Key Section of Voting Rights Act Struck Down by SCOTUS

Skip Intro

US NewsJune 2013 • Views: 21,052

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court.

The 5-4 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, found that “things have changed dramatically” in the South nearly 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was signed.

The court’s opinion said it did not strike down the act of Congress “lightly,” and said it “took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act” in a separate case back in 2009. “Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [Section 4] unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”

Congress, the court ruled, “may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

“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,” the majority said.

“There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process,” Roberts wrote.

That’s why we’re gutting it, Roberts didn’t add.

More: Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down by Supreme Court

UPDATE at 6/25/13 10:44:40 am

YouTube

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Section 4 of the landmark Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional and that Congress was tasked to come up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections.

Jump to bottom

64 comments

Heywood Jabloeme Tue, Jun 25, 2013 8:14:03am

So, if the Republicans in the House can’t deal with legislation like the Farm Bill, Immigration and the upcoming extension of the Govt borrowing limits, because of the lack of incentives built into their voting districts bu Gerrymandering, how can they hope to be part of this requirement?

This will not be delt with until 2020 and then they will get swept out of power and not return for generations.

Skip Intro Tue, Jun 25, 2013 8:27:44am

Clarence doesn’t think the Court went far enough.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas writes that he would have struck down Section 5, too: “By leaving the inevitable conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of that provision. For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, I would find §5 unconstitutional.”

npr.org

Skip Intro Tue, Jun 25, 2013 8:29:15am

re: #1 Heywood Jabloeme

This will not be delt with until 2020 and then they will get swept out of power and not return for generations.

The idea is that by striking down Section 4, that possibility has now been reduced.

Also, you may be being to hard on Congress. They could always declare that non-white votes count as 3/5 of a white one. This Supreme Court would have no problem ruling that Constitutional.

Skip Intro Tue, Jun 25, 2013 8:37:27am

Conservatives on the US Supreme Court basically have just said that while they recognize discrimination exists, they just don't care.
— Karen Finney (@finneyk) June 25, 2013

Skip Intro Tue, Jun 25, 2013 8:41:07am

Roberts proves Prof. @jelani9 maxim - Only in the area of civil rights are we told to STOP doing something because it's working. @mhpshow

— Ari Melber (@AriMelber) June 25, 2013

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 9:58:38am

Would we not feel a lot better about this ruling with a Dem majority in Congress?

That changes everything about this statement-
“If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present cover- age formula. It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between states in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Read more: washingtontimes.com
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

jamesfirecat Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:05:31am

Well fuck.

Romantic Heretic Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:12:05am

My shock and surprise. Let me show it to you.

dragonath Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:30:44am

Texas is currently proving how much they care about minority voting rights, right as we speak.

HappyWarrior Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:30:44am

Got to love this court. Corporations are people but fuck you if you’re a minority in a state that discriminates against your right as a US citizen to vote. Fuck that shit so much.

wrenchwench Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:31:13am

re: #6 Political Atheist

Would we not feel a lot better about this ruling with a Dem majority in Congress?

No.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:31:21am

re: #6 Political Atheist

It is not up to the Supreme court to decide the efficacy of the legislative attempts, though. It really isn’t. This is a really bizarre overreach of power.

To quote my friend-of-a-friend again:

I’ve only read the holding in the Shelby County opinion, and I’ll say this: It’s based on a deception. The deception is calling Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act a “formula” and then pretending that that’s all the Supreme Court is striking down.

Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is not a formula. Calling it a formula implies that Congress passed an abstract method for determining which states should be covered. That, in turn, allows the Court to say that the method is suspect.

Congress knew which states they wanted to cover in 1965. The “formula” was devised as a way to cover those states without singling them out in a civil rights law. When Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, it first held hearings to determine that the states covered by the 1965 Act still needed the coverage of Section 5. It didn’t reauthorize a “formula,” it reauthorized protection of minority voters in those particular states.

To say that the formula is what’s wrong with Section 5 is to hide the real issue—whether those states still need Section 5. That’s the question Congress addressed. The Supreme Court has overruled Congress’s judgment, but they aren’t willing to say so out loud (because doing so is absurd). So instead they hide their outrageous, undemocratic decision by saying that the problem they have is one of method. It’s deception.

wrenchwench Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:34:19am

The Supreme Court has saved the Voting Whites Act
— Lalo Alcaraz (@laloalcaraz) June 25, 2013

A Mom Anon Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:36:50am

What will the effect of this be now that the SC has overturned just this one part of the VRA? Does it open the door to declare the whole law unconstitutional? I wish I understood all this better, but I honestly don’t. Why did they even mess with it in the first place?

Edited to add: And why does each state have it’s own way of holding elections anyway? Why isn’t there a consistent way of doing this from state to state? It seems like having different rules all over the country makes the process more complex than it needs to be.

dragonath Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:38:07am

So… worse than Citizens United?

Kragar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:39:23am

re: #14 A Mom Anon

What will the effect of this be now that the SC has overturned just this one part of the VRA? Does it open the door to declare the whole law unconstitutional? I wish I understood all this better, but I honestly don’t. Why did they even mess with it in the first place?

Because the South wanted free rein to gerrymander as they see fit.

Feline Fearless Leader Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:39:56am

re: #14 A Mom Anon

What will the effect of this be now that the SC has overturned just this one part of the VRA? Does it open the door to declare the whole law unconstitutional? I wish I understood all this better, but I honestly don’t. Why did they even mess with it in the first place?

They’ve essentially gutted it in a nicely hidden fashion.

If there is no formula for who to enforce Section 5 on then preclearance is dead. Once that is going then a state can pass suppressive voter laws and there is no recourse to stop them until *after* the election for the most part.

Then for the next election they just change the suppression approach and repeat.

Tigger2 Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:41:06am

And the Republicans cry about so called activist liberal judges lol. I don’t have much faith in the SCOTUS anymore to do the right thing for the country in whole.

Kragar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:41:18am

So I just realized the copy of my resume I’d been sending out for the last week had cut out half of my most recent work experience. Fucking hell.

Feline Fearless Leader Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:41:23am

re: #15 dragonath

So… worse than Citizens United?

Probably not. The voter ID laws and such can be challenged while they are going through the legislative process and being established. Citizens United basically allowed unlimited soft money and no way of tracking who is attempting to buy the election.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:41:53am

re: #14 A Mom Anon

What will the effect of this be now that the SC has overturned just this one part of the VRA? Does it open the door to declare the whole law unconstitutional? I wish I understood all this better, but I honestly don’t. Why did they even mess with it in the first place?

No. It doesn’t open it. They ‘messed’ with it for various reasons, some being Kennedy’s weird fetish for state rights. Thomas is his own crazy brand of brilliant weirdo libertarian here and he fundamentally distrusts anything that makes any law based on race because when he was looking for jobs out of law school he was convinced he wasn’t getting hired because people thought he’d only gotten into school under affirmative action. This is a really nutty perspective but he really genuinely believes no codified treatment of minority will ever be successful. Thomas’s opinion is, at least, not deceitful. He’d like to get rid of Section 5 too.

Roberts has a history of supporting segregation as a right and denying that various things used to address racial inequality are successful. I don’t know what motive that indicates, there are a lot of possibilities, but that’s there. Alioto and Scalia I think were simply political decisions.

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:42:19am

re: #11 wrenchwench

So a solid responsible congress could/would not fix this in the usual legislative fashion? Why not? Still supersedes state laws.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:42:51am

re: #20 Feline Fearless Leader

Probably not. The voter ID laws and such can be challenged while they are going through the legislative process and being established.

Yeah, but the timing may suck. Texas’s legislative districts are going to go forward now, and unless an injunction can get into play— which is unlikely there will need to be a court case to resolve that. All the previous places that were denied remapping will now remap.

dragonath Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:43:43am

re: #22 Political Atheist

So a solid responsible congress could/would not fix this in the usual legislative fashion? Why not? Still supersedes state laws.

That’s purely hypothetical at this point. All we know is that the 2006 reauthorization passed with huge margins and was signed into law by George W. Bush.

A Mom Anon Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:43:44am

re: #17 Feline Fearless Leader

So who brought the challenge before the court? I now get what the plan is, hell I live in GA, it’s no big secret that a fair share of white people don’t like those browner than them folks voting. I can drive less than 10 miles from my house here in suburbia on any voting day and see huge lines hours long, whereas in my district, if you have to wait an hour that’s a big turnout and a long wait. Fuck. So what can be done to fight back?

wrenchwench Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:44:09am

re: #22 Political Atheist

So a solid responsible congress could/would not fix this in the usual legislative fashion? Why not? Still supersedes state laws.

I did not say ‘a solid responsible congress could/would not fix this in the usual legislative fashion’. I said I would not feel better about this if that imaginary congress existed.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:44:23am

re: #22 Political Atheist

So a solid responsible congress could/would not fix this in the usual legislative fashion? Why not? Still supersedes state laws.

Whether they could or not, it’s not the Supreme Court’s place to tell them that the law isn’t doing a good enough job at what it’s supposed to do. It really isn’t. Congress, as said above, held a hearing when reauthorizing it specifically to say “Problems still exist there, so this mechanism is still relevant.” It is not perfect, but if you compare a map of these counties and the counties that would be affected if you went by ‘voting discrimination cases lost or settled by the state/county/whatever’ you find a high degree of correspondence.

Bulworth Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:44:36am

re: #25 A Mom Anon

Jurisdictions in Alabama and North Carolina, I believe.

Lawrence Schmerel Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:44:48am

The worst part is that a reasonable and responsible Congress could or would just change the formula to make it comply. This Congress isn’t and won’t.

Kragar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:45:49am

Gohmert & Robertson Push Conspiracy Theory that Homeland Security Is Going To ‘Force Something on the American People’

Force something like a ban on abortions?

dragonath Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:46:23am

re: #29 Lawrence Schmerel

The worst part is that a reasonable and responsible Congress could or would just change the formula to make it comply. This Congress isn’t and won’t.

Dunno, I find the worst part to be that this Supreme Court is neither reasonable or responsible.

steve_davis Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:47:40am

re: #19 Kragar

So I just realized the copy of my resume I’d been sending out for the last week had cut out half of my most recent work experience. Fucking hell.

which half? the first half….not that big a deal, possibly. the second half….fucking hell.

Lawrence Schmerel Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:48:57am

re: #31 dragonath

I sort of disagree that the Supreme Court is not reasonable or responsible. I generally approve of it, but not necessarily every decision. This one may be premature. A reasonable and responsible Congress could fix the situation.

dragonath Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:49:45am

If I didn’t know better, I’d accuse the SC of intentionally breaking working laws and leaving the initiative to a broken congress.

This court isn’t even good at “states rights”, whatever they are. Remember how they overturned Montana’s campaign funding system that had been in place for a hundred years?

Human nature is hardly any wiser than then, either.

Kragar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:52:13am

re: #32 steve_davis

which half? the first half….not that big a deal, possibly. the second half….fucking hell.

In a 5 sentence synopsis, it cut out in the middle of the second sentence and then jumped to my previous job.

I feel like such a dipshit right now.

lawhawk Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:54:25am

Rather telling that they went after the “formula” under Section 4, rather than the Preclearance provisions of Section 5. Many observers had thought that if the court was going to invalidate, it would be on Section 5 (which Thomas thought should be voided as well).

Preclearance provisions of Section 5 survived, but voiding Section 4 makes the situation unworkable and requires Congress to produce a new formula. As others have indicated, this Congress will not do its business and enact a new formula provision that incorporates current data to address the Court’s concerns.

I’ve outlined below my preference for national preclearance - allowing bail outs for those jurisdictions that have shown themselves to be in compliance with the VRA. Only those that continue to violate voting rights would be subject to preclearance.

As it stands now, a voter would be disenfranchised while waiting for their suit to wind its way through the courts; preclearance keeps the changes from being made effective pending a check to see that it doesn’t violate the rights of voters.

dragonath Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:58:23am

Seeing some people say that the decision is merited because the methodology was originally based on something over 40 years old.

Or, better yet, how can this court be activist when the Warren court was “more so”? Trolololo.

God, shoot me now. What other longstanding laws can we invalidate?

Justanotherhuman Tue, Jun 25, 2013 10:58:49am

Here is entire SC ruling, with Justice Ginsberg written dissent beginning on page 32. supremecourt.gov

On page 61, the dissent states:

“Leaping to resolve Shelby County’s facial challenge without considering whether application of the VRA to Shelby County is constitutional, or even addressing the VRA’s severability provision, the Court’s opinion can hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and moderate decision making. Quite the opposite. Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA.” (my emphasis)

I concur.

Ian G. Tue, Jun 25, 2013 11:01:26am

re: #36 lawhawk

I’ve outlined below my preference for national preclearance - allowing bail outs for those jurisdictions that have shown themselves to be in compliance with the VRA. Only those that continue to violate voting rights would be subject to preclearance.

With you here. The states where voter suppression shenanigans are going to be the worst are not ones covered by section 4 anyway: think PA, OH, MI, and any others where “voter fraud” in big cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia will be the excuse used by the GOP to try to crush minority turnout in swing states.

Alabama and Mississippi are not in the crosshairs of the GOP’s attempt to win back the Presidency through theft.

dragonath Tue, Jun 25, 2013 11:04:32am

In oral arguments re gay marriage, Scalia made a big deal out of the silliness of saying something became unconstitutional over time.
— jtlevy (@jtlevy) June 25, 2013

Justanotherhuman Tue, Jun 25, 2013 11:15:27am

How could the majority rule this way when it’s only been a half a dozen years since Congress, in a bipartisan manner, voted to reauthorize the VRA?

Has anything changed in those years? Certainly, and not for the better. Gerrymandering, denial of early voting, voter ID laws—expect them. They’re going to be the tools of those who would deny people the right to vote.

I live in the south, and believe me, not a whole lot has changed; this ruling will be just what those states need to deny voters on some kind of technicality. Even in NC, where I live, I see the fragile slow and steady progress that has occurred in this state slipping away under the machinations of Art Pope and those in the General Asssembly who allow him to act as the shadow governor.

jaunte Tue, Jun 25, 2013 11:22:46am

I woke up in 1950, it appears. #SB5 #texlege #VRA #SCOTUS #Deen

— Anne C. Savage (@Anne_Savage) June 25, 2013

Wile E. Wonka Tue, Jun 25, 2013 11:33:26am

re: #37 dragonath

Seeing some people say that the decision is merited because the methodology was originally based on something over 40 years old.

What kills me is that they’re talking about parts of the country that haven’t much eased up on the revanchism since the VRA was passed in the first place. It’s like a parole hearing where the felon is told, “Well, looks like you’ve violated parole every year since it was first granted, but that murder was a long time ago and we shouldn’t assume you’ll do it again just because you have “I’ll Do It Again” tattooed on your forehead… You’re free to go!”

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 11:59:49am

re: #29 Lawrence Schmerel

The worst part is that a reasonable and responsible Congress could or would just change the formula to make it comply.

That’s exactly what I was getting at when I mentioned a Dem majority Congress. They can and they should address this. SCOTUS is well aware of that.

re: #12 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

It is not up to the Supreme court to decide the efficacy of the legislative attempts, though. It really isn’t.

When they fail to stop discrimination it is. Or more precisely put it is up to the arguing attorney to show why a court should find a law unconstitutional or perhaps inadequate to assure protections guaranteed under the constitution.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 12:15:22pm

re: #44 Political Atheist

When they fail to stop discrimination it is.

No, it’s really not. And the court is acknowledging that this stopped discrimination. They specifically say that it did.

Or more precisely put it is up to the arguing attorney to show why a court should find a law unconstitutional or perhaps inadequate to assure protections guaranteed under the constitution.

No clue what you’re saying here.

The Supreme Court should not take it upon itself to decide the efficacy of laws. That is not their purview. Something is not unconstitutional because it is ineffective, even if we granted this law was ineffective, which I don’t in the least grant.

Heywood Jabloeme Tue, Jun 25, 2013 12:21:12pm

Even though Chief Justice Roberts tried to put a velvet glove on this iron fist this is probably the worst SCOTUS ruling since Dread Scott.

Let’s just start naming a few:

- I saw mentioned above that contrary to what Robert’s claimed in his ruling, this wasn’t based on 40 year old data but on dozens of Congressional hearing over 100’s of hours that produced over 15,000 pages of documents that the Senate used to re-authorize it 98 to 0.

- Since when is legislation only constitutional for a limited period of time? Sure, things change but the laws enforcing the 14th Amendment aren’t downgraded when new technology is developed they are UPGRADED.

etc, etc.

This can be seen as nothing but Judicial Activism by the 5 conservative members of the court because they think that they have a HIGHER Interpretation of the Constitution than we do. This will greatly undermine the credibility of the court and as far as I am concerned has started to erode its status as a legitimate judicial institution.

The OPPOSITE of what Roberts promised he wanted.

Thorzdad Tue, Jun 25, 2013 12:40:36pm

And, within hours of the ruling, Texas is already moving to enact a voter ID law that was blocked by the courts, based on the now-invalidad preclearance rule.

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 1:02:57pm

re: #45 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

No, it’s really not. And the court is acknowledging that this stopped discrimination. They specifically say that it did.

No clue what you’re saying here.

The Supreme Court should not take it upon itself to decide the efficacy of laws. That is not their purview. Something is not unconstitutional because it is ineffective, even if we granted this law was ineffective, which I don’t in the least grant.

“Takes it upon itself”. Um not sure what that means in the face of the cases working their way up through the lower courts first.

What in your view then is their purview of legislation? What of when legislation fails to protect a civil right as already guaranteed?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 1:09:04pm

re: #48 Political Atheist

“Takes it upon itself”. Um not sure what that means in the face of the cases working their way up through the lower courts first.

What are you not getting? The court’s role is to decide if a law is constitutional or not, not if the law is effective.

What in your view then is their purview of legislation? What of when legislation fails to protect a civil right as already guaranteed?

Their purview is constitutionality. Did you read the opinion from the friend of a friend I posted? It seems from the questions you’re asking me that you haven’t.

Areopagitica Tue, Jun 25, 2013 1:24:53pm

Wait, I thought the conservative justices were all about deferring to congress, now they just made an end run around the legislative branch? Did I miss something or is basically every position in the GOP now just a massive hypocrisy? Please help, very confused:

a. if we think congress made a bad choice, we will nullify it even though the constitution and SCOTUS case law says that isnt kosher
b. we don’t want government controlling everyone (unless we interpret Jesus’ teachings to be okay with it)
c. transvaginal probing and police in the bedroom
d. no financial regulation because the market will just ensure that folks who deal with CDS’s and derivatives will fail, ummmm.
e. We want drones everywhere unless a democrat is in the White House
f. People need jobs, therefore more abortion laws are needed
i. the earth is flat
j. Helping preserve the planet is bad for large banks, therefore the earth is the enemy of capitalism.
i. liberal SOCTUS judges are activists for believing in a living constitution but conservative judges are not activists because they base their decisions on crystal ball techniques invoking what a bunch of progressives were thinking 250 years ago, social darwinism and ….. oh wait

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 1:52:38pm

re: #49 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

What are you not getting? The court’s role is to decide if a law is constitutional or not, not if the law is effective.

Their purview is constitutionality. Did you read the opinion from the friend of a friend I posted? It seems from the questions you’re asking me that you haven’t.

This seems to disagree. The part after “and” with a key portion bolded. I’m no expert, just had an impression they rule on things other than sheer constitutionality. The dissents sure address more than that.

Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 1:56:30pm

re: #51 Political Atheist

Holy fuck, are you really quoting the constitution at me.

To be clear, your position is that the court could examine a law about, say, railroad gradings and say that the law should be ruled invalid because the data they used to determine the appropriate gradings is— in the court’s opinion— out of date?

Scalia was mocking the idea of something becoming unconstitutional over time before this, too. It’s really sadly funny.

alexknyc Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:07:25pm

Can anyone tell me how Article I, Section 4 DOESN’T apply?

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.”

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

alexknyc Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:14:23pm

re: #47 Thorzdad

And, within hours of the ruling, Texas is already moving to enact a voter ID law that was blocked by the courts, based on the now-invalidad preclearance rule.

As long as the state charges for issuing photo ID, how is this not a poll tax?

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:19:36pm

re: #52 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Holy fuck, are you really quoting the constitution at me.

To be clear, your position is that the court could examine a law about, say, railroad gradings and say that the law should be ruled invalid because the data they used to determine the appropriate gradings is— in the court’s opinion— out of date?

Scalia was mocking the idea of something becoming unconstitutional over time before this, too. It’s really sadly funny.

My position is that the court’s own rules (as shown above from the SCOTUS web site) do not say it is limited to only ruling on the constitutionality of a law.

EPR-radar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:23:06pm

re: #55 Political Atheist

My position is that the court’s own rules (as shown above from the SCOTUS web site) do not say it is limited to only ruling on the constitutionality of a law.

However, if SCOTUS is going to strike down a law, there really is no other basis other than its unconstitutionality (real or alleged).

An argument for a law to be struck down because it is ineffective wouldn’t get off the ground. There is no justification for striking down a law on that basis.

EPR-radar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:24:10pm

re: #55 Political Atheist

My position is that the court’s own rules (as shown above from the SCOTUS web site) do not say it is limited to only ruling on the constitutionality of a law.

And of course, it is fair to note that judicial review of acts of Congress for constitutionality is not an enumerated power of the Judiciary in the constitution.

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:25:03pm

re: #56 EPR-radar

Not even if the law was ineffective in preventing racial discrimination?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:30:57pm

re: #55 Political Atheist

My position is that the court’s own rules (as shown above from the SCOTUS web site) do not say it is limited to only ruling on the constitutionality of a law.

Okay. So, can you answer the very straightforward and direct question?

EPR-radar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:32:50pm

re: #58 Political Atheist

Not even if the law was ineffective in preventing racial discrimination?

What would the argument be? This law is unconstitutional because it does not fulfill its intended purpose?

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:41:12pm

re: #60 EPR-radar

Among other arguments perhaps. Especially in this specific regard-racial discrimination. Like a law that on the surface is about complying with the Federal statute but in fact (like say voter ID) makes things worse for minorities.

Political Atheist Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:43:13pm

re: #59 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Okay. So, can you answer the very straightforward and direct question?

To be clear, your position is that the court could examine a law about, say, railroad gradings and say that the law should be ruled invalid because the data they used to determine the appropriate gradings is— in the court’s opinion— out of date?

No. see my #58 & #61.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:47:44pm

re: #62 Political Atheist

No. see my #58 & #61.

I saw it. I don’t understand the difference. The court feels that the law about railroad gradings is failing to achieve it’s objective— let’s say it’s for safety purposes. The court notices fifty years have gone by since the data that was used to determine angles of gradings in the law was put in place. They claim that the problem no longer exists, and so the law is invalid because it’s not achieving its purpose.

So how is this different?

And why did you post that stuff about jurisdiction, anyway? That was confusing. There is no argument about jurisdiction here.

EPR-radar Tue, Jun 25, 2013 2:48:05pm

re: #61 Political Atheist

Among other arguments perhaps. Especially in this specific regard-racial discrimination. Like a law that on the surface is about complying with the Federal statute but in fact (like say voter ID) makes things worse for minorities.

But “ineffectiveness” by itself is never going to be a key art of an argument. You may be confusing “disingenuous” with “ineffective” here. For example, the old literacy tests etc. were promoted using disingenuous arguments, but they were not unconstitutional because they were “ineffective”. They were unconstitutional because they suppressed the minority vote.

What matters are the results (or expected results), and whether or not these results conflict with the constitution.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Key Section of Voting Rights Act Struck Down by SCOTUS

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud