WTF! The Surpreme Court has agreed to hear challange to voting rights act!!!!

[sufrommich]

Just heard on MSNBC.

[jberryhill]

1. So?

[vaberella]

4. It's one brought up by Alabama

It was a law put in place by the Supreme court to protect African American voter rights. Alabama wants to change the provision in the law which states they have to ask permission on the federal level to make changes on the state level ballots. I say we keep the shit standing and it shouldn't be heard because voter suppression is still in full effect.

[jberryhill]

8. Great

I think some people don't understand what goes in to agreeing to hear a case.

If I were a Supreme Court justice and someone brought up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, I might be just as inclined to take it in order to say "Oh hell no, and let's make it crystal clear to you."

If you want to deliver a smackdown to an argument - and expand it beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court that heard the case before - then you agree to take the case.

I can't believe there are people who are so simpleminded as to believe that merely agreeing to hear a case is some kind of indication that the majority of the Court agrees with one side or another. That's just... depressing really.

[graham4anything]

2. why does this suprise you?

it should only suprrise ralph nader fans who believed his lies that Bush/Gore were the same and Bush/Kerry were the same

those lies caused Alito and Roberts to be elevated to the court.

Gore and Kerry never would have picked them.

[still_one]

3. Pure racism. However, I really feel as bad as Kennedy is he will vote to support the voting

Rights act.

I also think Roberts will also

[Jim__]

15. Here's a Roberts quote.

From the Washington Post:

...

Conservative legal activists and Republican attorneys general from some of the covered states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — have launched challenges to the law.

They are encouraged by a 2009 Supreme Court decision that, as Tatel acknowledged in his opinion, raised substantial questions about Section 5’s continued constitutionality.

“Things have changed in the South,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in an opinion that sidestepped the constitutional question. “Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”

Tatel said the 2009 decision required judges to examine two questions: whether the burdens imposed by the act were justified by “current needs,” and whether the discrimination “evil” Section 5 was meant to eliminate is still concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for “pre-clearance” by federal authorities.

...

[still_one]

16. What is interesting is the items mentioned in your piece as being "rare" have been shown since 2000

not to be so rare

and though the very interesting and potentially disturbing piece you brought up suggest he would weaken the voter rights law, because of what happened with the ACA, I suspect he could be persuaded, more so than alito, Scalia, and Thomas

I would also like to think Kennedy would support it

You definitely give me pause with that article, and puts emphasis on how important this election was


Thanks

[JoePhilly]

5. They other efforts to supress the vote failed ... so the Bush Supremes are stepping in.

Big surprise.

[madinmaryland]

6. I wonder if they took it because they thought Rmoney would be POTUS and would have an AG

like Asscroft that would not defend the VRA.

[silvershadow]

7. They're pissed about the election. That's all there is to it. I bet Scalia had three kinds of

strokes and aneurisms. Not sure the mechanics of this case, but the timing is more than suspect. Pathetic.

[exboyfil]

9. Go for it

The Taney Dred Scott decision fueled the abolitionists and brought the Underground Railroad which hurt the South. Taney's name is still cursed for that decision.

Can you imagine a polarized 5-4 (hopefully Voting Right's Act winning) as Obama is making his next Supreme Court pick?

[OldDem2012]

10. Do you think it's even remotely possible that the Supreme Court will decide against....

...this challenge?

What's the problem?

[Rambis]

11. They want section 5 overturned

See we aren't racists anymore so we don't have to ask the feds for preclearance when we want to change voting laws. I would counter with the racist tweets map. CASE CLOSED!

[jody]

12. the Court limited its review to a question which it composed itself:

”Whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage fomulal of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.” The Tenth Amendment protects the powers of states by limiting Congress’s powers. Article IV guarantees each state a “republican form of government,” meaning it is protected in its right of self-government. The question specified by the Court differed from that posed by Shelby County’s lawyers only by adding a reference to the Fourteenth Amendment. The case to be decided in Shelby County v. Holder (12-96).

Source http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/court-to-rule-on-voting-rights-law-2/#more-154981

[treestar]

13. It may be OK though

The Supreme Court might decide the right way. I haven't given up especially after the Obamacare decision.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. Alaska joined in that lawsuit.

We're under the voting rights act, too,because of our Native population. It probably won't make a difference one way or the other to us because the Republicans keep gerrymandering anyway. In fact, I think the latest redistricting is in court, not decided soon enough to help us out this election -- while the rest of the country is moving forward, we just fell back about 30 years. It's sickening what Alaska's Dems have to put up with.