Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/


In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain state and local governments -- largely those in the South -- to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

The court ruled 5-4 that the provision is unconstitutional, and said Congress could try to draft a new provision. The justices said that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.


The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan.




So, the SCOTUS is saying that states can set their own voter laws... right after telling Arizona they cannot change their voting laws to require proof of citizenship.

WTF???

[aboutime]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/





[/COLOR][/LEFT]
So, the SCOTUS is saying that states can set their own voter laws... right after telling Arizona they cannot change their voting laws to require proof of citizenship.

WTF???


Marcus. More Double-standards I fully expect..SCOTUS knew would be challenged, and appealed. Sounds like all of them have WUSSED out. Just another COG in the Wheel toward the destruction of the Constitution, and the Powers supposedly divided by the Constitution of Executive, Judicial, and PISS POOR Legislative...Congress of Fools.

[red states rule]

The libs over at DNCTV are not happy campers today. Of course it is rare to find any liberal having a good day for the last 6 months. Anyway, the libs pulled out their usual 52 deck of race cards and played them one after the other <iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121727" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=aboutime;648615]Marcus. More Double-standards I fully expect..SCOTUS knew would be challenged, and appealed. Sounds like all of them have WUSSED out. Just another COG in the Wheel toward the destruction of the Constitution, and the Powers supposedly divided by the Constitution of Executive, Judicial, and PISS POOR Legislative...Congress of Fools.[/QUOTE
Did you know the USSC got rid of the entire Voting Rights bill?

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121720" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[Thunderknuckles]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/





[/COLOR][/LEFT]
So, the SCOTUS is saying that states can set their own voter laws... right after telling Arizona they cannot change their voting laws to require proof of citizenship.

WTF???
Not quite Marcus. SCOTUS is basically saying it is unconstitutional for the Feds to "profile" certain states by overseeing their elections because of obsolete data showing a past of racial discrimination. It's a good call I think. Anytime you return power back to the states it's a good thing. Bad call on Arizona though.

[aboutime]

[QUOTE=aboutime;648615]Marcus. More Double-standards I fully expect..SCOTUS knew would be challenged, and appealed. Sounds like all of them have WUSSED out. Just another COG in the Wheel toward the destruction of the Constitution, and the Powers supposedly divided by the Constitution of Executive, Judicial, and PISS POOR Legislative...Congress of Fools.[/QUOTE
Did you know the USSC got rid of the entire Voting Rights bill?

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121720" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>



Listening to any UNINFORMED, EASILY LED LIBERAL....and it sounds like the ENTIRE law had been struck down.
Basically. What I suspect this is going to accomplish...much to the displeasure of the ENDLESSLY DISENFRANCHISED idiots who still can't tell their Right, from their Left is....Those poor folks who want to vote MUST SHOW SOME FORM OF ID.

How terrible is that?

They claim not to have any picture ID...but easily pick up their FOOD STAMPS, WELFARE, and UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS with a photo ID. OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDD...

[Missileman]

Everyone seems to be on board with "E" verify...it's way past due to institute "V" verify.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The libs over at DNCTV are not happy campers today. Of course it is rare to find any liberal having a good day for the last 6 months. Anyway, the libs pulled out their usual 52 deck of race cards and played them one after the other <iframe title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121727" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="293" width="520"></iframe>

Last time I checked, Clarence Thomas was African American. Are libs saying he's a racist... against other African Americans?

[aboutime]

Listen to how the Texas A.G. feels about the SCOTUS decision.

A real Win for America...whether the Democrats like it or not.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/25/texas-ag-tells-janine-turner-that-scotus-voting-rights-act-decision-is-a-huge-win-for-equality/

Can we PLEASE.....Have a half second of silence for the greatly disappointed, bewildered, frustrated by truth, and justice through Liberty, and Freedom denial bunch...better known as the IGNORANT Liberal, Democrats who cry about LBJ's LIES of Promise for the GREAT SOCIETY??????

[Marcus Aurelius]

And the affects are already beginning...

http://www.wral.com/nc-senator-voter-id-bill-moving-ahead-with-ruling/12591669/


RALEIGH, N.C. — Voter identification legislation in North Carolina will pick up steam again now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a key General Assembly leader said Tuesday.

A bill requiring voters to present one of several forms of state-issued photo ID starting in 2016 cleared the House two months ago, but it's been sitting since in the Senate Rules Committee to wait for a ruling by the justices in an Alabama case, according to Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, the committee chairman. He said a bill will now be rolled out in the Senate next week.
The ruling essentially means a voter ID or other election legislation approved in this year's session probably won't have to receive advance approval by U.S. Justice Department attorneys or a federal court before such measures can be carried out.
"I guess we're safe in saying this decision was what we were expecting," Apodaca said.


:clap::clap::clap:

[aboutime]

And the affects are already beginning...

http://www.wral.com/nc-senator-voter-id-bill-moving-ahead-with-ruling/12591669/



:clap::clap::clap:


Marcus. I realize this may sound kinda partisan but...in a way. I see this SCOTUS decision as almost a PAYBACK for the Roberts liberal vote "TAX" idea????

[red states rule]

and of course a "professor" on DNCTV played the Hitler card against Justice Thomas

<iframe width="500" height="281" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121730" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus. I realize this may sound kinda partisan but...in a way. I see this SCOTUS decision as almost a PAYBACK for the Roberts liberal vote "TAX" idea????

I don't think so. Roberts wrote for the majority in this. I don't think he feels bad about the Obamacare decision. I think he just realized that times have changed, and the formula for deciding what is and is not prejudicial in voting requirements needs to change as well.

I did notice it was a guys against the girls thing. Interesting.

[gabosaurus]

They should have struck down all of it. It has no place in the 21st Century.

[aboutime]

I don't think so. Roberts wrote for the majority in this. I don't think he feels bad about the Obamacare decision. I think he just realized that times have changed, and the formula for deciding what is and is not prejudicial in voting requirements needs to change as well.

I did notice it was a guys against the girls thing. Interesting.


Could be. I didn't notice that. In any case. Here in Virginia. The typical complaints about how it is setting back the Johnson efforts are still being spun-up. Amazing how distortion, and lies still play into the need for some to always claim racism as their only defense.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/81_13373020130626055023.jpg

[red states rule]

NBC joined in and "reported" the USSC ruling drove a stake through the heart of voting rights.

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121748" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-is-correct-on-voting-rights-act/2013/06/26/b15c8d84-de81-11e2-b797-cbd4cb13f9c6_story.html


Progressives resent progress when it renders anachronistic once-valid reasons for enlarging the federal government’s supervisory and coercive powers. Hence they regret Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-stops-use-of-key-part-of-voting-rights-act/2013/06/25/26888528-dda5-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html) that progress has rendered Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.


The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is the noblest legislation in United States history, more transformative than the 1862 Homestead Act (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/homestead-act/), the 1862 Morrill Act (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33) (land-grant colleges) or the 1944 GI Bill of Rights (http://www.gibill.va.gov/benefits/history_timeline/). But extraordinary laws that once were constitutional, in spite of being discordant with the nation’s constitutional architecture, can become unconstitutional when facts that made the law appropriate change. The most recent data, such as registration and voting rates (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/01/166226641/is-the-voting-rights-act-outdated), on which Section 4 is based, are from 1972. The data would have been 59 years old when the most recent extension expired in 2031. Tuesday’s decision prevents this absurdity that Congress embraced.


On Tuesday, Roberts tersely said (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf) Section 4 is “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.”


Tuesday’s decision came eight months after a presidential election in which African Americans voted at a higher rate than whites (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/census-blacks-voted-at-higher-rates-than-whites-in-2012/2013/05/08/7d24bcaa-b800-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html). It came when in a majority of the nine states covered by the preclearance requirements, blacks are registered at a higher rate (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html) than whites. It came when Mississippi has more black elected officials (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/opinion/sunday/beyond-black-and-white-in-the-mississippi-delta.html?pagewanted=all) — not more per capita; more — than any other state.


Section 5 is now a nullity because it lacks force absent a Section 4 formula for identifying covered jurisdictions, and today’s Congress will properly refuse to enact another stigmatizing formula. On Tuesday, however, the court paid the VRA the highest possible tribute by saying the act’s key provision is no longer constitutional because the act has changed pertinent facts that once made it so.

[aboutime]

NBC joined in and "reported" the USSC ruling drove a stake through the heart of voting rights.

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121748" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>



The ONLY Stake being driven anywhere is that Stroke to prevent the continuation of 'VOTING AS MANY TIMES AS YOU CAN". Primarily for the Uneducated who not only can't spell their own name...but use other people's names to VOTE a few times as well.

[fj1200]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-is-correct-on-voting-rights-act/2013/06/26/b15c8d84-de81-11e2-b797-cbd4cb13f9c6_story.html


On Tuesday, however, the court paid the VRA the highest possible tribute by saying the act’s key provision is no longer constitutional because the act has changed pertinent facts that once made it so.

Interesting statement there; Constitutionality dependent upon facts.

[red states rule]

And how can we ignore what Rev Al had to bellow about this topic? The Curt "cancelled" the dream of MLK


<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&content=PN9W4Z2LVQ9DML61&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

[aboutime]

Would someone here. Anyone, honestly care to tell me, and the rest of us. Exactly WHAT Rev. Al is talking about?

What, exactly did the SCOTUS strike down? How will it affect any American...no matter what color their skin happens to be???

Seems to me. From everything I've heard, and read. Nothing has changed.

ALL AMERICANS still are able to vote in elections. Can someone tell us WHICH AMERICANS Rev. Al was Lying about when talking about tearing down MLK's dream?????

[Little-Acorn]

All the Supreme Court said was, "You can't keep using 40-year-old statistics to 'prove' that Alabama has to be restricted in changing their voting laws. You have to use more up-to-date statistics instead, to prove it. And then you can restrict them."

That's it.

The Supreme Court struck down NOTHING.

[aboutime]

All the Supreme Court said was, "You can't keep using 40-year-old statistics to 'prove' that Alabama has to be restricted in changing their voting laws. You have to use more up-to-date statistics instead, to prove it. And then you can restrict them."

That's it.

The Supreme Court struck down NOTHING.


Too bad the Perpetually Ignorant, Stupid, and Endlessly Racist like Al, and Jesse, with all of the other CLOSET RACISTS who call themselves Democrats...never wish to admit they have no idea what they are trying to convince the OTHER perpetually Uneducated to believe.

[red states rule]

All the Supreme Court said was, "You can't keep using 40-year-old statistics to 'prove' that Alabama has to be restricted in changing their voting laws. You have to use more up-to-date statistics instead, to prove it. And then you can restrict them."

That's it.

The Supreme Court struck down NOTHING.

You know that and I know that

But that is the last thing the Obama loving liberal media will report

The biggest worry is that all voters will have to show a photo ID before voting. That would take some points off the Dem vote tally in most elections

[aboutime]

You know that and I know that

But that is the last thing the Obama loving liberal media will report

The biggest worry is that all voters will have to show a photo ID before voting. That would take some points off the Dem vote tally in most elections


red states rule....this is what I said earlier, and you repeated it...
Would someone here. Anyone, honestly care to tell me, and the rest of us. Exactly WHAT Rev. Al is talking about?

What, exactly did the SCOTUS strike down? How will it affect any American...no matter what color their skin happens to be???

Seems to me. From everything I've heard, and read. Nothing has changed.

ALL AMERICANS still are able to vote in elections. Can someone tell us WHICH AMERICANS Rev. Al was Lying about when talking about tearing down MLK's dream?????

[Marcus Aurelius]

And how can we ignore what Rev Al had to bellow about this topic? The Curt "cancelled" the dream of MLK


<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&content=PN9W4Z2LVQ9DML61&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="421" scrolling="no" width="420"></iframe>

Really? Black people can no longer vote? I must have misread the courts decision. Perhaps someone can show me where it revoked the rights of black people to vote? Was there fine print I missed?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-no-the-supreme-court-did-not-restore-jim-crow/article/2532543


Since the U.S. Supreme Court's (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf) ruling to overturn Section Four of the Voting Rights Act, many liberals have gone apoplectic, claiming the court has, in the New York Times' laughable formulation, "eviscerated enforcement" of the law. Such claims are wrong. Section Four created a formula that classified some states as racist and others as not, depending, as the Court noted, "whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or 1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time." Section Four thus froze the relevant states in time, even though, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted, "history did not end in 1965."

The jurisdictions singled out by Section Four were thereby subject to Section Five, which required them to get permission from the federal Department of Justice before changing anything in their voting laws. The Court held the formula unconstitutional and invited Congress to rewrite it. The Court also preserved the Justice Department's authority to file suit against state voting laws it deems illegal.



Abbot noted that the Court had previously upheld a voter identification requirement implemented by Indiana. But when Texas, which was one of the states subject to Section Four discrimination, approved a virtually identical version of the voter ID measure, the Obama Justice Department cited the VRA to block it. "That just showed that they were using the Voting Rights Act law to treat Texas differently from Indiana, and that was part of the backdrop behind today's decision." Abbott said.


As the Times editorial put it: "The real problem with the invalidated formula, in our view, is that it does not cover all the jurisdictions that have imposed or tried to impose techniques like racially discriminatory voter-identification laws." In other words, the liberal objection is that the nation's highest court has recognized the constitutional authority of states to require proof of valid registration from all voters.

[aboutime]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-no-the-supreme-court-did-not-restore-jim-crow/article/2532543



Marcus. In other words. SCOTUS changed nothing. But the typical, expected whiners...being as uninformed as they really are. You'd think someone went to MLK's grave, and handed him a shovel to DIG himself up....if only to show his disgust for something that never happened. But...Rev. Al, and Rev. Jackson would get those DONATIONS flowing in again.

Times are really hard for people like that when threatened with TRUTH.

[Voted4Reagan]

Not quite Marcus. SCOTUS is basically saying it is unconstitutional for the Feds to "profile" certain states by overseeing their elections because of obsolete data showing a past of racial discrimination. It's a good call I think. Anytime you return power back to the states it's a good thing. Bad call on Arizona though.

States Rights get a little boost from this....

Arizona will appeal...

[Marcus Aurelius]

Essentially, this ruling will allow/encourage any state that wants to enact laws similar to NC or AZ, the ability to do so without the federal government stopping them. Of course, the fed can still sue, but that would take time.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/





[/COLOR][/LEFT]
So, the SCOTUS is saying that states can set their own voter laws... right after telling Arizona they cannot change their voting laws to require proof of citizenship.

WTF??? FFED UP WORLD IS IT NOT? Welcome to the Obama agenda and its confusing little merry-go-round. Just wait until he gets the absolute power that he seeks and SCOTUS will either be disbanded or seeded with another 2 to 4 justices to can absolute control of it . Another Kagan or Sotomayor and its toast anyways. Same as is now since nobody saw fit to force Kagan to step down in the Obama care case. Surely the Chief Justice should have interceded and forced the corrupt obamayte biatchh to recuse herself. Did not happen so the fix is in IMHO.

[tailfins]

misplaced post... please delete

[Marcus Aurelius]

misplaced post... please delete

was wondering if that was meant for the new guy...lol