June 25, 2013

What did the Supreme Court find unconstitutional about the much-honored landmark legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Here's the PDF of Chief Justice Roberts's opinion (joined by Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). The 4 liberal Justices dissent.

This is a case about Congress's enumerated powers. It's not about Congress violating rights, but the scope of its power under the 15th Amendment to enforce the right guaranteed by that amendment (the right against race discrimination in voting). This is a power to be used against state and local government, so the scope of that power implicates federalism doctrine, including the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the states.

The states can, under some circumstances, be treated differently, and they have been under the Voting Rights Act, which survived attack in the past. The problem now is that Congress relies on a formula that uses voter turnout statistics from 1972, and this covers only 9 states (and some counties). These states, subject to different procedures, wait "months or years and expend[] funds to implement a validly enacted law," while the other states "can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process."

Roberts pays respect to the VRA: "The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process." And he acknowledges that "[p]roblems remain." But the Act was "reauthorized — as if nothing had changed."
The Government falls back to the argument that because the formula was relevant in 1965, its continued use is permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States Congress identified back then — regardless of how that discrimination compares to discrimination in States unburdened by coverage....

The [15th] Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future.... To serve that purpose, Congress — if it is to divide the States — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions....
It's not enough to say — as the dissent does — but these covered states still commit violations, Roberts says.
[T]hat is like saying that a driver pulled over pursuant to a policy of stopping all redheads cannot complain about that policy, if it turns out his license has expired.
The Chief stresses that the defect lies entirely in using the old formula to treat the states differently. The Court will be criticized in the political arena, but the political response is clearly stated: "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

ADDED: From the dissent by Justice Ginsburg:
Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA.
This is "hardly... an exemplar of restrained and moderate decisionmaking," because the Court accepts Shelby County's facial challenge to the law:
[T]he Court’s opinion in this case contains not a word explaining why Congress lacks the power to subject to preclearance the particular plaintiff that initiated this lawsuit — Shelby County, Ala­bama. The reason for the Court’s silence is apparent, for as applied to Shelby County, the VRA’s preclearance requirement is hardly contestable.

Alabama is home to Selma.... Although circumstances in Alabama have changed, serious concerns remain....
I think the Court did have a word of explanation. The word was "redheads." See above.

185 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

It made sense in '65, but it would not pass any rational test today because of the altered election situation in those counties.

Tibore said...

Aww, shoot, no explanation for the 10 year olds among us? ;)

(I'm kidding... I'll read the PDF...)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Interesting. Perhaps the 10th Amendment will save us after all.

Nomennovum said...

It violated a woman's right to choose?

The Drill SGT said...

The nut graf from SCOTUS Blog:

In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.

David said...

Wow. Guess the Civil War is finally over.

The court struck down preclearance because the formula for which states are subject to preclearance was first adopted in the 70s, and has no rational relationship to the situation in 2006, when the VRA was last extended.

The real question is whether it's politically possible to pass a new formula today.

Simon said...

There's no whining allowed about this one. The court told us several terms ago that Congress could fix the formula or lose it the next time that it came up for review. Absolutely everyone understood this with crystalline clarity. Congress did nothing, it came up for review, it was struck down. What more is there/

Bob Ellison said...

This seems like another punt. It was OK in 1965 but isn't anymore? Why?

sinz52 said...

What the Supreme Court didn't like about the Voting Rights Act, is what I don't like about it:

The continuing treatment of the South as an occupied country whose laws and rules have to be authorized by the U.S. occupation forces.

And the implication of this, that racism is a permanent feature of the American landscape requiring permanent draconian Federal action.

Blacks will never let go of the racism scam, because constantly claiming "America is still a racist country" year after year is how they put guilt trips on white Americans to give them favors.

Maybe with this Supreme Court ruling, that racism scam is starting to crumble.

Even Jon Stewart had a segment on how the race card has been maxed out already.

gerry said...

What did the Supreme Court find unconstitutional about the much-honored landmark legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

A landmark act that was passed, significantly, only because of Republican support for the bill. It passed the Senate 77–19, only after cloture of a filibuster led by Democrats. 73% of Democrats and 94% of Republicans voted for the bill at its passage, with 17 Democrats (27%) and 2 Republicans (6%) opposed.

In the House, 22% of the Democrats and 18% of the Republicans opposed it.

Mark O said...

Is this the end of the War of Northern Aggression?

AustinRoth said...

OK, SCOTUS did NOT strike down per-clearance. It says that a new formula that is based on current conditions must be approved, because 50-year old+ data cannot be said to accurately reflect current conditions.

I fail to see how that is unreasonable.

I do know that some Northern states my actually be worried, as they now how have worse voting records than some Southern states.

I see this as another typical Roberts opinion - narrowly tailored. They did not invalidate Section 5, as Thomas would be wont to do, which would truly be striking down the Voting Rights Act.

Now, I also understand the concern of whether the current Congress can come up with a new formula. It likely cannot, but that, in the end, is certainly not the fault or problem of SCOTUS to worry about.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Will this have any effect on those racially gerrymandered congressional districts?

If the Supreme Court wanted to do something constructive to return us to our roots they should outlaw all these safe districts. They should be equal numbers of people and a compact size.

Politicians should not chose the people. The people should chose the politicians.

Simon said...

Bob Ellison said...
"This seems like another punt. It was OK in 1965 but isn't anymore? Why?"

Because in 1965, the coverage formula was rational given the situation on the ground. Today, it isn't.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Just to be clear. All gerrymandered districts should be removed. No matter if they were designed for racial or political spoils.

Real American said...

For Democrats, it's always 1965 in the South.

Bob Ellison said...

Simon, that makes sense. But aren't rules rules? Comments above allude to the north-south warfare nature of the VRA. The rules were invalid in 1965 because of what, a compelling state interest?

When does the government have the right to usurp our rights?

Jay said...

What did the Supreme Court find unconstitutional about the much-honored landmark legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

That justice Thomas is clearly racist.

AJ Lynch said...

Don't hold your breath that Eric Holder will comply with this ruling.

edutcher said...

OK, if SCOTUS is going to start shooting down every piece of Lefty legislation because its time has come and went, then the Lefties will have to give up all their cherished dreams.

(they may anyway, AZ wants to recall both Senators - the Demos' Republicans may be about to take a few hits)

Larry J said...

Bob Ellison said...
This seems like another punt. It was OK in 1965 but isn't anymore? Why?


Because you no longer have Democrats like George Wallace and Lester Maddox running the states. Because while the history can't be denied, a lot of progress has been made in the nearly 50 years since the law was passed.

Tank said...

Mark O said...

Is this the end of the War of Northern Aggression?


No.

edutcher said...

Larry J said...

This seems like another punt. It was OK in 1965 but isn't anymore? Why?

Because you no longer have Democrats like George Wallace and Lester Maddox running the states.


The last time George Wallace ran for elective office, he was the liberal in the race.

(no, I'm not kidding)

Simon said...

Bob Ellison said...
"Simon, that makes sense. But aren't rules rules? Comments above allude to the north-south warfare nature of the VRA. The rules were invalid in 1965 because of what, a compelling state interest? When does the government have the right to usurp our rights?"

When the VRA was originally passed, the situation in the South was extraordinary; there was a deeply-entrenched violation of the Constitution that could not be dislodged by anything other than strong medicine. Even though the VRA was in some tension with the Constitutional footing of the states, as it had been traditionally-understood, Congress' acknowledged enforcement power under the 15th amendment, combined with the need to address that evil, justified Congressional activism on this point. Right from the beginning, however, the court warned Congress that it was on notice. "[L]egislative measures not otherwise appropriate could be justified by exceptional conditions," slip op. at 12 (quoting South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 334 (1966)). And the VRA was terrifically successful; almost no one doubts that. But as conditions on the ground improved, the original justification for the coverage formula crumbled, and four terms ago, in NAMUDNO, the court warned that it was unconstitutional and would be declared so in the next case. Congress did nothing, and so, today, section four was cut adrift.

Bob Ellison said...

I guess I'm just a purist. "The Court therefore concluded that “the coverage formula [was] rational in both practice and theory." No, it was rational in practice, but it was obviously irrational in theory. Do our present justices understand the difference between practice and theory?

Deirdre Mundy said...

As one of my friends with Texas Roots pointed out, segregation is pretty much dead in the South. For instance, my in-law's Alabama neighborhood is very integrated (to the degree that, in the urban north, it would be a sign of a 'bad neighborhood', where in the South it's just a brand new suburban upper-middle class development.), Interracial couples don't turn heads, and people don't assume that 'young black man' - potential mugger.

Meanwhile, in Chicago......

So why is Alabama subject to VRA when IL isn't?

Another friend posted this Randy Newman song to illustrate the point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGw_vAnqPI

Icepick said...

The continuing treatment of the South as an occupied country whose laws and rules have to be authorized by the U.S. occupation forces.

Yes, now Congress and the President will have to treat the entire nation as an occupied country.

MajorSensible said...

I can't imagine how they determined that section 4 no longer was necessary. I know that when I (and all the other Michigander expats) moved to Texas we suddenly became racists. They must put something in the water.

Anthony said...

Relying on the interpretations here:

I think this is actually almost worse, as it continues to allow the legislative branch to impose pre-clearance. Pre-clearance is a deprivation of the political rights of a jurisdiction, and should only be allowed as a time-limited judicial penalty after a finding of a pattern of discriminatory conduct over (recent) time.

Simon said...

The real division point in these cases is that there are those who refuse to believe that the situation in the south has changed, and so damn the statistics, all speed ahead; and if any changes have happened, they have only happened because the south is in federal receivership, and the moment that they are left to their own devices, the south is champing at the bit to re-shackle Jim Crow. That's the world in which the dissent lives, a gloomy world in which where law can never work changes in attitudes or reality, only behavior, and, once enacted, must ever after perdure, and in which scratch a southerner and you'll find a man desperate to return the negroes to the backs of their busses and resegregate the schools. And then there's everyone else in the country, who finds this notion to be sheer poppycock.

Icepick said...

Politicians should not chose the people. The people should chose the politicians.

Wow, are you out-of-date or what? That's the whole point of the "immigration" "reform" debate, the power of the elites to elect a new people.

MajorSensible said...

I can't imagine how they determined that section 4 no longer was necessary. I know that when I (and all the other Michigander expats) moved to Texas we suddenly became racists. They must put something in the water.

elkh1 said...

Let all 50 states pass the test.

Wonder if Philiy would pass with their new Black Panthers prowling the voting booths, or would they get two votes for each voter who got thru to make up for those who didn't?

The Dems will lose big for the dead voters that the South disenfranchised, and for their discrimination against non-existing voters. In Chicago, a dead or a non-existing voter is counted as much as a live voter. That is democracy.

MajorSensible said...

I can't imagine how they determined that section 4 no longer was necessary. I know that when I (and all the other Michigander expats) moved to Texas we suddenly became racists. They must put something in the water.

Simon said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...
"Politicians should not chose the people. The people should chose the politicians."

Perhaps the choices of the people would command more respect if more of the people evinced a command of the distinction between verb tenses. "The people should choose, but the politicians chose otherwise."

Icepick said...

and people don't assume that 'young black man' - potential mugger.

No, they look for other signs, like thug-wear, a big grill and the ghetto shuffle to determine if a young black man is a potential threat. The guy dressed like Carlton Banks isn't a threat. Well, he might be a white collar criminal, but he isn't going to mug you. He'll just bury your economy with crappy MBSs, but those guys really do come from all races.

gerry said...

Yes, now Congress and the President will have to treat the entire nation as an occupied country.

Icepick, here's some comfort. Reuters has noticed that Obama is incompetent and, internationally, toothless, a joke.

Jay Leno is having a field day with the fascist bumbler-in-chief.

And, as linked by the Professor, even Mick Jagger is zinging Obamalamadingdong.

Icepick said...

Perhaps the choices of the people would command more respect if more of the people evinced a command of the distinction between verb tenses.

Are you, by chance, from Illinois?

damikesc said...

For Democrats, it's always 1965 in the South.

I doubt it. They know they're not governing.

Funny how you need these protections in states Democrats dominate.

elkh1 said...

David said...
"The real question is whether it's politically possible to pass a new formula today."

Should there be a new formula?

How about a formula that every voter must pass the breathing test. Those who don't breathe, don't get to vote. Chicago's voter rolls will be cut in half.

Icepick said...

gerry, that's no comfort at all because Obama is only a part of the problem. Look at how BOTH parties behave - when it comes down to it there is no real opposition to ever more powerful government in this country.

Icepick said...

How about a formula that every voter must pass the breathing test. Those who don't breathe, don't get to vote.

I think voters should have to pass a mouth breather test. Those that can breathe with their mouths closed don't get to vote.

Larry J said...

edutcher said...

The last time George Wallace ran for elective office, he was the liberal in the race.


That's true, he won with a majority of the black vote. Getting paralyzed from a gunshot wound and cared for by black medical staff can open even the most jaded eyes. That even a man with as vile a record as George Wallace could find a measure of redemption shows that the South has made a lot of progress. No one is claiming it's perfect by any stretch, nor are the improvements universal across the region. But it's definitely better than before.

Aaron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

More Highway 61 Revisited. Time ended in 1965. Dylan never went electric and the conquered southern territories never became full States.

It must be all those mules and cotton sharecropers still everywhere, in the North's imagination.




Birches said...

'm liking the Roberts Court more and more. As much as I don't like Obamacare, I think there is wisdom in the decision and it will eventually be struck down piece by piece with real, demonstrated unconstitutionality, instead of just theoretical unconstitutionality. Think Citizens United. By not invalidating section 5, the Supremes basically just handed the problem back to the legislative branch and said "fix it." As it should be.

Simon said...

Speaking of pedantry, one must fault Justice Ginsburg's sonorous Kennedy-esque lede: "In the court's view, the very success of § 5 … demands its dormancy." To be dormant is to be in a state of sleep. If any descendent of dormio is appropriate—what a weird place for a quasi-passive construction—it would be dormition, a euphemism for being put to sleep.

Simon said...

Icepick said...
"Are you, by chance, from Illinois?"

No, Indiana.

edutcher said...

Icepick said...

How about a formula that every voter must pass the breathing test. Those who don't breathe, don't get to vote.

I think voters should have to pass a mouth breather test. Those that can breathe with their mouths closed don't get to vote.


Think you meant can't there.

Original Mike said...

"...because 50-year old+ data cannot be said to accurately reflect current conditions.

I fail to see how that is unreasonable."


Racist.

Simon said...

Birches said...
"As much as I don't like Obamacare, I think there is wisdom in the decision and it will eventually be struck down piece by piece"

The Obamacare decision is very much like the VRA situation; indeed, Roberts did in the former case exactly what he did in NAMUDNO.

Birches said...

And we can all rest assured that Congress will never fix it, because . . . .its congress.

Bender said...

On that ruling about changed conditions rendering unconsitutional that which was previously permissible --

And here we see the death knell of affirmative action, which advocates justify almost entirely by reference to things that happened 50-plus years ago.

SJ said...


[T]hat is like saying that a driver pulled over pursuant to a policy of stopping all redheads cannot complain about that policy, if it turns out his license has expired.


As a redhead, I agree with this statement.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

The 4 liberal Justices dissent.

Shame on them. They are a disgrace to the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

The 4 liberal Justices dissent.

Shame on them. They are a disgrace to the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution.

dc said...

"How about a formula that every voter must pass the breathing test......Chicago's voter rolls will be cut in half."
In Chicago the democrats will determine who is breathing.

Original Mike said...

Activists never acknowledge progress on their issues, be it racism, endangered species, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I've always thought this was kind of nuts (you'd think they'd revel in their success), but it appears they care less about the actual issue than they do about their accrued power.

edutcher said...

Birches said...

And we can all rest assured that Congress will never fix it, because . . . .its congress.

No, the real Tea Partiers will have to outnumber the Demos and "their" Republicans.

Then it will change.

Icepick said...

Think you meant can't there.

Oops, you're right.

bagoh20 said...

Hey maybe the boomers will move past their glory days, and we can start making progress again.

Big Mike said...

Without reading any of the comments posted ahead of mine, I just want to say that I'm stunned that this has even the semblance of controversy.

The Drill SGT said...

Larry J said...

That's true, he won with a majority of the black vote.
Getting paralyzed from a gunshot wound and cared for by black medical staff can open even the most jaded eyes.


It goes to that old saying, dated now:

White Southerners dislike blacks in general, but love the ones they know.

White Northerners. like blacks in general, but hate the ones they know...

Original Mike said...

"And [Roberts] acknowledges that '[p]roblems remain."

What problems remain?

Nathan Alexander said...

bagoh20,
did you mean "holes" instead of "days"?

I admit:
Probably not, but it would add a fascinating spin to your original point.

Larry J said...

educator said

Icepick said...

How about a formula that every voter must pass the breathing test. Those who don't breathe, don't get to vote.

I think voters should have to pass a mouth breather test. Those that can breathe with their mouths closed don't get to vote.

Think you meant can't there.


That depends on whether you're trying to disqualify Democrat or Republican voters.

garage mahal said...

What problems remain?

Too many non-whites voting for Democrats, and demographically, Republicans are losing badly. But this will help!

Methadras said...

Even if SCOTUS overturned the VRA, Congress would just resurrect it as a matter of national expediency to keep the proles at bay and ten stuff a gigantic pork bill inside of it and make it permanent for infinity even though it was originally meant to be temporary.

Original Mike said...

"But this will help!"

Really? By what mechanism?

Toby said...

Thank you. The reports I've seen only say that section 4 of the VRA was found unconstitutional. None really explain why.

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

What problems remain?

Too many non-whites voting for Democrats, and demographically, Republicans are losing badly. But this will help!


Garage has been reading the wrong propaganda again.

The Demos clearly need more non-whites voting for them or they wouldn't need to import 35 million Mexicans.

As for the Republicans, take away all the dead voters and the fictitious ones and the ones voting more than once, and they're doing fine.

Just need to send back to the Demos "their" Republicans

Joe Schmoe said...

I'm liking the Roberts Court more and more. As much as I don't like Obamacare, I think there is wisdom in the decision and it will eventually be struck down piece by piece with real, demonstrated unconstitutionality, instead of just theoretical unconstitutionality.

Hoo boy, I'd like some of what you're drinking from your not-quite-empty highball glass of optimism. A ginormous problem with repealing any bit of Obamacare now is reversing a massive amount of inertia generated from its implementation which has been proceeding apace even as we're not quite suffering under it yet. We've already got tens of thousands of new orcs, uh, I mean government civil servants, doing everything from cheeleading for O'care to coercing young adults into signing up for it, plus setting up and administering the leviathan of all govt. programs, the state insurance exchanges. Think of it as the mother of all pest infestations; once the invaders get a foothold and become ingrained, there is no hope for complete extermination. You either learn to live with it or burn the house down. We're beyond the point of striking it down completely through the courts.

Yes, I'm still bitter about Roberts' ACA decision last summer. I wish I could share your optimism, but there are no precedents for scaling back so large a government operation in so short a time.

garage mahal said...

Really? By what mechanism?

By restricting access to ballots, silly. What a great party.

Nathan Alexander said...

Is garage "vote fraud is a myth" mahal actually making a snarky comment about voting laws?

Props for moxy. But negative points for on-the-record idiocy.

Original Mike said...

"By restricting access to ballots, silly."

How? Seriously. In this day and age, how are they going to do that?

AustinRoth said...

MajorSensible said :I can't imagine how they determined that section 4 no longer was necessary"

They said no such thing. They said it could not be constructed on 50-year old data.

Majorly Sensible, IMHO.

Original Mike said...

Oh, I forgot. Garage subscribes to the "minorities are too dumb to get an ID" hypothesis.

Nathan Alexander said...

"by restricting ability to vote illegally", you mean, right garage?

Not sure why you are in favor of illegal voting, unless you are happy to be a brainless pawn in Democrat Party power ploys.

Who am I kidding? Of course you are happy to be a part of the Democrat Corruption Machine.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Original Mike,
Oh, I forgot. Garage subscribes to the "minorities are too dumb to get an ID" hypothesis..

Why are Democrats such obvious racists?

Why doesn't the news media ever call them on it?

AprilApple said...

By restricting access to ballots, silly. What a great party.

Where is this happening? Who is restricting ballots?

Perhaps in PA where Obama got 105% of the vote?

Big Mike said...

"Alabama is home to Selma..."

That says a lot about how liberals think, doesn't it? In 1965 I was a high school athlete, with a narrow waist and a full head of hair. Today I'm fat and bald and have two bad knees. Things change.

In 1965 Ginsburg was a 32 year old female law professor still smarting over having been passed on for a clerkship by Justice Felix Frankfurter because of her gender. Things change. She helped change them. But she doesn't recognize that things change? Your respect for her intelligence needs to be reconsidered, Professor Althouse.

Simon said...

Toby said...
"Thank you. The reports I've seen only say that section 4 of the VRA was found unconstitutional. None really explain why."

If only the Supreme Court supplemented their orders with some kind of written explanation that could guide a person through the reasoning that underlies the decisions!

Original Mike said...

You mean the Democratic news media, Nathan?

Michael said...

Serious concerns remain. See? Concerns, serious ones, that won't go away. What should be done about these concerns and the people who have them? What to do about hypochondria? The tests come back clean but the concerns remain or are perhaps heightened by the tests that came back clean. Is it worthy of our limited time to concern ourselves, our nation, with the concerns of others?

AprilApple said...

In corroded democrat brain, keeping democrats from participating in vote fraud is "voter intimidation" or something.

Birches said...

I don't find it will be hard to scale back Obamacare as long as its done within ten years. The people who are paying attention are finding all sorts of reasons to not like it, while the people who might benefit will not (surprise surprise) take advantage of it. And once young people are hit in the pocketbook, they'll start paying attention too. It won't be a total wipeout, but the most onerous provisions will be dismantled. Congress will have to figure out how to fix those provisions, and they will not do anything.

Next year some test cases will come up. Some of those will make it to the Supreme Court rather quickly. I think it can happen within 5 years.

Simon said...

Original Mike said...
"How? Seriously. In this day and age, how are they going to do that?"

A fortiori given that section two is still perfectly good law, and any attempt to restrict ballot access would be met with a flood of litigation.

bpm4532 said...

For democrats, it's always 1965 in the South...except then it was the democrats keeping the black man down and the republicans doing the freeing.

Come to think of it, the dems still keep the black man down under their thumb and voting as they demand.

Original Mike said...

"Things change. [Justice Ginsburg] helped change them. But she doesn't recognize that things change? Your respect for her intelligence needs to be reconsidered, Professor Althouse."

Oh, I think it's much worse than that. People like Justice Ginsburg know full well things have changed, but they refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't further their agenda. It's not about intelligence. It's about honesty.

David said...

So as long as Selma is still in Alabama, it deserves special oversight? Selma was the site of great ugliness. But the south is a completely different place now. It's not that bigotry and discrimination have been eradicated. If that ever happens in this world, it will be a long time from now.

But the south is no better or worse on race issues now than the rest of the country. (Yes, Boston-Roxbury I mean you.) The next law, if it is passed, should apply to Boston, Chicago, New York, Milwaukee and many other places.

It will be interesting to see how the certain attempt to legislate the issue goes. The demagoguery on both sides will be intense.

Simon said...

Big Mike said...
"In 1965 Ginsburg was a 32 year old female law professor still smarting over having been passed on for a clerkship by Justice Felix Frankfurter because of her gender. Things change."

One could make the argument that nothing has changed on that score. In 2013, Ginsburg is still smarting over having been passed on for a clerkship by Justice Felix Frankfurter because of her gender, and she's spent her entire career trying to make America worse to demonstrate just how big her balls are. She's a small woman, and I ain't talking about her physical stature.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...


By restricting access to ballots, silly


Hysterical.

There are well zero examples of this happening.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Original Mike,
Is the news media really almost completely aligned with the Democratic Party?

It's not like they contribute overwhelmingly to Democrat Party candidates or apply different standards of reporting to Democrats than to Republicans, right?

How could they get away with being overwhelmingly on the side of the Democratic Party, unless the entire Democratic Party (nearly half the United States) was lacking in integrity, character, and/or intelligence?

Simon said...

David said...
"So as long as Selma is still in Alabama, it deserves special oversight? Selma was the site of great ugliness."

In the dissent's world, the fifteenth amendment authorizes the Hunger Games. Congress' duty is not to fix current sins or prevent future sins, but to punish the sins of the past and demand tribute.

Jay said...

Alabama is home to Selma

And this goofy woman couldn't point to Selma, AL on a map.

Toby said...

Simon--Opportunity costs. The decision is nearly pages & of course heavy on the leagalese. I correctly figured Althouse, Volokh or some other law blog would do what law blogs do and explain the ruling in a quick, easy to digest manner. There's no shame in relying on experts to do the heavy lifting.

YoungHegelian said...

@David,

Maybe Shelby County could fix the problem by hitching the city of Selma to the back of the pickup truck & towing it up to Vermont or somethin'.

And thank you for bringing up the obvious racial blights that have occurred up North since 1965. Have none of these people ever listened to the Randy Newman song "Rednecks" or what?

Nathan Alexander said...

@Birches,
I think one common assumption is that the intent of Obamacare was to promise Universal Coverage, so that people would get used to the idea of depending on the Federal Govt for their health care.

Then, Obamacare would collapse from being unworkable.

Then the people clamoring for their "free" health care would provide enough political capital to enact complete socialized medicine.

Lately, however, I've gotten a little more optimistic.

I am thinking that if Obamacare is repealed, and some incentives are provided for Free Market solutions, retail clinics and sensible insurance plans will be created by small business entrepreneurs to fill the gap.

We'll see. Nothing ever progresses smoothly in the right direction. But the road to destruction/dissolution of the good points of the US is apparently greased rails.

Toby said...

typo--Nearly *70* pages

Jay said...

Voter fraud?

What voter fraud?

On Monday, there was some closure to the case, though, as the four defendants who were convicted or pleaded guilty in the state's presidential petition fraud scandal were sentenced. Only one received prison time for the illegal scheme that touched the race for the White House.

In court, former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Chairman Butch Morgan, Jr. was sentenced to one year behind bars, and is expected to serve half that, as well as Community Corrections and probation. Former St. Joseph County Board of Elections worker and Democratic volunteer Dustin Blythe received a sentence of one year in Community Corrections and probation, which means no jail time.


Notice this is always happening with Democrats?

Joe Schmoe said...

I hope so, Birches. But then how does the scenario play out? At this point, it's law. The court is our only option. If the majority populace doesn't like it, their only recourse is to elect reps and senators in hopes of somehow creating a voting bloc that will change the law. This is long-term approach whose chance for success diminishes as more time goes by. How much of the New Deal and Great Society programs have we scaled back? Those programs don't even have barometers or metrics for success that need to be satisfied.

Constituent dissatisfaction is not for the court to consider. And so far Roberts seems content to let us be force-fed the shit sandwiches we didn't even vote for.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Bill, Republic of Texas,

Just to be clear. All gerrymandered districts should be removed. No matter if they were designed for racial or political spoils.

This is one of the troubling things about Ginsburg's dissent. She cites creating "segregated districts" as an example of Southern states trying to discriminate against Black voters. But in fact, "majority-minority" districts were all the rage among minority left-of-center politicians not long ago (cynically aided, I'm afraid, by Republicans who saw, correctly, that if you surgically contain as many Black voters as you can into one district, all the surrounding districts are whiter, and likely more conservative).

But then Ginsburg also points to "vote dilution," which is the opposite phenomenon: making elections "at large" rather than by district; annexing outlying unincorporated areas (usually majority-white) into a township.

Apparently concentrating the Black vote is discriminatory, and diluting it is also discriminatory. And leaving it just as it is now is likely also discriminatory, because, hey, this is Alabama we're talking about here. Right?

Skeptical Voter said...

Red headed indeed. The old phrase, somewhat akin to "beat him like a rented mule" was "beat him like red headed stepchild".

It's about time to lay the cudgels down; there's worse discrimination and segregation north of the Mason Dixon Line and west of the Continental Divide than there is in Dixie. That's the situation on the ground today, and so 1965 era remedies are just "so 1965". Time to join the 21st Century.

Original Mike said...

As a redhead, I'd like to get it on record that I was never (unjustly) beaten.

garage mahal said...

There are well zero examples of this happening.

The Congressional record for reauthorization of VRA in 2006 has 15,000 pages with "countless 'examples of flagrant racial discrimination.'"

This is the conservative version of minority outreach. Keep voting out of reach for minorities.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

The Congressional record for reauthorization of VRA in 2006 has 15,000 pages with "countless 'examples of flagrant racial discrimination.'"


Laugh out loud funny.

I bet there are. In the Congressional record, too!

Jay said...

15,000 pages with "countless 'examples of flagrant racial discrimination.'"


You may have well said eleventy-billion.

It has the same utility

Idiot.

Birches said...

@ Nathan Alexander

I agree. I think the free market (even in this unreasonable environment) will be able to figure out how to game the system to make a profit and create a better health care system with higher customer satisfaction.

As I've said, I don't like Obamacare, but I think many business people are also stuck in a rut when it comes to thinking about how to comply with regulations. Like Red Lobster --- they gut checked by cutting their employees' hours (an obvious solution). I think that more creative solutions are still yet to come by people not surrounded by grey cubicles and bureaucratic corporate culture. Their solutions will be better all around. And those are the people we can thank when this thing doesn't kill us like it was designed to.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Another thing I don't buy in the dissent is the "reverse engineering" argument that the Government apparently advanced. The essence is "Hey, we always knew what states and counties we wanted to keep an eye on; we just came up with a test that would pop out just those states and counties when we fed it the data. So there's no need to submit new data; we just keep monitoring those same states and counties. You know, the nasty ones."

I am having difficulty believing that anyone ever thought that a persuasive argument, but there it is.

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...
There are well zero examples of this happening.

The Congressional record for reauthorization of VRA in 2006 has 15,000 pages with "countless 'examples of flagrant racial discrimination.'"

This is the conservative version of minority outreach. Keep voting out of reach for minorities.

6/25/13, 11:40 AM

Ok bigot. I think it is pretty safe to say anything coming from a raving racist fuck like you should be taken with a grain of salt.

And those 15000 pages could have easily been filled 10 times over with applications of affirmative action, our public achool system, and planned parenthood. History will remember people like you as the modern decendents of the KKK.

Simon said...

garage mahal said...
"The Congressional record for reauthorization of VRA in 2006 has 15,000 pages with countless examples of flagrant racial discrimination." (Internal quotation marks deleted.)

Give us one—any one—of those examples cited by Congress that could not be addressed in section two litigation.

Larry J said...

Jay said...
Alabama is home to Selma


Yes, there is history here and it can't be denied. In the early 1960s, DNC member Bull Conner turned the police dogs and firehoses on civil rights protesters in Birmingham. Since 1979, Birmingham has had black mayors. A lot of things have changed across the South since the 1960s.

Birches said...

@ Joe

Obamacare is digging its own grave by granting so many exemptions to its favored companies and unions and states. Those are lawsuits waiting to happen once everything goes into effect.

Astro said...

Have the voting conditions changed since 1965?

According to Wikipedia, the racial makeup of Stone Mountain, a small town and suburb of Atlanta, was 24.49% White, 69.21% African American in 2000.
Stone Mountain was once the location for the national HQ for the KKK. The park at Stone Mountain still features a huge bas relief carving of Southern heroes of the Civil War - but there are rumblings about removing the carving.

So changes in racial voting and power? Ya think?!

Original Mike said...

" Doin' right ain't got no end"

Jay said...

has 15,000 pages with countless examples of flagrant racial discrimination

And all of them are examples of Republicans restricting access to ballots!!!

roesch/voltaire said...

It seems the majority view is because the VRA worked, there is no need to continue it-- a bit of twisted logic.

Michael said...

Selma, Ala is 80 percent black. Its mayor is black. Its city attorney is black. Most of the city council is black.
There is a deep nostalgia on the part of many liberals, including the armchair civil rights fighters residing in Madison and born after passage of the VRA, for the dark days of segregation.

Nathan Alexander said...

@r-v,
Since you just restated Ginsburg's view, I'll just repeat the obvious rebuttal, already given in the thread:
Once the fire is out, shouldn't the firefighters stop spraying water on the ashes?

Steven said...

Ginsburg reminds me of the progressive bloggers who responded to the IRS's targeting of conservative groups by saying the IRS has been letting non-profits get away with too much political activity. Under the text of the law, that's probably correct, but how exacting the standard should be is a less important issue than whether everyone is held to the same standard.

The majority holding strikes me as exactly right. Ginsburg may well also be correct that some Constitutional standard would require the plaintiff county to preclear its changes with the feds. But that doesn't mean the current standard is Constitutional.

Nathan Alexander said...

Hey, R-V, do you consider it "twisted logic" to let someone leave prison after they served their sentence?

traditionalguy said...

The real abuse 48 years on is that whites cannot run in Gerrymandered black districts. Even the most liberal whites are screwed.

That vengeance angle is still a big feature in our older African-American cousins.

Nathan Alexander said...

Hey R-V,
Is it "twisted logic" to say that because potty training worked, a child should no longer have to wear diapers?

Nathan Alexander said...

R-V,
I guess it is "twisted logic" to stop giving CPR just because the patient started breathing on their own again, too, right?

garage mahal said...

It seems the majority view is because the VRA worked, there is no need to continue it-- a bit of twisted logic

Yep, it's the same argument for killing unions. And even Social Security. "Hey, we're living longer these days!" What a sad, completely bankrupt group of people.

I Callahan said...

The Congressional record for reauthorization of VRA in 2006 has 15,000 pages with "countless 'examples of flagrant racial discrimination.'"

Really? Have you read this re-authorization? Can you cite an actual example of what "flagrant racial discrimination" is? Is it one of those words that mean something different than what was intended?

Or, in your haste to believe what you want to believe, you've decided that the above fits your worldview and therefore don't question it?

I suspect the latter.

Original Mike said...

"It seems the majority view is because the VRA worked, there is no need to continue it-- a bit of twisted logic."

I have a medical condition which periodically needs to be treated with a steroid. Once my symptoms resolve, I am weaned off it to avoid dependency problems down the road.

I sure as hell am glad you're not my doctor.

I Callahan said...

It seems the majority view is because the VRA worked, there is no need to continue it-- a bit of twisted logic

Not at all. It worked to fix the problem which existed in 1965. A problem that does NOT exist today. Therefore, there is no need to continue it.

Unless you have some hard evidence (other than the caricatures made up in your mind), that blatant racism still keeps black people from voting (poll taxes, threats, KKK members around polls, etc.), then the law is not necessary anymore.

Original Mike said...

"The Congressional record for reauthorization of VRA in 2006 has 15,000 pages with "countless 'examples of flagrant racial discrimination.'"

It's is a liberal orthodoxy that participation of blacks in the 2000 Presidential vote in Florida was suppressed by police roadblocks outside polling places. Thing is, I actually watched the Equal Rights Commission hearing on this issue back in the day. The evidence offered for said suppression was a farce.

Michael said...

Garage. You are making a fool of yourself because what you think happened did not happen. Please.

Jay said...

roesch/voltaire said...

It seems the majority view is because the VRA worked, there is no need to continue it-- a bit of twisted logic


I love the fact that you've typed this.

Using your logic, no government program or activity can ever be ended. Including a military draft.

You're daft.

RecChief said...

so there is nothing unconstitional about the federal government requiring a state's voting laws are pre-cleared as long as they use current data to do so? If Congress has that power, don't they have the power to use any data it chooses? If Congress has that power, why doesn't it have the power to legislate one set of voting laws nationwide? How is that the federalism enumerated in the Constitution

Andy Krause said...

The most segregated cities (now), that should be on the preapproval list would include Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee and New York. So let's update the list, Congress!

Nathan Alexander said...

@RecChief,
baby steps.
It will take time to recover from poor SCOTUS choices of Clinton and Obama, and from the poor choices of US voters to give Democrats power.

I think we're close to the turnaround, since it took massive intervention by the IRS, DoJ, and the news media, widespread voter fraud, illicit data mining, illegal foreign contributions, deliberate intimidation of conservative voters, massive vote buying programs to Democratic voters, and a Cult of Personality appeal for Democrats to retain partial control of the govt this last election.

RecChief said...

@Andy Krause,
You forgot Philadelphia

Original Mike said...

R-V! R-V! Come back so we may taunt you a second time.

garage mahal said...

Thing is, I actually watched the Equal Rights Commission hearing on this issue back in the day. The evidence offered for said suppression was a farce.

Yea I bet you did.

RecChief said...

@Nathan Alexander,
Sure, I get that, but I don't see this as much of a victory for federalism. To my mind, it looks like SCOTUS left the scales balancing the state and federal governments tipped in favor of the federal government. just my 2 cents worth.

Also, politically, I don't see a formulation that doesn't further divide the nation. I will be surprised if some progressive doesn't come along and say, "Since conservatives hate the VRA, and SCOTUS just affirmed that the federal government can impose its will on voting laws, why don't we ditch the whole and have the federal government impose one set of voting laws nationwide."

Nathan Alexander said...

Harry Stein, the Idiot Vote:
Yet in America today, only one of the dominant political parties–guess which one–is actually dependent on the idiot vote for its very survival. Ignoramuses are the Democrats’ core constituency. Can’t name your congressman or a single Supreme Court justice? Have vaguely heard of Gettysburg, but can’t quite place the war? Get your idea of news from People and Us or Comedy Central? You’re a singe-issue voter and the single issue is more-more-more and who-cares-how-it-gets-paid-for. The Dems not only want you to vote, they’ll hunt you down, fill out the registration form for you and show up on Election Day to drag you to the polls. And if you can’t make it, they’ll send someone else and say you did. And all the while, proudly cast themselves as defenders of democracy, because the right to vote is, you know, like, sacrosanct.

Nathan Alexander said...

@RecChief,
Yeah, good points.
I guess the point is, we have to keep voting and staying politically active so that my stated scenario is the one that occurs instead of the one you described.

Original Mike said...

I did, garage. It was on C-Span.

Real American said...

Glad to see that the Court recognizes that racist Democrats are pretty much no longer in charge in the South.

Original Mike said...

The primary "evidence" for police suppression of the vote was a radar car several miles and two or three turns from a polling place.

Clyde said...

To be honest, I don't really understand this whole kerfuffle.

It's pretty obvious to me that if you are (a) an American citizen (b) age 18 or older (c) who is not a convicted felon who has lost his/her right to vote and not had it restored, and (d) registered to vote by the deadline in your local municipality, you should be allowed to vote in all general elections, and in primary elections if you are the declared member of a political party, once per election, after showing identification that proves who you are so that you can't commit voter fraud by voting more than once.

What's so hard about that?

damikesc said...

But the south is no better or worse on race issues now than the rest of the country.

I'll argue the South is markedly better.

First off, we actually HAVE blacks living here. Large swaths of the NE could get lost in a blizzard.

Second, we had to confront our racism. Has Boston done shit since their busing riots, outside of electing a nincompoop as Governor?

Third, the rest of the country can still go with "Well, we're better than the South" in spite of having, literally, no info on what life is like in the South.

gerry said...

I'm just wondering, did this decision about VRA Section 4 bury VRA Section 5?

Stephen said...

Redheads is a good answer if the Section 5 scheme is wholly irrational--it makes no sense as applied to any state. But Ginsburg cites a lot of evidence that is it not irrational in that sense, and particularly not as applied to Alabama, which she shows has a long and continuing down to the present history of discrimination in voting. So how can the redheads analogy persuade, unless Roberts is prepared to do the work of showing why the evidence cited by Ginsburg wouldn't justify continued application of Section 5 in Alabama? Instead, it seems like strict scrutiny applied to vindicate a federalism interest--and that, frankly, doesn't seem like a sound or workable way to limit federal regulation of the states.

Simon said...

RecChief said...
"so there is nothing unconstitional about the federal government requiring a state's voting laws are pre-cleared as long as they use current data to do so? If Congress has that power, don't they have the power to use any data it chooses? If Congress has that power, why doesn't it have the power to legislate one set of voting laws nationwide? How is that the federalism enumerated in the Constitution?"

This is the kind of question to which sola scriptura constitutionalists have no answer. The answer is that the Constitution's words do not stand in majestic isolation; they are connected to one another and washed through with the anglo-american tradition which gives them form and content. Federalism is every bit as clear from the Constitution's structure and context as are the requirements of bicameralism and presentment. Because they are not specifically enumerated, however, there is more "wiggle room" in judging whether an exercise of Congressional power is "proper" (in the argot of the sweeping clause) or "consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution" (in the argot of M'Cullough, over which today's majority and dissent bicker) or "appropriate" (in the argot of the fifteenth amendment). Plainly, a bill that sought to enforce the fifteenth amendment by permitting Congress to pass bills without Presidential assent would not be "appropriate legislation," because it contradicts specific constitutional text, but no more appropriate would be a bill that created a special new executive agency responsible not to the President but to the Speaker of the House, because that violates the implications of the explicit repose of "the" executive power in the President. (Yes, I realize that the court fudged this point in the Morrison case.) But what of a bill such as the VRA, which arguably upsets the traditional constitutional order without violating any explicit provision, but which does so as a temporary remedy for the violation of an explicit provision? That is the issue here, and I would say that the courts have wisely preserved latitude—"wisely," that is, only so long as an activist Congress remains subject to grown-up supervision by the courts.


Andy Krause said...
"The most segregated cities (now), that should be on the preapproval list would include Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee and New York."

I hate the use of "segregated" as an antonym for "integrated." The south was not simply divided, it was segregated: It wasn't that blacks and whites chose to live apart, they were segregated by the force of law. No city in this country is segregated today.

Original Mike said...

"But Ginsburg cites a lot of evidence that is it not irrational in that sense, and particularly not as applied to Alabama, which she shows has a long and continuing down to the present history of discrimination in voting."

She cites a lot of old evidence from the 1970s and 80s. And as has been noted in these threads, the "annexation" evidence is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.

garage mahal said...

She cites a lot of old evidence from the 1970s and 80s. And as has been noted in these threads, the "annexation" evidence is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.

Between 1999 and 2005, 153 voting changes were withdrawn when the DOJ simply asked questions about them. But keep bitterly clinging to this post racial fantasy. You're a conservative so you must cling to fantasies.

Original Mike said...

"Between 1999 and 2005, 153 voting changes were withdrawn when the DOJ simply asked questions about them."

Where's that from? Ginsburg's opinion?

Drago said...

Simon: "Give us one—any one—of those examples cited by Congress that could not be addressed in section two litigation."

6/25/13, 11:48 AM

Let me guess, Garage was unable to provide an example that met these conditions.

LOL

Mike said...

I forget just how deceitful, dumb and mean spirited Garage is until he pops his little head up and writes a comment here. I still don't believe anyone actually believes the bullshit he writes, not even him, but it tickles me to read his stupid justifications. No need to ever change Social Security, cause it does such a fantastic job of providing a retirement fund!

Yessiree! It is so damn FINE that public school teachers (those same unions he defends to the grave) are EXEMPTED from SS so they can rely on a real retirement that earns interest. Like all other progressive institutions there's one rule for the little people and one for them. And yet they get rubes like Garage to agitate and squawk about how conservatives are really doing the scheming. How does it feel to carry water for those who despise you and use you, Garage?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
You're a conservative so you must cling to fantasies


Yeah, like secret routers and John Doe #2

garage mahal said...

Yeah, like secret routers and John Doe #2

Which they did find, and people are sitting in prison for.

Mike said...

And I don't let my side off the hook either. Republicans (and Bush 43) were wrong to cave in and reauthorize the VRA in 2006. Too many people are so afraid of being called racist (as Garage is calling people to this day) that they will do stoooopid things like vote for the VRA. I remember the fight in 2006. The Usual Suspects (Jesse, Rev. Al) were on TV saying that blacks would lose the right to vote if the VRA was not reauthorized. Deceit, lies, stirring up fears and racial grievance. The game never changes. No doubt some are out today, like the idiot chick on PMSNBC, saying they have now lost the right to vote.

Fuck 'em! The truth will out over time. And Garage will write another "I'm not really me so farewell" post and life will go on.

Jay said...

I love the fact that this white idiot, who lives in East Bum Fuck surrounded by white people, is pretending to care about black voters.

garage is really pathetic.

Larry J said...

Jay said...
roesch/voltaire said...

It seems the majority view is because the VRA worked, there is no need to continue it-- a bit of twisted logic

I love the fact that you've typed this.

Using your logic, no government program or activity can ever be ended. Including a military draft.

You're daft.


Yes, the Rural Electrication Administration was created in the 1930s under FDR. By the early 1970s, it's mission was complete so naturally they changed the mission. It wasn't finally abolished until 1994 but some of it lives on as the Rural Utilities Service.

There are few things as permanent as a temporary government program or tax.

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Which they did find, and people are sitting in prison for.


Hysterical.

Remember when you were assuring us that Walker was going to be indicted?

Jay said...

between 1999 and 2005, 153 changes were withdrawn when DOJ asked questions about them

Uh, so?

You don't even know what these words mean, moron.

garage mahal said...

Where's that from? Ginsburg's opinion?

See here

Revenant said...

153 changes were withdrawn when DOJ asked questions about them

It is a little late to try playing the "you can trust the DoJ" card, isn't it?

Jay said...

garage's ignorant and confused reaction to this is pretty funny.

garage mahal said...

garage's ignorant and confused reaction to this is pretty funny.

No, what you mean is you despise contrary information getting out there that contradicts your hyper-partisan propaganda.

Jay said...

Funny:

A Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota criticized Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act by calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Thomas,” then saying he didn’t know “Uncle Tom” was a racist epithet.


Of course he is white.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

No, what you mean is you despise contrary information getting out there


You don't know what the word you're pasting mean.

You have no fucking clue what a voting change is, or what constitutes a DOJ question.

You read a sentence, assume it both true and damning, and pasted it.

Again, you're a fucking idiot.

Revenant said...

you despise contrary information getting out there

Pointing out that 153 changes were withdrawn in the face of DoJ opposition is only "contrary" to a claim that no charges have been withdrawn in the face of DoJ opposition.

Nobody made that claim. People did make the claim that the problem section 5 was created to address no longer exists, but you've provided nothing to contradict that -- unless, of course, you think the DoJ is the final authority on social issues in America, which you didn't seem to think from 2001 through 2008. :)

Fr Martin Fox said...

I'm curious about something.

The 14th Amendment anticipated the problem of denying citizens the vote on the basis of race, and provided a remedy:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

First, I wonder about the history of applying this.

But second, for those who are lamenting the demise of this section of the VRA, why doesn't this provide an alternate remedy?

Obviously it requires Congressional action--but so did renewal of the VRA.

Eric said...

Interesting. Perhaps the 10th Amendment will save us after all.

I don't think the 10th is in the Supreme Court's copy of the constitution.

paminwi said...

Idiot from Minnesota who called SC Justice Thomas an "Uncle Tom"

Looks like he recieved a great education at Harvrd!

Education:

JD, University of Minnesota, 2001

AB, History, Harvard University, 1998

Eric said...

Just to be clear. All gerrymandered districts should be removed. No matter if they were designed for racial or political spoils.

That's fine, in principle. But just how do you determine if a district is gerrymandered?

Titus said...

I am concerned that we are temporarily happy now but tomorrow when the Lavendar Mafia flounce it on their floats and with all their big gay money we may lose and be very sad.

I hope not. We can't have much faith in Kennedy though.

garage mahal said...

You read a sentence, assume it both true and damning, and pasted it.

Then refute it. But you can't, the only weapon you have is calling people names, like the pathetic child you are.

Rusty said...

Jay said...
garage mahal said...

jay.
Just quit engaging him.
he doesn't have the intellectual horse power to hold his own in an argument.

garage mahal said...

jay.
Just quit engaging him.


I wish. Won't happen though.

Aridog said...

... just how do you determine if a district is gerrymandered?

North Carolina

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Florida

Illinois

Louisiana

Eric said...

Sure, but that makes it a little like the old obscenity test "I know it when I see it." Not something that really works as a legal principle. Every district line would get litigated, and the end result would be to hand over control of the whole process to the judiciary.

Saint Croix said...

Alabama is home to Selma.... Although circumstances in Alabama have changed, serious concerns remain....

1000 to one she's never been to Alabama.

what a bigot. Cranky, old bigot.

Saint Croix said...

Hope she doesn't get assigned any opinions dealing with international law.

"Germany is home to Dachau."

Titus said...

I know the fag decision on the court has been made but if Cheney and his son get front row seats tomorrow and strart snarling things could get ugly.

kentuckyliz said...

As a redhead, I say, yeay SCOTUS!

Methadras said...

Democrats are the part of the KKK. That's where they started and that's where they've spent trillions of your dollars hiding that fact and telling you and their little entitlement plantation minions how great they are for you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

So how long does this mean until we can prevent blacks from accessing ballots in Florida and Northern states like Ohio?

Mark said...

How long until we can prevent the New Black Panther Party from standing armed outside Polling Places without the government enforcing the laws?

Ritmo, I dub you Renfield.