You have a RIGHT to be angry about this one, Mr. President

[Carol]

link

Star Member Ken Burch (31,350 posts)

You have a RIGHT to be angry about this one, Mr. President
What the Court did today was evil. It's an attack not only on all you believe, but all that brought you to the office you now hold. It's about delegitimizing not only you presidency, but your life and our shared reality itself)Right, their "shared reality" of being a victim today just like in the 1960's or even back to the time of slavery. Their made up "reality".


You have an obligation to look back AND forward now...you need to rage about this...you need to speak with all the anger, grief and fear of those whose lives and struggles were disrespected by this Klan Kourt today.

This is NO time to be even tempered.

This is the time for you to call for a Voting Rights Amendment, to make sure that nothing like the past can ever recur...and that all that Dr. King, Medgar Evers, and "thousands more whose names we'll never know", as Phil Ochs once sang, will not be lost forever in the mists of time.

You stand on the shoulders of giants, Mr. President. Now, you must BE a giant yourself.

It must be miserable to live in their "reality". No wonder they are threatened and intimidated when those like Clarence Thomas and other black conservatives don't buy into their "reality".

Or is it just that they don't like having their ability to commit voter fraud curtailed?

[Sonnabend]

What'd the Court do?

[Bailey]

Why are their panties in a bunch? don't they know that 50+ years have passed?

[Elspeth]

What'd the Court do?

This.

Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court

A divided U.S. Supreme Court threw out a core part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rolling back a landmark law that opened the polls to millions of southern blacks.

The justices, voting 5-4, struck down the law’s formula for determining which states must get federal approval before changing their election rules. The ruling all but invalidates that preclearance requirement, leaving it without force unless Congress can enact a new method for determining which jurisdictions are covered.

The ruling marks one of the biggest civil rights decisions in decades. It’s the boldest step yet by Chief Justice John Roberts’s conservative majority to cut back legal protections that have benefited racial minorities since the 1960s. The decision blocks a tool the Justice Department has used to halt thousands of state and local voting changes, including identification laws in Texas and South Carolina last year.

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote for the court.

The justices will issue the final rulings of their nine-month term tomorrow, including decisions on gay marriage. The court yesterday ordered tougher judicial scrutiny of university affirmative action programs.
Texas Effects

Today’s ruling had an immediate effect in Texas, where a voter ID law had been blocked in court at the Justice Department’s urging. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement today that the ID law will take effect “immediately.”

“I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today,” President Barack Obama said in a statement released by the White House. The ruling “upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.”

The court split along familiar ideological lines. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined Roberts in the majority. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

Under the preclearance requirement, all or parts of 15 states had to get federal approval before changing election districts, amending voting rules or even moving a polling place. The Justice Department used that provision, which covers virtually the entire South, to object to more than 2,400 state and local voting changes from 1982 to 2006.
Old Formula

The court majority faulted Congress for relying on a decades-old formula for determining which states were covered by the preclearance requirement, also known as Section 5. The formula ties coverage to voter registration rates, turnout and ballot-box rules in the 1960s and early 1970s....

(More at the link.

[txradioguy]

59 different precints in Philly voted 110% for Obama. Not one vote for Romney.

We've elected a black man to the highest office in the U.S. TWICE!

Remind me again why we still need the Voting Rights Act?

[txradioguy]

What'd the Court do?

They did what our Congress is to cowardly to do on their own.

They told the Federal Government that they no longer had the need or the authority to meddle in State affairs when it comes to elections.

It's a small victory for States rights.

[SarasotaRepub]

I bet the DUmmies aren't so angry today...

[NJCardFan]

Remind me again why we still need the Voting Rights Act?

Really. The 15th Amendment already covers this.