Skip to main content

View Diary: Preclearance is not dead (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know enough about the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Lyon

    application of the language in practice to make a judgment

    The fact it hasn't been used as you claim is a concerning sign that language may be term of art that doesn't mean what it may mean in layman's terms

    •  It's probably more due to lack of need (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, sebastianguy99, PeterHug

      Why use Section 3 for bail-ins when the covered jurisdiction is already under Section 5? Now that Section 5 is gone, the questions comes up...

      (How) can we use Section 3 to cover the gaps?

      Did any court decisions in the past include Section 3 "bail-in" provisions that are still active?

      Do we have to get new Section 2 rulings (requiring a burden of proof on the people) before we can get Section 3 coverage?

      Can the courts invoke "bail-in" based on their previous rulings without explicitly having stated a Section 3 intent? Can the Attorney General request such an invocation from the courts?

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:55:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Justice Kennedy referred to it (4+ / 0-)

      He at least thinks it might provide similar coverage.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:56:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know either but could it be that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, Notreadytobenice

      Sec 3 has not been used because sec 4 could be used instead? Though it would seem that suits would reference both.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 04:02:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It requires DOJ (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Lyon, Meteor Blades, PeterHug

      to bring an action and win in court.

      It would then be, if provided for by order, a continuing obligation.

      But that requires new proceedings asking for that relief.

      It's not a magic bullet.

      •  From your two posts (0+ / 0-)

        So the government still does have an option for challenging Texas law but it will require more effort to mount the case?

      •  By the way, this is off toic (0+ / 0-)

        but my fear is that the rulings on gay rights tomorrow will continue to limit rights even as it expands them to include gays under the limited rights left

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        it is definitely not a magic bullet.

        It's not an adequate remedy for the problems facing the south.

        But it is a tool that is still available.

        My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

        by Adam Blomeke on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:35:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site