Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement

boo!

No one falls for my bait post anymore. Damn!

Good. But wtf scotus, really hurt the fight for equal voting rights by striking down section 4 of the vra, and expecting our horrible congress to update it.

A good win but a major loss over the last two days.

The 15 amendment give people the right to vote. Section 4 allowed the federal goverment to pick and choose which state, counties, cities, etc... that had to submit voting procedures to the feds. Not sure if its needed anymore and not evn sure how its even used today.

The 15 amendment give people the right to vote. Section 4 allowed the federal goverment to pick and choose which state, counties, cities, etc... that had to submit voting procedures to the feds. Not sure if its needed anymore and not evn sure how its even used today.

Because places that are subject to section for have displayed numerous changes in practices and redistricting efforts to suppress the growing minority vote. Now our horribly inefficient congress is asked to reformulate it? Not going to happen if we struggle to even pass the farm bill, let alone immigration reform.

The Senate approved the the vra recently 98 to 2, I believe. Isn't that the legislature, which represents the people, speaking? Like I mentioned before, scalia is a hypocrite by opposing doma based on concerns of judicial activism and just 24 hours before he struck down section 4.

Seems like folks will bend their argument any way to placate their beliefs.

he also said the we dont need the voting rights act. that was for when there was racism in the south. now a days the south is no more racist then me. what an out of touch douche

That's not really what he said at all people hear what they want to hear.

That's not really what he said at all people hear what they want to hear.

This.

then help a brother out. what exactly did he say?

Because places that are subject to section for have displayed numerous changes in practices and redistricting efforts to suppress the growing minority vote. Now our horribly inefficient congress is asked to reformulate it? Not going to happen if we struggle to even pass the farm bill, let alone immigration reform.

The Senate approved the the vra recently 98 to 2, I believe. Isn't that the legislature, which represents the people, speaking? Like I mentioned before, scalia is a hypocrite by opposing doma based on concerns of judicial activism and just 24 hours before he struck down section 4.

Seems like folks will bend their argument any way to placate their beliefs.

The first I remember learning about redistricting was back in the 70's (I Think) so more blacks could get elected. I have seen both parties use it to their advantage. VA's distric don't look like this because soemone was shaking when drawing the lines.



http://www.courts.state.va.us/images/sitemap_va_a.gif

then help a brother out. what exactly did he say?

You want me to pour over everything in his dissent, deduce which part your are misinterpreting, and then interpret it properly for you? Yeah OK. Why don't you find the part where he says what you say he said and we can all have a nice discussion on it. That seems quite a bit more practical.

The furor over the Voting Rights is exactly what is wrong in this country when it comes to politics. Misinformation, overreaction, and exploitation. The SCOTUS did not invalidate the law...it simply said you can't come up with a law (or part of a law) to treat states disproportionately in-perpetuity. That seems like a pretty non-controversial finding. Now I certainly could buy the argument that it is a passed law by our Congress that has been extended and that SCOTUS shouldn't be interfering especially when Scalia rails against such interference. But it didn't "gut" the law. If it is worth having then Congress should do its job and reenact provisions to modernize the calculations. The fact that our Congress is entirely dysfunctional isn't a reason to keep a part of a law that may or may not be appropriate. What they basically said was "The law shouldn't have been allowed in this form without provisions for periodic recalculation".

It’s simple. The Court held Congress to the hard task of making sure that their legislative enactments addressed current needs in a Constitutional manner. As FRPLG said, Congress "can't come up with a law (or part of a law) to treat states disproportionately in-perpetuity".

In the decision, Roberts held the Congress to the strict limits of the Constitution and simply fulfilled the articulated role of the Court – determine whether Congressional enactments pass judicial muster. To me, that is not “judicial activism”. Judicial activism is creating rights not enumerated in the Constitution and using them to justify or strike down legislation which otherwise constitutionally compliant (the most famous example is the right of privacy found to exist by the Warren Court but not articulated anywhere in the Constitution).

Roberts did what the Court is supposed to do, hold Congress feet to the fire by making them craft legislation compliant with the federalism enumerated in the Constitution. The opinion simply requires Congress to balance and consider all parties rights – in light of current conditions – and craft solutions reflective of those solutions through means the least intrusive on all Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The VRA does not, and did not when reenacted, reflect the changed conditions which justified its extraordinary intrusion on Constitutional guarantees in 1965. It was therefore appropriately deemed unconstitutional.