as I had said before that I support it from a personal standpoint), but I think this case is an example of when the opposite is at play: when a law can be created as constitutional, but morally repugnant. If the federal government is taken over by fascists, what rights do states have to protect themselves? Reminder: Slavery and involuntary servitude was not in the constitution until the 13th amendment, and we have the 21st which effectively repealed a previous amendment. Now prohibition was bullshit, but what's to prevent a theoretical fascist set of elected representatives from adding amendments that cancel out previous amendments, then passing laws that inhibit states' efforts to fight these, since those measures would now be considered "constitutional."