The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/your-reply-to-me-does-not-dispute-my-statement-30572374.aspx

Subject:  Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date:  3/4/2013  9:17 AM
Author:  Hawkwin Number:  1863307 of 1961450

Your reply to me does not dispute my statement that the extra judicial system is not warranted under the Constition.

In fact, SCOTUS has already ruled such previously on this issue, by 8-1.

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-other-crucial-civil-ri...

Didn't the Supreme Court come close to striking down Section 5 before?

Yes. In a 2009 case called Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Texas v. Holder [25], or NAMUDNO for short, the Court didn't address the constitutionality of Section 5 — but it did suggest how it might rule in the future.

"The evil that (Section 5) is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority 8-1 opinion [25]. "The statute's coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions."

-----------

I don't claim that discrimination no longer exists. I claim that such does not happen with enough frequency in those areas covered to warrant extra judicial oversight - especially when you have other areas of the country that can be worse and not suffer under the same rules.

In those areas not covered, a remedy exists for the plantiff to file suit. I am simply stating that such should be the standard for the entire country.

More:

Many saw in the Court's 2009 decision an underlying message to Congress to act to amend the Voting Rights Act. Of course, that didn't happen.

Also, some wonder about a current coverage formula that doesn't include states like Ohio and the whole of Florida, places which came under fire this year for scaling back [29] on early voting.

"If you don't have Ohio and Florida, it might suggest that the coverage formula is a little out of whack," said Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at UC Irvine School of Law. "The way the Supreme Court federalism cases stack up, and the way the conservative justices view these cases, I'm predicting the Court will strike it down."

Gerken, the Yale Law professor, also speculates [30] on why the Court's four liberal justices joined the 8-1 opinion in 2009 that so clearly expressed doubts about the law's constitutionality.

"Maybe they did it because they wanted Congress to do something, or maybe it was a deal to postpone the demise of the Voting Rights Act," she said. "If it was a deal, it seems likely the deal will not last beyond that one case."

---------
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us