Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS Upholds Voting Rights Act -- For Now, Anyway (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The 1... (5+ / 0-)

    was to overturn the statute.  The other 8 all had problems with the way in which the statute was applied, so the 1 is the utterly activist vote.

    •  The 8 (0+ / 0-)

      rewrote a section of the law per the diarist. So I think in this case we had the active, and the radioactive.

      Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

      by blue aardvark on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 09:41:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eh, statutory construction on an out provision (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo, CMYK

        I'm not even going to look at it.  The fact that the court left open the idea that it could decide for itself whether the cost of compliance was justified is troubling enough.

        "Newt's all for new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any. He's just FOR them."--Bob Dole.

        by Inland on Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 11:40:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Justice Thomas wanted to be "activist" ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... and substitute the view of the Court (as to whether the law was still necessary) for that of the Legislative Branch.

      A "non-activist" approach would be to defer to the Legislative branch - just as it was "non-activist" to defer to the City of New Haven when it decided that it would use a different test for promoting the fire fighters in the Rizzo case.  But, that's for another day ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site