Skip to comments.‘A Big New Power’ (Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act)
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 Im making a premature assumption here about the outcome of a case, Shelby County v. Holder, that was argued just last week. Although Im willing to bet that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has already drafted his 5-to-4 majority opinion, Id 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 ...
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.
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.
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.
CJ Roberts, my bad.
After Obamacare, Roberts is just another leftist POS.
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.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
That point could be argued. Waiting may result in us being disarmed and unable to shoot.
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.
Shooting too soon will lead to some brave patriots standing alone in the dock.
I don’t trust this court with any important rulings now that it has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.
These lefty scumbags must make themselves dizzy.
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
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.