Pages

8 comments

Jump to bottom
1 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 10:43:30am

The problem with Section 5 has become that in some places some minorities, mostly Latinos, are quite throughly mixed in with other ethnic groups, such that its impossible to draw districts without having them be a mass of ethnic islands. The question is what to do about that, which is a matter SCOTUS can only partially answer (courts can only uphold or strike down, they cannot amend a law to reflect changing demographics, only Congress can do that).

2 Lidane  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 12:10:51pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Maybe if the GOP stopped trying to gerrymander every goddamn district they wouldn't have this problem.

3 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 3:16:13pm

re: #2 Lidane

Maybe if the GOP stopped trying to gerrymander every goddamn district they wouldn't have this problem.

That's not explanation enough, since even lines draw by judges and intended to be neutral got challenged.

I'd also remind you that Illinois Democrats gerrymandered just as shamelessly as Texas Republicans.

4 EPR-radar  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 4:18:04pm

Given what the GOP has been up to in places where they have local control (e.g., FL, OH) with voter suppression efforts (e.g., voter ID, a pattern of longer lines in urban/dem districts etc.), it is ridiculous to revisit pre-clearance in the Voting Rights Act.

Gerrymandering isn't really the issue, and tends to confuse the issue because both parties usually gerrymander when they can. However, there is no Democratic party effort that is remotely comparable to GOP voter suppression.

5 ThomasLite  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 7:29:08pm

Maybe this is woefully naive of me, but isn't the fact they're hearing this just after an election which has in many places shown the continued need for such legislation something which enhances it's chance of being upheld?
It sure seems like it would be easier to argue for this section 5 thingy now than ten years ago, from where I'm standing.

6 EPR-radar  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 7:32:22pm

re: #5 ThomasLite

Maybe this is woefully naive of me, but isn't the fact they're hearing this just after an election which has in many places shown the continued need for such legislation something which enhances it's chance of being upheld?
It sure seems like it would be easier to argue for this section 5 thingy now than ten years ago, from where I'm standing.

The problem is that if a law is to be kept in place, the Supreme Court doesn't need to address the issue at all. Thus, action by the Court suggests the likelihood of striking this part of the VRA down.

7 ThomasLite  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 8:58:15pm

re: #6 EPR-radar

The problem is that if a law is to be kept in place, the Supreme Court doesn't need to address the issue at all. Thus, action by the Court suggests the likelihood of striking this part of the VRA down.

Doesn't scotus hear plenty "controversial" issues only to uphold them in full, though? Or just to clarify, or even just make society feel it's concerns are heard? Our highest court sure does - I was under the impression scotus did too.

8 EPR-radar  Wed, Dec 12, 2012 9:04:55pm

re: #7 ThomasLite

I don't think SCOTUS does too much 100% affirming of existing law. Petitions for review are granted relatively rarely (I think the rate is 10% or so), which wouldn't leave much room for re-affirming things. They are likelier to take a case if there are conflicting decisions in lower courts (I don't know if this is an issue with the VRA case).

It take 4 votes to hears a case, and, to put it crudely, I view the VRA challenge as a RW hobby horse. That would mean 4 votes to overturn. The question is whether these justices can find a 5th vote.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
Take advantage of our end-of-the-year subscription special, and save 25% off the normal subscription price! For a limited time, one-year ad-free subscriptions are just $59.95. Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing now and save!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-12-15 2:06 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Rightwingconspirator
Lindbergh Beacon Atop L.A. City Hall Shows The Way
The Lindbergh beacon, the revolving light atop City Hall that was turned on for the first time by President Calvin Coolidge in 1928, was lighted again Wednesday night in time for Christmas... ...The beacon will remain on through Jan. ...

1 hour, 39 minutes ago
Views: 64 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
Lumberhead
What Would Jesus Say/Do?
On the night that we celebrate the birth of Jesus, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on some of the things he said/did during his life among us - especially as it relates to things ...

1 day, 6 hours ago
Views: 204 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
Nat King Cole - the Christmas Song -
Nat King Cole - The Christmas Song -

1 day, 8 hours ago
Views: 167 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
FemNaziBitch
Vatican Report Cites Achievements and Challenges of U.S. Nuns
"Sorry, folks. This is not a controversial document," Mother M. Clare Millea, an American nun who directed the investigation, said at the news conference. Instead, she said, it was "a challenge for all of us." If anything, the report ...

3 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 266 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
 Frank says:

A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them as a license to behave like an asshole.