Supreme Court weighs new look at voting rights law

[Live and Learn]

Source: ABC OTUS News

Three years ago, the Supreme Court warned there could be constitutional problems with a landmark civil rights law that has opened voting booths to millions of African-Americans. Now, opponents of a key part of the Voting Rights Act are asking the high court to finish off that provision.

The basic question is whether state and local governments that once boasted of their racial discrimination still can be forced in the 21st century to get federal permission before making changes in the way they hold elections.

Some of the governments covered — most of them are in the South — argue they have turned away from racial discrimination over the years. But Congress and lower courts that have looked at recent challenges to the law concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight.

The Supreme Court could say as early as Monday whether it will consider ending the Voting Rights Act's advance approval requirement that has been held up as a crown jewel of the civil rights era.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-weighs-look-voting-rights-law-120350748.html

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Why do I get the feeling it will be a 5 to 4

in favor of striking down the VRA advance approval requirement?

More reason to get the vote out and to re-elect President Obama and a strong Democratic Congress. If the SCOTUS strikes down that provision of the VRA then we'll have to draft a new one and shove it right back into the law books - and we can't do that with a hostile and racist Republican congress.

[Live and Learn]

2. Yep and if anything, this election cycle has shown that

racism and elitism are alive and well in the USA. The argument in favor of dismantling the act is bogus.

[freshwest]

5. +1,000.

[defacto7]

17. Of what use is striking it down?

Why waste the time and energy to strike down something that has worked. Even if it were not necessary, why? Pride? Maybe all states should be added to it as an assurance of the protections it provides; make it a federal law for all states. Think about it. Why would someone logically want it struck down?

[Live and Learn]

21. I don't understand your question. It is precisely

because it works that they want it struck down.

[defacto7]

31. glad you figured it out!

That's the point.

[heaven05]

34. Someone?

Evil racist pigs want to again deny voting privileges to ALL minorities. They would like to return decision making participation to 1776 levels and we all know what that means, I think. But these forces( I suspect, white racists) are NOT going to win, no matter A ideologically racist majority on the SCOTUS. GO OBAMA!!!!

[billh58]

6. The very

same 5-4 that allowed racists to carry guns in the streets "for protection" against those they wish to disenfranchise.

The very same 5-4 who are the heroes of the Gungeon gun cultists.

[glacierbay]

26. The SCOTUS has nothing to do with carrying concealed

that's a state's issue and so far, it's worked out pretty well, despite all the hand wringing of rivers of blood flowing in the streets.
And lest you forget, it was Pres. Obama who signed the bill allowing for CC in national parks and also signed the bill that allows firearms on Amtrack.

Learn your history before posting.

[davidpdx]

27. I was thinking the same thing when I read the article

I think it's pretty much toast. The corporate Supreme Court is going to overturn it or end up limiting the ability of its functionality.

[Anthony McCarthy]

3. Change the least democratic part of the government

The brief period of the Warren Court lulled way too many people into believing that the Supreme Court is the guarantor of civil rights and democracy when its history shows the court is usually the protector of the rich and powerful against The People. It's long, long overdue to change the court so that "justices" are accountable for their self-interested rulings and their attacks on the rights of people to vote and to have those votes counted. Their legitimacy comes from The People, it doesn't come from anything else. A major campaign to remove some of the more outrageous privileges that the "justices" enjoy, including life-long tenure is looking like it is a necessity. There is no reason for us to have to endure one or two more decades of Roberts, Alito and Thomas, or to have endured Scalia - who constantly shows he's even less suitable on the court than Bork did. Put them all together they make up the core of the R.A.T.S. court.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. We can neuter

the rightwing ideologues IF we continue to be vigilant and elect Democratic presidents and congresscritters. In the coming four to eight years, four justices will retire of which three are the rightwing ideologues. Do we want a Republican in the WH to choose their replacement?

I don't believe SCOTUS justices should have life-time tenures, either, because the reason for it isn't working, that is, they are not supposed to be political. Well that ideal is out the window, so why in the hell do they still need life-time tenures??

[defacto7]

20. Absolutely agreed.

Just like Scalia saying, "What can he do to me?" toward the president.

Make it 10 years. In that, is a relatively long period that can protect the power of the court but not so long that it holds the public hostage.

[alfredo]

23. Time is on our side. The longer we hold the white house, the more their chances of

white dominance dims.

[defacto7]

18. hear, hear!

[bigregg4838]

4. Really?

MLK, Kenedy, Lincoln... Are somewhere huddled up and shaking their heads in unison. Approaching 2013, and we are talking VOTER RIGHTS! Really?

Check out this fuuuuuny parody of Eminem's The Real Slim Shady (The Real Mitt Romney). It is only 3 days new, and factually accurate. Highly entertaining.

[donnasgirl]

7. If this

Doesn't wake up the lazy asses who stay home during the election,NOTHING WILL

[Coyotl]

9. The Extent of Voter Suppression in This Election

The Extent of Voter Suppression in This Election
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24230



Note the pattern, ignoring the very safe red states.

FROM the article:

"Tea Party group, True the Vote, is placing 1 million "poll watchers" at polling places in swing states. Their goal is to intimidate people and make it hard for them to vote. "

"Brennan Center for Justice finds that 41 states have introduced 180 restrictive voting laws in 2011."

[Live and Learn]

12. Truly frightening. nt

[Coyotl]

16. The source of this fascism is ALEC

ALEC Exposed
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

[oldhippydude]

28. DOJ--->ALEC-->RICO... conspiracy to deny voting rights

coming soon to a country near you... early second term don't miss it!!!

[davidpdx]

25. It may have been introduced in Oregon

But with a D governor it didn't go anywhere.

[Coyotl]

29. The final map, of states where laws passed, looks like the racist south and the key swings

[argiel1234]

36. that is disturbing

they really are trying to steal the election.

[Coyotl]

37. On every imaginable front--shaving points bit by bit really adds up in the end.

They think of politics as some sort of holy war where the end justifies any means, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.

[lalalu]

10. They are like rabid dogs.

We can't move forward because they keep fighting social security, medicare, Roe V Wade, the Civil Rights Act.....

They would reinstate slavery if they could. Some countries have moved on from these issues and think we are crazy.

[fasttense]

32. Think of all the things RepubliCONS want to bring back from the dust-heap of history.

Contraceptive and abortion ban.

Child labor.

Jim Crow laws.

Work Houses.

Debtor's Prison.

Company towns.

Slavery

The list goes on and on.........

[heaven05]

35. yep

[-LOKI -BAD FOR YA]

33. in freefall

they will not reintroduce slavery,they would to fed ,house and provide universal heathcare, guards, they have it must better this way.mitt just loves the chinese model which happens to be run by real commie socialist.the civil rights act should be a constitutional amendment,same with crime united,there should no doubt where we stand,we leave to many of precious rights on the table.

[heaven05]

11. ???

geez what a joke. I am really sad now with the backlash over a black president. and then sadness is replaced with anger at the ignorance of racist amerikkka.

[L0oniX]

13. I believe in open hostility against racists. Speak up in public.

[heaven05]

14. I feel

sick. Just remember, as the black vote goes, so does every other minority vote in this country. Let's all go back to 1776 when ONLY white males could make ALL decisions worth making. that would be a disaster. I'm mad as hell....you know the rest poor losers.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

15. We still have DOJ observers here in Arizona.

Well deserved. Az was part of those original states identified as restricting voting rights.

[NYC Liberal]

19. I suspect they won't take up the case. If they do, I suspect it will be upheld.

[Hestia]

22. It's time to have a conversation about Universal Registration for voting in order to

eliminate voter disenfranchisement. Take power away from 50 different fiefdoms. Very interesting segment on Up! With Chris Hayes just this very morning about this conversation and as to why the EC is actually a hold over from slavery that benefited the former slaving owning states. The is no benefit today of the EC and would be with direct voting of the president.

I like that term - Universal Registration and making voting a Federal Program, instead of 50 different ones.

[Coyotl]

30. Everyone should be registered at all times, without exception

rather than making it difficult to be registerred.

We are no longer slaves, FCS!

[benld74]

24. Geez, I cannot state how much this disgusts me,

they dont even pretend anymore. Blatant disreguard in so many ways and aspects it is frightening.