Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘A Big New Power’ (Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act)
NY Times Op-Ed ^ | 3-7-2013 | Linda Greenhouse

Posted on 03/07/2013 4:30:05 AM PST by Sir Napsalot

Years from now, when the Supreme Court has come to its senses, justices then sitting will look back on the spring of 2013 in bewilderment. On what basis, they will wonder, did five conservative justices, professed believers in judicial restraint, reach out to grab the authority that the framers of the post-Civil War 14th and 15th Amendments had vested in Congress nearly a century and a half earlier “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” the right to equal protection and the right to vote. How on earth did it come to pass that the Supreme Court ruled a major provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional?

You will have noticed that I’m making a premature assumption here about the outcome of a case, Shelby County v. Holder, that was argued just last week. Although I’m willing to bet that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has already drafted his 5-to-4 majority opinion, I’d be nothing but relieved if the court proves me wrong when it issues the decision sometime before the end of June. But except for a few wishful thinkers, everyone who witnessed the argument, read the transcript, or listened to the audio now expects the court to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act – and seriously harm itself in the process.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Politics; Society
KEYWORDS:
This is opinion poll intimidation.

Exactly because the Left knows SJ Roberts could be swayed not by constitutionality of the case before the supremes, but he's more concerned with the 'reputation of Roberts' Court'.

Expect more pressures like this put out by opinionators until end of June.

1 posted on 03/07/2013 4:30:10 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional.

That’s not to say that something didn’t need to be done at one point but its day has long since passed and now its time to take a serious look at the corruption. Unfortunately that corruption has spread all across the nation.

You hear it in the voices of poll workers who justify their proven fraud with claims that Obama has a right to be president.


2 posted on 03/07/2013 4:38:33 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Under the 1965 law, there are 9 states that have to submit any changes in election law to the Justice department prior to enactment, not all of them “deep south.” The other 41 do not. I see an equal protection problem here.

I also agree with Sir Napsalot’s observation that constitutionality is secondary to Robert’s desire to protect the image of “his” court. First poll-driven Chief Justice I’ve seen in my lifetime.

We’re screwed. It’s too late for politics, too early to start shooting.


3 posted on 03/07/2013 4:46:28 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
>>> SJ Roberts

CJ Roberts, my bad.

4 posted on 03/07/2013 4:57:51 AM PST by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

After Obamacare, Roberts is just another leftist POS.


5 posted on 03/07/2013 5:01:23 AM PST by Flintlock ("The British are coming" to TAKE OUR GUNS!--Paul Revere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot; Cyber Liberty

Just wait until zer0 appoints two more Socialist/Communist/Marxists/lesbians or openly gays justices to the court.

IMO, the last election wasn’t about who would be president.
It was about who gets to name the replacements to SCOTUS when they retire.

Cyber Liberty is right....we’re screwed.


6 posted on 03/07/2013 5:14:28 AM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
It's too late for politics, too early to start shooting.

Bump!

7 posted on 03/07/2013 6:10:41 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

8 posted on 03/07/2013 6:16:26 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
...too early to start shooting.

That point could be argued. Waiting may result in us being disarmed and unable to shoot.

9 posted on 03/07/2013 7:56:11 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

You’re correct. This is an attempt to appeal to Roberts. I predict he votes with conservatives on this one but gives them gay marriage.


10 posted on 03/07/2013 8:04:16 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Shooting too soon will lead to some brave patriots standing alone in the dock.


11 posted on 03/07/2013 8:04:16 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock

I don’t trust this court with any important rulings now that it has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.


12 posted on 03/07/2013 8:04:51 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

LOL!
These lefty scumbags must make themselves dizzy.


13 posted on 03/07/2013 8:14:44 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; All

The author, Linda Greenhouse, has been the NYT SCOTUS reporter for decades. This op-ed is highly partisan, ideologically skewed..which is OK for an op-ed piece, but to maintain that her “reporting” is balanced, unbiased, is a crock. If I cared, ( which I don’t)I’d write the Times’ ombudsman


14 posted on 03/07/2013 11:39:51 AM PST by ken5050 ("One useless man is a shame, two are a law firm, three or more are a Congress".. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Nasty stuff going on there in the SC. I wish we knew all the dirty details, but if they told us, we’d be shooting by now.


15 posted on 03/07/2013 3:33:00 PM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson