The Supreme Court Is On The Verge Of Making An Unprecedented Power Grab

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/linda-greenhouse-on-voting-rights-act-2013-3



***SNIP

The VRA was enacted when Southern states used ugly tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests keep blacks away from the polls.
In more recent years, the U.S. has used the VRA to thwart laws such as voter ID laws that have the effect of disenfranchising minorities.

John Roberts and others have suggested that the law wrongfully implies Southern states are more racist than those in the North. But Greenhouse, and the more liberal Supreme Court justices, point out that it's not the Supreme Court's job to decide where discrimination exists.

(In fact, one recent study found voters in Southern states covered by Section 5 do in fact have more racial bias than those in Northern states.)

By undermining the authority of Congress, which passed the VRA, Greenhouse points out the court would be assuming a "big new power," as Justice Elena Kagan said during arguments.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/linda-greenhouse-on-voting-rights-act-2013-3#ixzz2MrhpbNgo

[rhett o rick]

1. I agree that most likely the SCOTUS will rule that the law is not constitutional

because it treats the states unequally. This is of course is bogus but that's our SCOTUS.

[sulphurdunn]

8. More's the pity.

I don't believe anything in the Constitution requires the equal treatment of states other than through their representation in Congress. It does, however, require the equal treatment by the states of their citizens.

[rhett o rick]

10. Yes I agree. But I think the conservatives will say that the law treats citizens in the selected

states different than the citizens of other states. Maybe argue that it doesnt assure equal protection.

[kenny blankenship]

11. We can look forward to them citing Bush v. Gore as precedent, I suppose

They are so very concerned about fairness.

[rhett o rick]

14. Be very curious to see that since the earlier court said Bush v. Gore was never to be

used as a precedent. But I wouldnt think that would slow this freight train to fascism down a bit.

[JDPriestly]

20. Am I wrong, or didn't they decide Bush v. Gore supposedly, in part,

on an equal protection argument. I vaguely remember being utterly shocked by that. Seemed to me that their decision did not grant equal protection to Gore and his voters. I may be wrong on this. My memory of it is not certain. Anyone else remember?

[kenny blankenship]

22. No you are not wrong

they cited the 14th amendment's equal protection clause as the basis of their decision that different standards for scoring ballots prevailing in different jurisdictions meant that the recount had to stop. They never explained how this difference related to an intentional plan to disenfranchise one group of voters, nor did they allude to what group it was that was supposedly being discriminated against.

They were just really, really concerned about the fairness of it, as a general thing. They wanted to be so fair, they couldn't even name who was supposedly having their vote handled unfairly. All in all, a very fair group of guys, you would have to say, plus one fair lady.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

62. Yup. Especially Antonin "Fangul" Scalia,

who wanted to be "fair" to his ducking-hunting buddy, Richard "The Dick" Cheney.

[graham4anything]

26. Actually, the decided 7 to 2 to send back to Florida for final decision...then a bit later

in the decision, it said by 5 to 4 that time ran out.

So actually, 7 decided that Florida would have the final say and Florida twice ruled for Gore.

the fake decision was the 5 to 4

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

31. the felonious five

should be struck down.

[csziggy]

41. The law treats citizens in the same state differently

In Florida when the VRA was used to fight the reduction in early voting days, only the five counties covered by the VRA had their early voting days restored to the earlier number. The other 62 Florida counties still had restricted days.

IMO that is inherently unfair. If I thought Congress would pass a new version of the VRA that covered the entire country equally, I would not object to it being overturned. Given the Congress we have, I wish I could hope that the Supreme Court would hold that the VRA should cover all citizens equally, not just those in the monitored counties.

Unfortunately, I know that is not going to happen.

[iemitsu]

80. If the unequal treatment of states is an issue for the Supreme Court

then the best way to solve it would be to apply the Voting Rights act to all fifty states.
It is clear that discrimination/racism continues to factor in how Americans are treated, when it comes to voting.
Citizens in Pennsylvania are as likely to be targeted, by those who can only win elections through repression, as they are in South Carolina or Alabama, by discriminatory voting laws. Legislators around the country are overtly advocating the passage of such laws to insure that their candidates win. Their statements have been recorded and made public for all Americans, including the Supreme Court members. For them to pretend that they have a pressing need to nullify the Voting Rights act in order to be sure no state is the target of a law that suggests that some states struggle more with discrimination than others is absurd.
Scalia's argument sounds like his reasoning in Gore v Bush, that to protect the rights of the elite that the rights of the less elite have to go unprotected.
Once again he demonstrates that he is not suited to hold the position he holds. Its time to impeach him and begin to clean up the mess caused by right wingers over the last 50 years.

[rhett o rick]

81. I agree with you. However, it's up to Congress to make the VRA apply to all states.

That wont happen in the near future. In the meantime SCOTUS will see this opportunity to strike down this law, IMHO.

We have no mechanism to wrest power from the oligarchs.

[iemitsu]

85. I'm sure you're right that the current congress has no more interest

in providing equal protection for all Americans than the Supreme Court has. This country sure hasn't turned out to be the place that I was taught to believe it was.

[IrishAyes]

18. So why not?

Amend the law to cover all states? I don't remember exactly where now, but recently the whites in some town found themselves outnumbered and knew they would lose power in the coming election, so they just cancelled it.

Fortunately the court system forced reinstatement, but it just goes to prove that dirty bigot tactics still exist.

BTW, it's my understanding at least that the black candidate did win for mayor after all. What do you want to bet a lot of 'for sale' signs appeared on front lawns? In the best of all worlds that sort of thing would go on, because it's impossible to totally eradicate all the bigotry anywhere.

[rhett o rick]

27. The SCOTUS cant force Congress to "amend the law". So IMO they will rule the existing

law unconstitutional and recommend Congress write a better law. Of course the Conservatively controlled HOR will never do that.

Kiss the VRA goodbye.

[MynameisBlarney]

36. I wonder if the SCOTUS

realizes what could happen to this country if the do that.
I would imagine there will be protests and riots. Do they honestly believe that the people affected and their allies will just wring their hands and do do nothing?

[rhett o rick]

43. Yes they believe that and so do I. Our biggest problem is apathy.

Only approx 38% of the eligible voters voted for the reelection of Pres Obama.

[MynameisBlarney]

44. That is beyong shameful

If we just let our country devolve into a fascist theocracy because we can't be bothered to get off the fucking couch.

[rhett o rick]

45. The public is starting to be affected and slowly awakening, but there

isnt much that can be done. The greater the wealth disparity the harder it will be to turn things around.

[TheKentuckian]

52. They reinterpreted Congressional intent for the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act

From fine to "tax" despite everyone and their momma swearing up and down it wasn't a tax.

Of course there are no profits to protect here so they are much more free to get down with 21st century Jim and Juan Crow.

[IrishAyes]

64. Thank you

I know SCOTUS can't do that. Perhaps I should've specified Congress, but I took it for granted you'd credit me that much. My bad. Unfortunately, I believe you're right about what's going to happen. Instead of kissing the VRA goodbye prematurely, let's work to take back the House in midterms.

Yes, among other things, I'm a cockeyed optimist.

[rhett o rick]

65. Sorry if I didnt give you appropriate credit. I was just trying to drive home the point that

Congress needs to fix the VRA problem. So we do have to get busy to regain control of the HOR in 2014.

[Chemisse]

30. Just what I was thinking.

[aggiesal]

38. The 15th Amendment (Read Section 2)

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[JDPriestly]

19. Right. Equal protection is the issue.

[Thor_MN]

78. The conservatives have it bassackwards. The REASON for the law is to make the states equal.

The conservative approach is too assume whatever the hell favors yourself then work backwards to find evidence to support your preconceived notions. In order to allow laws that discriminate and give conservatives better chances in elections, they start by assuming the states are currently equal and argue that VRA results in unequal treatment.

The rational approach is to assume nothing and apply the law where ever it has been proven to be needed.

The conservative justices arguments are akin to saying speed limit laws don't treat all drivers equally, so they are unconstitutional. Speed limit laws only fine the drivers that go too fast, so it is unequal treatment.

[rhett o rick]

2. When the Constitution was written, the SCOTUS was considered the third most important

branch of the government. The Constitution, Art 1 deals with Congress because the founders believed they were closest to the people. Then came Art 2 and the president, then Art 3 the Judiciary branch, considered to be the weakest of the three branches.

The Constitution does not give the SCOTUS the power to rule over the other two branches. Justice Marshall pulled that right out of his posterior.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Charles Jarvis in 1820, “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. "

I think we are seeing how true Jefferson's words were.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 stated, “It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.”

Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to Edward Livingston, March 1825, “For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny…”

Congress has the constitutional authority to correct this wrong perpetrated by an activist Justice Marshall. Art. 3 of our Constitution states "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts AS THE CONGRESS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH." (Emphasis mine) What Congress "ordains and establishes" can be changed back to the way it was before Justice Marshall took it upon his self to change the balance of power.

[nolabels]

5. If you used a flow chart you would see a SCOTUS decision...

flows directly out of the framers document. They are able to basically write the laws because we are the fools that listen to them for the interpretation for what has been placed in the document. It's like one would need a divorce from their guru because they know in the heart {she or he} is wrong.

[John2]

24. let us back up

a moment since people like to present history as evidence for their arguments. A Constitution has no power and cannot be enforced, unless it has the consent of the people it governs. It is only a mutual agreement.

The original Constitution is not the original Constitution yet people give it too much authority. They keep going back to the founders and giving them too much authority over the current Constitution. The original Constituition was amended and that came about mostly through an Act of War. Other parts were through Demonstrations but even during those Demostrations, there was civil disobedience to the law. So the Constitution's power comes from the people that accept it. It has nothing to do with the authority or agreement of the men who wrote it. Many of them were racists and white supremacists. They were only thinking about equality for themselves.

The Voting Rights Act was created because of intransigence in the South. The very same South we fought A War with over slavery. So Roberts remarks is not based on history, unless he wants to rewrite it. The same remark goes to the ignorance of Scalia or evidence of their hidden racism. I'm not giving them any benefit of the doubt just because they sit on the Supreme Court. They are human too and capable of all Human flaws. In my opinion they are not fit to be on the Supreme Court because they want to overturn laws that were fought for in this country. I would rather impeach them then let them do it. Even if it meant another Civil War. I was not born a slave.

[rhett o rick]

25. I dont disagree with anything you said. I was simply saying that I believe the

SCOTUS will continue in their activist ways and strike down this law. Exactly what justification they will use I dont no, but I am guessing they will justify it by claiming it is prejudicial in selecting certain states for extra government control.

I would love it if we could impeach at least Scalia, but that's extremely unlikely, if not impossible at this time.

Also, impossible but what I would like to see happen, is that Congress, using the words in Art. 3, strip the SCOTUS of judicial review authority that was unconstitutionally assumed by Justice John Marshall without any oversight by the other two branches of government.

[IrishAyes]

66. True

And neither should any of us die as one.

[X_Digger]

33. That's an interesting sub-selection of quotes..

Also from Federalist 78-

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."

From the Constitutional Convention, George Mason said that under the Constitution, federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void." James Madison said: "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void."

Farrand, Max (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

The records of the state ratifying conventions include over three dozen statements in more than half the states asserting that the federal courts would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. For example, Luther Martin's letter to the Maryland ratifying convention asserted that the power to declare laws unconstitutional could be exercised solely by the federal courts, and that the states would be bound by federal court decisions: "Whether, therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by, the Constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress, to determine; by whose determinations every state must be bound."

John Marshall said in the Virginia convention that protection against infringement of the Constitution would be provided by the federal courts: "If {Congress} were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the {federal} judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. . . . They would declare it void. . . . To what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement on the Constitution, if you will not give the power to the judiciary? There is no other body that can afford such a protection." Oliver Ellsworth stated in the Connecticut convention: "This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void."

Elliot, Jonathan (1836). Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

[rhett o rick]

42. I think the soon to be infamous John Roberts Court will prove Jefferson correct.

“For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny…”

I believe that Justice Roberts believes in the dictatorial power of the elite over the masses and he is setting out to prove it.

[X_Digger]

46. Historically, the check on SCOTUS power is the leg and the exec branch..

Just as FDR threatened to add more justices of his choosing to the court (nine isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution), or as Jackson refused to enforce a decision; or as various Congresses have re-worded legislation to avoid objections that the SCOTUS raised)- there is plenty either other branch of government can do to rein in a SCOTUS.

But to claim that Marshall in Marbury created Judicial Review out of whole cloth is to ignore a hell of a lot.

Just because Thom Hartmann claims something, and cherry picks some quotes that seem to support his position doesn't make something true.

[rhett o rick]

53. So how does Congress or the President correct the Citizens United decision? nm

[X_Digger]

54. Anything from tightly crafted campaign finance ref (my preferred method) to const am (last choice)

The tension between the three branches is not a new thing. History is replete with examples.

[AndyTiedye]

83. "Citizens United" is Such a Broad Ruling that it Precludes Any Congressional Action to Change It

Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment can change it.

For that we need 2/3 majorities in both House and Senate, and then we have to take back at least 16 heavily-gerrymandered state legislatures from the Teabaggers.

It will take decades to undo what the Roberts court is doing.

[X_Digger]

84. Have you actually read the CU decision? Not as broad as some make it out to be. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

86. I continue to believe it could be settled by reform in Charter law and probably best that way.

The free for all concept is a disservice to the people.

[AndyTiedye]

87. Could You Be a Little More Specific?

[TheKentuckian]

88. Yeah, I think we should be much more specific in an organization's mission and grant mission

critical rights under the terms of granting incorporation while categorically restricting others that do not apply to mission profile. At the same time much greater burden should be placed on those seeking the protections of incorporation to demonstrate value and benefit to the community in exchange for being granted protections and block rights required to do what they are there to get accomplished.

We already differentiate between various legal constructs and contract entities now in our law, I advise going further down that path is all and get away from the a company is a company is a company is a person stuff.

You control what appropriate protections, rights and responsibilities come with the entity you wish to be approved for and what other types and varieties of constructs and maximum penetration of control that are allowed under an umbrella from the jump.

[Bake]

61. One way would be by amending the Constitution.

And that's damn hard to do. Not impossible, just very, very hard.

Bake

[aggiesal]

39. It always amazes me . . .

how brilliant the "Fathers of our Country" were.

They understood how government is run, and what it should be used for.
They also understood human nature, and its consequences on democracy,
far more then the idiots in DC today.

[TheKentuckian]

3. The Act should simply be made applicable to every state.

There are disenfranchisement efforts all over and northern, midwestern, and western states are high growth potential new beachheads to oppress. Snyder, Scott, and the gang need oversight as much as anybody.
It should have always been that way.

[bemildred]

6. Indeed, why mess around, "Federal Elections Authority".

That's what we need.

[socialindependocrat]

7. Agreed - With what has gone on in WI, OH, PA and others n/t

[kenny blankenship]

9. There you go.

US elections are a hideous travesty of democratic process. A LOT more scrutiny is needed but who will do it and how? The abuses stem from the assignment of electoral management to the states in the Constitution.

[John2]

28. That is why

I think Eric Holder needs to do his job more instead of being cowed by an extremist Party like the State's Rights Republicans. He needs to uphold the Amendments that gave every person equal protection under the Law. The Voting Rights Act puts teeth into the Law because it was mostly ignored in the Confederate South after Reconstruction. So the very existance of the Statute is because of the South disobeying the current Constitution. The Federal Government has the power to enforce it. What they have done is put these present day Taneys on the Court. The Republican Party today is mostly controled by Southern Politicians, so it is logical they would hold those views. That is why the Past is very important to see why we got here. There is a very good reason for every Civil Rights law on the Books. The people who want to violate people's rights are the very same people wanting to weaken them.

[rhett o rick]

12. The problem is that Congress would have to write a new law. I believe Roberts will use what you

stated for his argument to strike down the VRA.

[The Wizard]

21. Boner won't bring it to the floor

case closed. We need some justices impeached. But that has to originate in the House, case closed.

[IrishAyes]

67. No

Case NOT closed. Defeatism is no answer. Take back the House. We as a nation get the government we deserve.

[gollygee]

57. +1

That's the solution. It's still needed in the South, and it's also needed in the rest of the country. The only mistake is that it focuses on only one area where disenfranchisement occurs.

[mac56]

4. A/K/A "legislating from the bench"

[gtar100]

13. Can anyone in the repuke party recall whining about "activist judges".?

Probably not. They have very selective memory.

I remember a time when the US was a democracy. Not a perfect one, but when the will of the people was important. Now that is mocked outright as the right wing forces their will down our throats.

They are sowing the seeds of their own destruction as well. Because as much as they crave power, they do not use it wisely. Environmental issues will have the last say on how life should be governed. And they think of the environment as a resource to be exploited. That is their weakness... and the downfall for all of us.

[Orrex]

15. "Activist Judges" rule in favor of "Liberal" issues

Judges who rule in favor of "Conservative" issues are simply adhering to the Constitution.


See how it works?

[IrishAyes]

68. Then would you please

add me to your ignore list as well? After all, we're known by the company we keep. I don't think I'd enjoy your approval.

[annabanana]

16. "wrongfully implies Southern states are more racist"

What he said was "are people in the South more racist than the rest of the Country?"
To that the answer is irrelevant. He should not have been allowed to get away with that.

The question is "Is there more SYSTEMIC racism in the South?".. To which the answer can be quantified. Clearly. Over and over.

[loyalsister]

48. Exactly

At the same time it could be argued that other targets should be considered. Elderly, people with disabilities, and women are disproportionately affected by voter ID laws, thus expanding the population and regions that should be protected by VRA.

[IrishAyes]

69. My answer

as you'll find it often does, involves a brief scenario of some sort.

"Is there more SYSTEMIC racism in the South?" Ask any adult black male whether he'd rather be dropped off alone in midtown Manhattan at midnight or some place in Alabama or Mississippi. Stipulating general intelligence in the respondent, have a guess at what he'd say.

If the answer isn't obvious, ask someone at the SPLC. Or NAACP. etc.

[Marr]

17. It's amazing how stupidly blatant the right is being about this.

The whole discussion after the last election was demographic changes in the country, and how the current GOP is doomed to become irrelevant in a short time. So what do they do? They immediately set about rigging the vote against the effects of those demographic changes from top to bottom, coordinating from the state level to the SCOTUS.

The push has been hard and fast and very obviously done in a coordinated fashion. If they succeed, they'll remain relevant a few years longer. If they fail in any way, the anger all this blatant, retrograde elitism and racism is stirring up is going to make them utterly irrelevant in record time.

[AndyTiedye]

34. They are Being So Blatant Because They Know We Cannot Stop Them!

The push has been hard and fast and very obviously done in a coordinated fashion. If they succeed, they'll remain relevant a few years longer.

They can overcome any demographic shift if they get to decide who can vote.

We have a liberal majority now, by almost every poll, yet that liberal majority is utterly irrelevant, and getting more so every day as the right wing consolidates its power.

When the Supreme Court overturns the Voting Rights Act, the states will be free to disenfranchise minorities, as they were before the Act was passed. There is NO chance that a new Voting Rights Act could make it through Congress now, and the stepped-up voter suppression that will follow the overturning of the Act will likely ensure GOP control of the House and most State governments (at least) for the foreseeable future.

[IrishAyes]

70. So....

We should all give up the fight and go hang ourselves because it's all so HOPELESS? Which side are you on anyway? Remind me not to ask you to address a rally any time soon.

[AndyTiedye]

89. Focus on the Senate, and try to Prevent them from Gerrymandering the Presidential Race Too

We still hold the Senate, and their ability to gerrymander that is limited.
We will have our hands full defending so many open seats and must concentrate most of our resources there.

Races for state governor are also not gerrymandered yet, and we may have a shot at some of those.

This putsch to gerrymander the Presidential race is really scary. If they do that, they have a lock on the Presidency.
We have to find some way to fight this.

[jwirr]

23. Didn't they do that when they elected bushie?

[graham4anything]

29. When people voted for Nader in 2000, didn't they think what their vote would lead to?

[xchrom]

35. Typical bag of crap. Nt

[white_wolf]

47. Do you ever post anything that isn't an attack on the left or people who disagree with you? nt

[graham4anything]

49. Funny, I don't think W was on the left. Silly me I don't think Jeb is on the left either.

You get 2 choices.
w Gore
w Kerry
w Obama
McCain Obama
Mitt Obama
Jeb Hillary

I don't see room for 3 choices?
Especially as Nader himself has sabatoged 3rd parties forever

If one is mad that third parties shall never have power, blame Ralph
He made 3rd parties forever unattainable.

President Obama is to the left of every President since LBJ.
Shame LBJ was torn down.

Never in the history of the USA was any president further to the left than LBJ.

[white_wolf]

50. Oh please Obama is nothing, but a center right president.

He's no better than Bill Clinton was.

[graham4anything]

51. I like Elena And Sonia. Two of the best. I don't like Alito and Roberts, Thomas, Scalia.

[IrishAyes]

71. I'm with you there

And I don't really understand the other person's statement that you attack the left.

And I share a certain lingering fondness for LBJ. Was he perfect? Are any of us? No. But he had redeeming value. When he pushed voting rights legislation, he did so knowing that the Dixiecrats would bolt and we'd lose the South for at least a generation or more. But he did it anyway, knowing it was the right thing to do. In my view, that ranks equal to almost any other presidential action in history, including Washington refusing a crown and Patrick Henry making sure we got a Bill of Rights.

[IrishAyes]

73. Please

Don't make me or anyone else list President Obama's accomplishments. It's past my bedtime and I'm really tired tonight. I also suspect that you don't need educating on the facts, rather perhaps what you make of them. ie, you know better.

If you consider yourself to his left, and perhaps you are - actually, I might be too, though we don't know his heart of hearts - that doesn't make you the final arbiter of his worth. He's the one stuck with the thankless task of doing the possible, so could we cut him a little slack maybe? Don't let perfection become the enemy of excellence.

[noiretextatique]

55. i doubt they thought it would lead to a judicial coup

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

again, that should be of more concern than nader, especially regarding this decision.

[graham4anything]

58. guess they found out that elections were no joking matter

and the fracture of 1980 led to Reagan/Bush

that's what happens when history repeats itself badly
1968 1972 1980 1984 1988 2000 2004
how many times will the wheels on the bus go round and round

when a vocal but small minority thinks they should overturn the will of the people and take their bat and ball out of the arena, and elsewhere that is what happens

It would be like a defensive end decided he didn't like the coach, so in the fourth quarter
with less than a minute left, he decides to sit in the grass and not go after the opposing running back who scores the winning tds.

Or like 4 Olympic swimmers going for the gold, and in a relay, 3 finish and the fourth says
forget about it and swims in the wrong direction causes the loss of the the team, and the eternal frustration of the other 3, then to top it off, starts whining about the other 3 when they set a record.

shame

[noiretextatique]

59. stupid democrats voted for reagan

that caused that fracture. speaking of democrats, more registered democrats voted for bush than for nader. elections surely aren't a laughing matter nor are they a team sport. like it or not, people still have the right to vote for whomever they choose, including nader. honestly, the people who concern me the most are the ones who keep voting for republicons.

[graham4anything]

60. It's quite simple 12 more years of democratic presidents=a complete different court

2016 not being a democratic president means the republicans will name the next 40 years of justices and do what they did in 2000 and are doing now

it seems a no-brainer

[IrishAyes]

74. honestly

sometimes i'm also concerned by people who can't take the trouble to capitalize anything. perhaps in your set it's hip; to anyone else it just looks careless and dumb, and believe me kid, they tune you out.

[DallasNE]

32. What The Supreme Court Is Set To Do Is Unprecendented

What they are set to rule is that laws are situational and that the Constitution has some clause that allows the Court to sunset laws when the situation changes. They will not rule that this law was always unconstitutional but when circumstances changed the law became unconstitutional. How so? Where then do they draw the line in the sand? Could they next rule that laws against running red lights are unconstitutional now that most drivers don't run red lights? Seriously, this ruling will open Pandora's Box. All kinds of laws will be challenged because of changed circumstances. A similar changed circumstance would be huge tax credits to oil companies. Could not the Court strike down these credits because the oil companies no longer need them due to changed circumstances. While desirable in this case it is still wrong for the Court to stick their nose in in this manner -- something I can never see them doing when the shoe is on the other foot, by the way.

[aggiesal]

37. Here is the 15th Amendment

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

**********************************************************************************

This appears pretty Cut & Dry to me.

Congress has the constitutional right to create the VRA. If SCOTUS feels the need to overturn,
then it's just a political opinion court, and the most activist judges of all time.

Why bother having a Constitution if the SCOTUS can make or overturn law without consequences?

[HiPointDem]

40. +1

[October]

63. + another 1

[davidn3600]

72. A lot of people on our side wants the court to kill the 2nd amendment

Go look on any gun control thread in this forum and you will find someone who will say that we need different justices so that we can change the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

So you are asking the correct question...why bother have a constitution since neither side of the political spectrum has any intention of actually following it?

[WillyT]

56. K & R !!!

[IrishAyes]

75. Regardless

of the hour, I have to say this has been one of the more riveting threads I followed since jumping in a couple weeks ago. I think I've learned a lot - about what some people know and others don't. Regardless, it's been edifying.

Now I'm going to sleep. I don't dare check back tomorrow for fear I'll never be able to tear myself away. Have fun.

[AnnieK401]

76. Hoping that possibly Kennedy splits with the Conservatives on this one.

Maybe the 4 liberal members can talk some sense into him. I know it doesn't look good, but we thought that the SCOTUS would rule against the ACA.

[treestar]

79. The courts have done this since

Marbury v. Madison.

[Doctor_J]

82. Sadly, there isn't one damn thing we can do about it