Skip to main content

View Diary: This week in the war on voting: Holder vows to keep Voting Rights Act relevant despite Supreme Court (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It really goes to the heart of the sophistry (7+ / 0-)

    of justices like Antonin Scalia, doesn't it? Defer to Congress when it's in the interest of the Republican Party or the US Chamber of Commerce, and engage in judicial activism when the same logic would have otherwise led to a victory for the left. It really is stunning to see such a brazenly partisan Supreme Court. And I don't want to hear about John Robert's ruling on the ACA - that was written because he wanted to set some traps on the decision that he could use later for expanding States' Rights, and he wanted to immunize himself against being considered totally illegitimate by half of the public.

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:49:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Scalia... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Denise Oliver Velez
      "It really goes to the heart of the sophistry of justices like Antonin Scalia, doesn't it?"
      And its not even good sophistry. Its just in your face partisan ruling with no concern for consistency.

      "Patients are not consumers" - Paul Krugman

      by assyrian64 on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 11:01:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not even sophistry (2+ / 0-)

      Outright lies, claiming that the current preclearance list was based solely on the original formula, when in fact it was based on actual continuing behavior. Any jurisdiction that wanted to get off the list could simply behave for ten years and apply to be bailed out.

      Steve Benen at the Rachel Maddow Blog stated the case completely incorrectly:

      It's not that Holder is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling; it's that Holder believes the ruling still leaves him some room to maneuver.
      This is not belief in the sense of Republican faith-based government. It is the plain meaning of the "bail-in" and "bail-out" provisions of the VRA, both of which have been used on cities, counties, and whole states. Also, although jurisdictions originally placed on the list using the old formula have been issued a get-out-of-jail-free card by the ganefs on SCOTUS, those bailed-in later are still on the list.

      NC passed its voter suppression law a few days ago, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed it yesterday.

      North Carolina approves nation’s most restrictive voter suppression law

      That means that the DoJ can file suit against them next. I expect to see the entire list of states on the old preclearance list to be back on within a year, as soon as they come under injunction from Federal courts, pending appeals in some cases, of course. Unless, of course, they lay low for some reason and don't mess up.

      That is, I expect enforcement of racist voting laws and regulations to be enjoined immediately after they are passed and taken to court, and preclearance judgments to be entered and suspended once the trials can be held, so that any further shenanigans will also be put on hold pending appeal.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 11:23:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site