Supreme Court: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

[ulmont]

Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.

Uh...Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education?  Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas?

At least Dredd Scott vs. Sandford still stands.

Pretty sure it's precedential value was a wee bit undermined by the 14th amendment.

[CountDeMoney]

Niggers in the South have had it too good for too long, anyway.

Give this man a cooking show!

MAH WAFFLES

[CountDeMoney]

And it's full steam ahead.

Texas voter ID law "will take effect immediately," says Attorney General Greg Abbott

WASHINGTON — The implications of today's landmark ruling could be swift and stunning.

With the Supreme Court suspending the mechanism that forced Texas to get a federal OK before it can implement any election law change, state Attorney General Greg Abbott asserts that nothing now can stop the state from activating its controversial voter ID law.

"With today's decision, the State's voter ID law will take effect immediately," Abbott announced. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government."

Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU, on a call with reporters, conceded that Texas has "a very strong argument" that in light of today's Supreme Court decision, it can implement the Voter ID law and other laws that previously required federal approval.

The Texas Department of Public Safety has announced that starting Thursday, "Photo identification will now be required when voting in elections in Texas."

Starting Thursday, Texas driver license offices will begin issuing photo IDs to anyone who doesn't already have one. Under the 2011 state law creating one of the state's most strict voter ID laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years. To qualify, an applicant must show U.S. citizenship and Texas residency. The required documents are listed here to verify U.S. citizenship and identity.

Voters only need that document if they lack a current Texas drivers license, personal ID card or concealed handgun license; U.S. passport or military ID or citizenship certificate with photo.

After the Legislature enacted the voter ID law, the Justice Department invoked Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to block implementation. The Obama administration, siding with minority advocates, says the law would discriminate against low-income and minority voters. An appeal is pending at the Supreme Court.

But with preclearance suspended, Abbott tweeted after this morning's 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, US Attorney General "Eric Holder can no longer deny VoterID in Texas" and "Texas VoterID law should go into effect immediately."

In a statement, he lauded the high court for wiping away unequal treatment of Texas and other states. He acknowledged that Texas — like all states — is barred from racial discrimination and remains subject to after-the-fact lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which remains intact.

"Today's ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect," Abbott said.

[derspiess]

Oh, boo hoo. 

[CountDeMoney]

Save it, cracker.

[Syt]

The Atlantic's assessment:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-hubris-of-the-supreme-courts-voting-rights-ruling/277211/

Five of the nine justices negate a half-century of successful bipartisan self-government on the grounds that they could have done a better job.

[...]

As Andrew points out, in practical terms this result is bad enough.  But beyond the question of voting rights lies this underlying contempt for Congress.  Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan described the emerging attitude brilliantly in her recent essay, "Democracy and Disdain." We saw it displayed during oral argument in the health-care cases, when, for example, Justice Scalia suggested striking down the whole law if any part of it was unconstitutional, on the grounds that Congress couldn't be trusted to fix it to the Court's satisfaction. It has been apparent in the campaign-finance cases, which dismiss the judgments of legislators on the role of money in politics on the grounds that, in essence, they must be rigging the system to get themselves re-elected. It also glimmers as the substrate of decisions restricting anti-discrimination laws, reading broad language more and more narrowly on the cynical grounds that Congress could not have meant what the statutes seem to say.

[Admiral Yi]

Author sounds like a bit of an idiot.  And I have to quibble with calling that "the Atlantic's assessment."

[Valmy]

And it's full steam ahead.

I find it hilarious that in a State with consistently horrible voter turnouts they are concerned with people voting illegally.  They should have just been grateful somebody was bothering to vote.

Edit: It seems Arizona is ALSO one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country.  I guess those states are always fretting whenever the turnout approaches 50%.

[mongers]

The Atlantic's assessment:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-hubris-of-the-supreme-courts-voting-rights-ruling/277211/

Five of the nine justices negate a half-century of successful bipartisan self-government on the grounds that they could have done a better job.

[...]

As Andrew points out, in practical terms this result is bad enough.  But beyond the question of voting rights lies this underlying contempt for Congress.  Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan described the emerging attitude brilliantly in her recent essay, "Democracy and Disdain." We saw it displayed during oral argument in the health-care cases, when, for example, Justice Scalia suggested striking down the whole law if any part of it was unconstitutional, on the grounds that Congress couldn't be trusted to fix it to the Court's satisfaction. It has been apparent in the campaign-finance cases, which dismiss the judgments of legislators on the role of money in politics on the grounds that, in essence, they must be rigging the system to get themselves re-elected. It also glimmers as the substrate of decisions restricting anti-discrimination laws, reading broad language more and more narrowly on the cynical grounds that Congress could not have meant what the statutes seem to say.

The rule of law vs Rule by lawyers ?

[DGuller]

Oh, boo hoo. 

The problem with celebrating the destruction of democratic institutions that your brand of fascists may not always have the upper hand.

[garbon]

I'm confused as to how Texas's law will be okay but Arizona's wasn't it.  So it was illegal for AZ to require people to show proof of citizenship to register to vote but you can ask prospective voters to show proof of citizenship to get an ID card that allows them to vote?

[jimmy olsen]

350?

Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.

So what you are saying is that when two members of the same family hold the office of President, all is doomed?

Well to be fair JQ Adams and GW Bush were sort of disastrous.  Siege is probably right here.

How was JQ Adams disastrous?

[jimmy olsen]

Texas voter ID law "will take effect immediately," says Attorney General Greg Abbott

How is this different from the law that Supremes struck down recently?

[Admiral Yi]

Does democracy only get destroyed when federal legislation gets overturned, or does it get destroyed when state legislation is overturned as well?

[Razgovory]

Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.

Considering how this term has started Obama might be counting down the days until he can GTFO.

Put your money where mouth is.  Take Yi's bet.
His thirst for power cannot be satiated.