Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So no one actually knows what the case is actually about I'll explain it. Maybe then people can at least understand what is happening before passing judgment.
The only part of VRA that is being challenged is section 5. The rest is not being challenged. Section 5 assigned certain states voters rules have to be pre approved by congress instead of the state making the decision, this was because of prejudice at the time against minority voting. So now the states have got their act together and no longer want to be under congress, like the rest of the states.
So they are challenging that the specific section 5 is unconstitutional because it creates different rules for different states. From the Shelby County argument : SCOTUSblog
Here is the whole quote, because that is actually important
“This last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different states differently, that there’s a good reason for it. That’s the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have. It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress
Even so, whenever someone calls it "entitlement", this basically will anger alot of people. I look at it different because of history. If Scalia had a problem with that particular part, he should have said that particular part, not refer to the whole thing.
There should be some national standards for voting but other than that, forcing a handful of states to report any change of policies to the Fed is unnecessary. I'm not sure if it's "unconstitutional" but unnecessary.
Exactly. The old DEMOCRATIC SOUTH will not "rise again".
The Voting Rights Act is a "perpetuation of Racial Entitlement"? This is a Justice of our Supreme Court?
His extremist views aren't revelations. He's been up front in expressing them for a very long time now and he lacks the integrity and temperment to be on the nation's highest court.
Hilarious, as usual the Lefties have no idea what is even going on and what was even said. All they do is run with whatever they were told to run with. You people are the bottom feeders of the critical thinking barrel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
