SCOTUS

[takoma]

Did anyone notice the Voting Rights ruling? Looks to me like the most activist decision since Citizens United. Senate votes 97 to 3 -- Scalia says: What do they know?

What are your thoughts?

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:Did anyone notice the Voting Rights ruling? Looks to me like the most activist decision since Citizens United. Senate votes 97 to 3 -- Scalia says: What do they know?

What are your thoughts?

I'm a liberal, and I am not entirely against the decision. I get the point, namely that the test for jurisdictions requiring preclearance is set on a benchmark that is decades old. A lot has changed, and how can you not update that?

My fear is that the current Congress is so dysfunctional that they can't address the court's concerns. But I'm not sure that such considerations are SCOTUS' problem. That said, it may become their problem if the legislature does not put up a new formula.

[Anonymous]

The only thing it takes out is "pre clearance". The law stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing it takes out is "pre clearance". The law stands.

Yes but that is a huge part of the law. Look at the effect on Texas for example. They tried to ram through a total BS redistricting plan that screws Latinos. The only thing that stood in their way was pre clearance.

[Anonymous]

Do you really think Maryland's map is fair? Why shouldn't they have to submit their map?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think Maryland's map is fair? Why shouldn't they have to submit their map?

(1) Maryland did not have a history of extreme and persistent voter discrimination against minorities.
(2) The court cannot interfere unless there is such an injustice. The power to draw boundaries was given by the Constitution to the states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really think Maryland's map is fair? Why shouldn't they have to submit their map?

(1) Maryland did not have a history of extreme and persistent voter discrimination against minorities.
(2) The court cannot interfere unless there is such an injustice. The power to draw boundaries was given by the Constitution to the states.

Would you feel that way if Maryland had redistricted to favor Republicans?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really think Maryland's map is fair? Why shouldn't they have to submit their map?

(1) Maryland did not have a history of extreme and persistent voter discrimination against minorities.
(2) The court cannot interfere unless there is such an injustice. The power to draw boundaries was given by the Constitution to the states.

Would you feel that way if Maryland had redistricted to favor Republicans?

Many states have redistricted to favor Republicans. In fact, had that not been the case, we would likely have a Democratic House now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Did anyone notice the Voting Rights ruling? Looks to me like the most activist decision since Citizens United. Senate votes 97 to 3 -- Scalia says: What do they know?

What are your thoughts?

I'm a liberal, and I am not entirely against the decision. I get the point, namely that the test for jurisdictions requiring preclearance is set on a benchmark that is decades old. A lot has changed, and how can you not update that?

My fear is that the current Congress is so dysfunctional that they can't address the court's concerns. But I'm not sure that such considerations are SCOTUS' problem. That said, it may become their problem if the legislature does not put up a new formula.

This.

I don't like the decision. But I can accept that perhaps these justices did feel compelled by the law to vote this way. Congress has to do their due diligence and come up with modern, reasonable data. The fact that Congress will be INCAPABLE of doing anything is not the SCOTUS' problem. But the Scotus must know that the defacto impact of this decision will be increased discrimination at the polls and consequently, a change in voting that may impact upcoming elections.

[Anonymous]

This is all quite interesting. But what about gay marriage? 56 minutes and counting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



This is all quite interesting. But what about gay marriage? 56 minutes and counting.

Not the same. No one is trying to stop you from voting.

[Anonymous]

I think this is the end of the republicans as a national party. They have given up on trying to win elections on the merits of their ideas. Now they can just concern themselves with stopping people from voting. Will not work in the long term.

[Anonymous]

Anyone want to bet that CNN screws up the breaking news about the ruling again?

[Anonymous]

The people voting republican are old, white and dying.

[Anonymous]

I think this is the end of the republicans as a national party. They have given up on trying to win elections on the merits of their ideas. Now they can just concern themselves with stopping people from voting. Will not work in the long term.

I disagree. That is like saying that the only way Democrats are winning is by giving out free stuff.