Nation, no one is a bigger fan of the civil rights movement than yours truly. I even attended 1963's historic March on Washington — and this is true — while still in my mother's womb. I will never forget Martin Luther King's stirring words. (sound of heartbeat)Video below the fold.
That's why I'm personally invested in a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act now before the Supreme Court. That's right, the law that banned the silencing of African-Americans is finally coming before our nation's foremost silent African-American.
Of course, before the Voting Rights Act, black people were regularly kept from voting with roadblocks like literacy tests, poll taxes, and "You must be this white to vote" signs.
Now, that law is being challenged in the Supreme Court by Shelby County, Alabama. They argue that the law is unfair because it applies only to states with histories of racial discrimination: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Alaska — which has a sad history of discriminating against its African-American population: Brian.
He's a good guy.
But folks, there is one key reason to strike this act down. There's one reason to get rid of this law, as Shelby County lawyer Bert Rein explained to the Court.BERT REIN (2/27/2013): The problem to which the Voting Rights Act was addressed is solved.You heard him folks, racism is solved! Jimmy, drop the fully integrated balloons!
We! Overcame! It! Look at that! Wow!
I must've missed the moment when racism ended. I wonder when that was. Was it the time that Ross dated Aisha Tyler on Friends? Or when Keebler added the black elf? Oh, I know! It must have been when they made slavery illegal in Mississippi all the way back in four weeks ago. (audience laughter and applause)
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, we're living in such a post-racial utopia that we couldn't suppress black votes even if we wanted to — which we definitely don't.
Luckily, conservative stalwart and Justice the Hutt, Antonin Scalia, knows that the courts have to decide this. Because even though racism is clearly over, America's elected representatives lack the bicameral ballsack to vote against this thing.ANTONIN SCALIA (2/27/2013): I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless, unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. ... It's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. ... Even the name of it is wonderful. The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?Yes, you'd have to be an a-hole to vote against that in the future. Luckily, we've got an a-hole who will vote against it in the present!
(audience laughter and applause)
The point is, the Voting Rights Act is obsolete. It's like an old restraining order. These states are just saying, "Yes, I used to beat my girlfriend. But I haven't since the restraining order, so we don't need it anymore."