Skip to main content

View Diary: If the President Had Done What SCOTUS Just Did with Partisan VRA Ruling (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They can CITE THE CONSTITUION in declaring (0+ / 0-)

    a law unconstitutional, and also precedent.  They can't just make shit up and usurp authorities from other branches.

    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

    by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:37:00 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

      •  The Constitution gives the Legislative branch (0+ / 0-)

        the power to pass appropriate legislation remedying racial discrimination in voting.  They did so.  But the five criminals in the Roberts majority usurped the authority to determine what is and is not appropriate legislation, pulled arbitrary standards out of their ass with no precedence in jurisprudence or written law, and conveniently obliterated the greatest federal law enforcement obstacle to Republican electoral victory in 2014.  

        You are in denial.    

        Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

        by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:43:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it seems you've never had a civics class. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thestructureguy

          it's also clear you didn't read the entire ruling. it's very clear you didn't read the ruling that led up to this too.

          Incidentally it's pretty clear you never read the Voter Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent amendments, and I am really not even sure if you were paying attention when states not subject to preclearance passed blatantly restrictive voter ID laws---which mostly have been upheld at the state and Federal level, and other than writing demands for impeachment without explaining the who, what, where, how, and why (and showing no homework at all about the before, during, and after of your hypothetical impeachment proceedings other than emotive rhetoric_, I don't think you have any interest at all at the already ongoing efforts to fix VRA.

          but anyway, good luck. the most naive people on the planet seem to be [some] American progressives.

          •  It seems your idea of our system of government (0+ / 0-)

            consists of five people saying whatever they want and that becomes the law, so maybe can the painfully ironic references to civics class.  

            And what exactly are you asserting about that previous case?  Because in the current one the dissenting 4 lambasted the majority's unprecedented and ludicrous invention of fictitious standards out of thin air.

            I don't think you have any interest at all at the already ongoing efforts to fix VRA.
            VRA needs to be expanded, not struck down by partisan Commissars plotting a GOP election strategy from the bench.

            Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

            by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:18:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the previous case (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thestructureguy

              (Northwest Austin Municipal v Holder) pretty much telegraphed Tuesday's decision and it basically said "If Congress does not fix the preclearance formula, we will strike it down the next time it comes before us because we've found, by our interpretation, serious constitutional problems with it." That was an 8-1 decision (Thomas dissenting, they also added the bail out feature which sadly Shelby County couldn't' bother to stick with).

              Congress did not fix it. Neither the House nor Senate bothered. The Senate sure is bothering now--hearings begin next month.

              SCOTUS has been upholding or overturning laws and parts of laws for 200+ years now as is its constitutional function, with some decisions (like the one that gave corporations personhood---that was 1886, or 1819 depending on what case you use and not 2010) using some ridiculous logic "made up out of thin air". That is still not illegal, nor is it impeachable, even if the dissenting opinions lambasted the majority opinions (which would not be the first time that's happened---did we miss Scalia's rather epic dissent on DOMA?). If you want that to change, you know the route you have to take to get there and it'd involve scrapping almost all of Article III and starting over.

              Conservatives HATED the Warren Court and wanted to have every one of them impeached for their legal opinions. Conservatives now HATE the DOMA decision and want to have every one of them impeached. I am not seeing how your petition is any different.

    •  do you realize this is the exact rhetoric coming (0+ / 0-)

      from rush Limbaugh regarded  roe v wade. gay marriage, Obamacare and all sorts of laws that the right doesn't like.

      the Roberts court is interesting. A lot of split 5/4 decisions on social issues.. but Roberts has taken the progressive side many times (Obamacare, prop8, doma, etc) and less than progressive in cases such as this case and citizen's united. Roberts himself isn't the worst on supreme court and has actually showed quite a bit of independence from political party or ideology. scalia and Thomas are far, far worse.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site